Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public. OBJECTIVES: We describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS: Between March 2021-23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

The use of evidence to guide decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic: divergent perspectives from a qualitative case study in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of evidence-informed decision-making in a public health emergency have never been so notable as during the COVID-19 pandemic. Questions about the decision-making process, including what forms of evidence were used, and how evidence informed-or did not inform-policy have been debated. METHODS: We examined decision-makers' observations on evidence-use in early COVID-19 policy-making in British Columbia (BC), Canada through a qualitative case study. From July 2021- January 2022, we conducted 18 semi-structured key informant interviews with BC elected officials, provincial and regional-level health officials, and civil society actors involved in the public health response. The questions focused on: (1) the use of evidence in policy-making; (2) the interface between researchers and policy-makers; and (3) key challenges perceived by respondents as barriers to applying evidence to COVID-19 policy decisions. Data were analyzed thematically, using a constant comparative method. Framework analysis was also employed to generate analytic insights across stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: Overall, while many actors' impressions were that BC's early COVID-19 policy response was evidence-informed, an overarching theme was a lack of clarity and uncertainty as to what evidence was used and how it flowed into decision-making processes. Perspectives diverged on the relationship between 'government' and public health expertise, and whether or not public health actors had an independent voice in articulating evidence to inform pandemic governance. Respondents perceived a lack of coordination and continuity across data sources, and a lack of explicit guidelines on evidence-use in the decision-making process, which resulted in a sense of fragmentation. The tension between the processes involved in research and the need for rapid decision-making was perceived as a barrier to using evidence to inform policy. CONCLUSIONS: Areas to be considered in planning for future emergencies include: information flow between policy-makers and researchers, coordination of data collection and use, and transparency as to how decisions are made-all of which reflect a need to improve communication. Based on our findings, clear mechanisms and processes for channeling varied forms of evidence into decision-making need to be identified, and doing so will strengthen preparedness for future public health crises.

Understanding the extent of economic evidence usage for informing policy decisions in the context of India's national health insurance scheme: Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY).

INTRODUCTION: Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY) is one of the world's largest tax-funded insurance schemes. The present study was conducted to understand the decision-making process around the evolution (and revision) of health benefit packages (HBPs) and reimbursement rates within PM-JAY, with a specific focus on assessing the extent of use of economic evidence and role of various stakeholders in shaping these policy decisions. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was adopted involving in-depth interviews with seven key stakeholders involved in HBP design and reimbursement rates decisions, and a survey of 80 government staff and other relevant stakeholders engaged in the implementation of PM-JAY. The data gathered were thematically analysed, and a coding framework was developed to explore specific themes. Additionally, publicly available documents were reviewed to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making processes. RESULTS: Findings reveal a progressive transition towards evidence-based practices for policy decisions within PM-JAY. The initial version of HBP relied heavily on key criteria like disease burden, utilisation rates, and out-of-pocket expenditures, along with clinical opinion in shaping decisions around the inclusion of services in the HBP and setting reimbursement rates. Revised HBPs were informed based on evidence from a national-level costing study and broader stakeholder consultations. The use of health economic evidence increased with each additional revision with consideration of health technology assessment (HTA) evidence for some packages and reimbursement rates based on empirical cost evidence in the most recent update. The establishment of the Health Financing and Technology Assessment unit further signifies the use of evidence-based policymaking within PM-JAY. However, challenges persist, notably with regard to staff capacity and understanding of HTA principles, necessitating ongoing education and training initiatives. CONCLUSION: While substantial progress has been made in transitioning towards evidence-based practices within PM-JAY, sustained efforts and political commitment are required for the ongoing systematisation of processes.

An analytical framework for breast cancer public policies in Sub-Saharan Africa: results from a comprehensive literature review and an adapted policy Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in women and is a major public health problem worldwide. Despite the lower incidence rates of breast cancer in resource-limited settings, especially sub-Saharan Africa, there is a higher mortality rate compared to high-resource countries where the disease has a higher incidence. This makes breast cancer the second deadliest cancer in African women. These poor results reflect the weakness in public health policies. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the effective control of breast cancer by designing a framework for a comprehensive and systemic analysis of these policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: This research is based on a literature review that adopted a systematic approach followed by a modified policy Delphi involving breast cancer experts in Sub-Saharan Africa. We included narrative reviews and systematic reviews/meta-analyses published between 2015 and 2022 as well as official documents in the analysis. We integrated the World Health Organization's health system building blocks with Walt and Gilson's policy analysis triangle to analyse the information collected and develop our analytical framework. RESULTS: A total of 22 reviews and documents were included in the study. Sixteen breast cancer experts from Sub-Saharan Africa participated in the first Delphi round, and nine participated in the second round. The different components identified for a comprehensive and systemic analysis of effective breast cancer policies can be classified into policy content divided according to the health system building blocks and related policy processes; individual, organized national and international policy stakeholders; and policy contexts. CONCLUSION: This study enabled the design of a framework suitable for the comprehensive and systemic analysis of breast cancer control policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. This framework can be used as a checklist for stakeholders to guide the planning, implementation and evaluation of policies and specific breast cancer control programmes at the national and facility levels.

The challenges associated with the prevention of smuggling and counterfeiting health goods in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Smuggling health goods given the importance and critical nature of health services should be undeniably addressed and controlled by all countries. This issue is especially more widespread in developing countries with more damaging consequences. This paper therefore aims to identify and analyze the challenges of preventing smuggling of health goods in Iran. METHOD: Within this qualitative study, we conducted face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with 30 purposefully recruited key informants and stakeholders in the detection, prevention, and combating of health goods smuggling. Each interview was analyzed thematically, using an inductive approach to generate codes, then categorized and presented in the form of main themes and sub-themes. Maxqda 11 assisted in coding, analysis, and data management. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged representing the challenges of prevention of smuggling in Iran in the areas of anti-smuggling policy development, including categories of inefficient policy and plan, and failure to reach agenda; policy implementation; categorized into actors, resources and instruments, and implementation guarantee; and finally monitoring and evaluation; including, procedures and practices, and the role of surveyors. CONCLUSION: Prevention of smuggling health goods proves to be a highly complex, challenging, and multi-faceted practice. Therefore, strengthening policy-making, regulatory frameworks, and facilitation functions about smuggling, counterfeiting, and corruption should be promoted in parallel.

The 988 suicide hotline-Lifeline or letdown? A pre-post policy analysis.

Suicide has emerged as an urgent threat in recent years as COVID-19 impaired the health and economic wellbeing of millions of Americans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the impact of COVID-19 and the ongoing opioid epidemic has "taken a mental, emotional, physical, and economic toll on individuals, families, and communities," increasing the need for innovative solutions to prevent suicide on a national scale. The National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020 established 988 as the universal telephone number for suicide prevention and represents a key federal intervention to address this crisis. However, research on 9-8-8's effectiveness is limited, given the Act's recent enactment and implementation at the federal and state levels. This policy analysis investigates how and to what extent the mental health crisis system in Georgia has improved since the implementation of the 2020 Act as well as the implications of state law on population-level mental health outcomes. Georgia is used as a nationally representative case study for two reasons: (1) Georgia had a robust statewide suicide hotline prior to 2020, providing solid infrastructure on which federal expansion of a suicide hotline number could be built, and (2) the conflicting characteristics of Georgia's mental health system represent several different pockets of the U.S., allowing this analysis to apply to a broad range of states and locales. The paper draws on takeaways from Georgia to propose state and national policy recommendations for equitable interventions to prevent and respond to this form of violence.

Challenges of determining the relative contribution of determinants of health on population health: a Canadian perspective.

This article investigates the source of frequently cited data regarding the relative contribution of determinants of health to population health in Canada. It critically discusses the imperative for such national or regional data in policymaking, and the challenges and limitations of this approach.

Environmental Modifications for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Policy Analysis of Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services.

IMPORTANCE: Environmental modifications are targets for occupational therapy intervention because they support activities of daily living, self-efficacy, personal control, independence, and community living for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs). OBJECTIVE: To examine how environmental modifications were provided to people with IDDs through Medicaid home- and community-based services (HCBS) waivers across the United States in fiscal year (FY) 2021. DESIGN: Using a mixed-methods policy analysis, we examined FY 2021 Medicaid HCBS 1915(c) waivers from across the United States to examine whether, and how, states provided environmental modifications to people with IDDs. RESULTS: In FY 2021, 35 states projected spending $68.8 million on environmental modifications for 12,671 people with IDDs. The purpose of environmental modifications was most often to promote the health, welfare, and safety of people with IDDs (82.68%), and to promote their independence (69.29%). The most common examples of environmental modifications included ramps and/or lifts (70.08%), widening doorways and/or hallways (61.42%), bathroom modifications (58.27%), specialized electrical and/or plumbing for medical equipment (54.33%), and grab bars and/or handrails (53.54%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: HCBS waiver data on environmental modifications for people with IDDs enhances an understanding of this funding source and provides a foundation of advocacy for occupational therapy practitioners to support people with IDDs with living, as well as aging, in the community rather than in institutions. An expansion of environmental modifications in HCBS for people with IDDs aligns with the aim of Medicaid HCBS waivers to promote community integration, self-determination, and independence, which are all benefits of environmental modifications. Plain-Language Summary: This study can help occupational therapy practitioners determine what funding sources are available in their state to help their clients with intellectual and developmental disabilities access environmental modifications. The findings can also help guide advocacy and lobbying efforts to expand access to environmental modifications.

Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences.

BACKGROUND: A key role of public health policy-makers and practitioners is to ensure beneficial interventions are implemented effectively enough to yield improvements in public health. The use of evidence to guide public health decision-making to achieve this is recommended. However, few studies have examined the relative value, as reported by policy-makers and practitioners, of different broad research outcomes (that is, measures of cost, acceptability, and effectiveness). To guide the conduct of research and better inform public health policy and practice, this study aimed at describing the research outcomes that Australian policy-makers and practitioners consider important for their decision-making when selecting: (a) public health interventions; (b) strategies to support their implementation; and (c) to assess the differences in research outcome preferences between policy-makers and practitioners. METHOD: An online value-weighting survey was conducted with Australian public health policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention. Participants were presented with a list of research outcomes and were asked to select up to five they considered most critical to their decision-making. They then allocated 100 points across these - allocating more points to outcomes perceived as more important. Outcome lists were derived from a review and consolidation of evaluation and outcome frameworks in the fields of public health knowledge translation and implementation. We used descriptive statistics to report relative preferences overall and for policy-makers and practitioners separately. RESULTS: Of the 186 participants; 90 primarily identified as policy-makers and 96 as public health prevention practitioners. Overall, research outcomes of effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability were identified as the four most important outcomes when considering either interventions or strategies to implement them. Scores were similar for most outcomes between policy-makers and practitioners. CONCLUSION: For Australian policy-makers and practitioners working in the field of non-communicable disease prevention, outcomes related to effectiveness, equity, feasibility, and sustainability appear particularly important to their decisions about the interventions they select and the strategies they employ to implement them. The findings suggest researchers should seek to meet these information needs and prioritize the inclusion of such outcomes in their research and dissemination activities. The extent to which these outcomes are critical to informing the decision of policy-makers and practitioners working in other jurisdictions or contexts warrants further investigation.

An Anticipatory Approach to Ethico-Legal Implications of Future Neurotechnology.

This paper provides a justificatory rationale for recommending the inclusion of imagined future use cases in neurotechnology development processes, specifically for legal and policy ends. Including detailed imaginative engagement with future applications of neurotechnology can serve to connect ethical, legal, and policy issues potentially arising from the translation of brain stimulation research to the public consumer domain. Futurist scholars have for some time recommended approaches that merge creative arts with scientific development in order to theorise possible futures toward which current trends in technology development might be steered. Taking a creative, imaginative approach like this in the neurotechnology context can help move development processes beyond considerations of device functioning, safety, and compliance with existing regulation, and into an active engagement with potential future dynamics brought about by the emergence of the neurotechnology itself. Imagined scenarios can engage with potential consumer uses of devices that might come to challenge legal or policy contexts. An anticipatory, creative approach can imagine what such uses might consist in, and what they might imply. Justifying this approach also prompts a co-responsibility perspective for policymaking in technology contexts. Overall, this furnishes a mode of neurotechnology's emergence that can avoid crises of confidence in terms of ethico-legal issues, and promote policy responses balanced between knowledge, values, protected innovation potential, and regulatory safeguards.

Road To Deceased Donor Transplantation in Egypt.

In Egypt, there is presently a growing need to have a deceased donor transplant program. Egypt conducted its first kidney transplant from a living donor in 1976 and a first partial liver transplant in 2001. Since 2009, the Egyptian Health Authorities Combat Transplant Tourism in concordance with ethics codes and the Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group has been in place. The Egyptian Transplantation Law of 2011 mentions that organs could be procured from deceased donors based on a will and on family consent. This law has had many critics, including religious authorities who have stressed that organs cannot be taken from a person with brain death because, in their view, life ends with death of all organs. Many intensivists disagree over the definition of death. In addition, the media has communicated contradicting and sometimes misleading health care information. Mummification is rooted in pharos practice and linked to religious beliefs. The ancient Egyptians believed that, by burying the deceased with their organs, they may rejoin with them in the afterlife. Since 2019, the transplant community in Egypt has started collaborations with international transplant organizations and campaigns with doctors and celebrities to donate their organs after death, which have stressed that a deceased donor program could help against end-stage organ mortality. In November 2022, after communications with politicians, President Abdelfattah El Sisi directed the government to establish a regional center for organ transplantation, which aimed to be the biggest in the Middle East and North Africa region. The new center will be part of a new medical city that would replace Nasser Medical Institution in Cairo, Egypt. The Ministry of Health issued an official form to be signed by a person before his death, accepting use of organs, to give hope and support to other patients in need.

Integrating Public Health Ethics into Public Health Policymaking: Being in the Room Where It Happens.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

Judicial Decisions Constraining Public Health Powers During COVID-19: Implications For Public Health Policy Making.

Public health legal powers are increasingly under pressure from the courts in the United States. During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals and organizations successfully challenged many community mitigation orders (for example, mask mandates, vaccination mandates, and restrictions on gatherings), demonstrating the legal vulnerability of disease control measures. Analyzing 112 judicial decisions in which the plaintiff prevailed from March 2020 through March 2023, we examined the ways in which courts constrained public health powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that in these 112 decisions, courts shifted how they analyze religious liberty claims and reviewed challenges to the exercise of statutory powers by health officials in novel ways. We discuss implications for public health policy going forward, and we recommend ways in which legislatures and health officials can design policies to maximize their prospects of surviving legal challenges.

Explore the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia.

INTRODUCTION: Collaboration is gaining prominence in the priority setting of Health Policy And System Research (HPSR). However, its practice and challenges are not well explored in Ethiopia. Understanding the practice and barriers of collaborative Health Policy and System Research will help design approaches and platforms for setting inclusive and participatory policy and system-level health research topics. This paper explores the practice and barriers of collaborative HPSR-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia. METHODS: This study investigates the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercises in Ethiopia. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and an online self-administered survey with open-ended questionnaires to capture diverse perspectives from stakeholders involved in the research priority-setting process. Through conventional content analysis, we identified key contents related to current practices, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration in health policy and system research prioritization. RESULTS: Our findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by varying levels of stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity constraints, and competing priorities within the health research ecosystem. Despite notable efforts to foster collaboration, stakeholders identified persistent challenges such as limited resources, institutional fragmentation, and inadequate coordination mechanisms as barriers to effective priority-setting processes. The implications of our research extend beyond academic discourse, with direct relevance to health policy and system research practice in Ethiopia. By shedding light on the dynamics of collaborative priority-setting exercises, our findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of health research prioritization processes. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging existing strengths in the research ecosystem can contribute to more evidence-informed health policies and programs, ultimately improving health outcomes for Ethiopian populations. CONCLUSIONS: Most institutions do not apply health policy and system research-priority setting to conduct informed decision-making. The barriers explored were weak integration, lack of knowledge, system, and platforms for the priority setting of Health Policy and System Resreach. So, it is recommended to build skills of different actors in the Health Policy and System Research-priority setting exercise and design a system and platform to integrate different stakeholders for collaborative research topics priority setting.

Is the EU steering national social and health policy making? A case-study on Finland's national reform.

As part of the European Semester, Finland received country-specific recommendations (CSRs) in 2013-2020 that encouraged the reform of national social and health services. These recommendations were part of efforts to balance public finances and implement public-sector structural reforms. Finland has been struggling to reform the national social and health care system since 2005. Only on 1 January 2023 did the new wellbeing services counties become liable for organizing social, health, and rescue services. Studying the CSRs for Finland enables us to understand better what genuinely occurs at the EU member state level. This data-driven case study aims to disclose the relevance of the European Semester for Finland in the pursuit of a national social and health system reform. The mixed-method approach is based on the research tradition of governance, and the study contains features of data sourcing and methodological triangulation. Empirically, the research material consists of Finland's official policy documents and anonymous semi-structured elite interviews. The study highlights that although the received CSRs on the need to restructure social and health services corresponded to Finland's views, their influence to national reform efforts was limited. The CSRs were administered according to the established formal routines, but separately from the national reform preparations. The CSRs, however, delivered implicit steering, which were considered to affect social and health policy making in various ways.

Exploring evidence use and capacity for health services management and planning in Swiss health administrations: A mixed-method interview study.

BACKGROUND: Health administrations require evidence, meaning robust information, data, and research, on health services and systems. Little is known about the resources and processes available within administrations to support evidence-informed policymaking. This study assessed Swiss health administrations' capacity for evidence use and investigated civil servants' needs and perspectives regarding the role and use of evidence in health services management and planning. METHODS: In this mixed-method study, we interviewed civil servants from Swiss German-speaking cantonal health administrations. We quantitatively assessed administrations' organization-level capacity by applying six structured interviews using an existing measurement tool (ORACLe). Individual-level needs and perspectives regarding evidence use and capacity were qualitatively explored with twelve in-depth interviews that were analyzed using the framework method. FINDINGS: Respondents indicated moderate evidence-use capacity in all administrations. Administrations displayed a similar pattern of high and low capacity in specific capacity areas, generally with considerable variation within administrations. Most administrations indicated high capacity for producing or commissioning evidence and close relationships with research. They showed limited capacity in the documentation of processes and availability of tools, programs, or training opportunities. Administrations place the responsibility for engagement with evidence at the level of individual civil servants rather than at the organizational level. Although administrations highly value evidence-informed policymaking and consider it vital to effective health services management and planning, they face significant constraints in accessing evidence-specific resources and receive little organizational support. Administrations rely on external capacity to compensate for these limitations and engage with evidence pragmatically. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate moderate and improvable capacity for evidence use in Swiss health administrations that place limited value on organizational support. Besides strengthening organizational support, leadership buy-in, particular staff needs, and balancing the implementation of specific measures with the provision of more general resources should be considered to unlock the potential of strengthened engagement with evidence.

The role of governance in shaping health system reform: a case study of the design and implementation of new health regions in Ireland, 2018-2023.

BACKGROUND: Effective governance arrangements are central to the successful functioning of health systems. While the significance of governance as a concept is acknowledged within health systems research, its interplay with health system reform initiatives remains underexplored in the literature. This study focuses on the development of new regional health structures in Ireland in the period 2018-2023, one part of a broader health system reform programme aimed at greater universalism, in order to scrutinise how aspects of governance impact on the reform process, from policy design through to implementation. METHODS: This qualitative, multi-method study draws on document analysis of official documents relevant to the reform process, as well as twelve semi-structured interviews with key informants from across the health sector. Interviews were analysed according to thematic analysis methodology. Conceiving governance as comprising five domains (Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity, Capacity) the research uses the TAPIC framework for health governance as a conceptual starting point and as initial, deductive analytic categories for data analysis. RESULTS: The analysis reveals important lessons for policymakers across the five TAPIC domains of governance. These include deficiencies in accountability arrangements, poor transparency within the system and vis-à-vis external stakeholders and the public, and periods during which a lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities for various process and key decisions related to the reform were identified. Inadequate resourcing of implementation capacity, competing policy visions and changing decision-making arrangements, among others, were found to have originated in and continuously reproduced a lack of trust between key institutional actors. The findings highlight how these challenges can be addressed through strengthening governance arrangements and processes. Importantly, the research reveals the interwoven nature of the five TAPIC dimensions of governance and the need to engage with the complexity and relationality of health system reform processes. CONCLUSIONS: Large scale health system reform is a complex process and its governance presents distinct challenges and opportunities for stakeholders. To understand and be able to address these, and to move beyond formulaic prescriptions, critical analysis of the historical context surrounding the policy reform and the institutional relationships at its core are needed.

Tackling the non-communicable disease epidemic: a framework for policy action in low- and middle-income countries.

Health policy frameworks for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases have largely been developed for application in high-income countries. Limited attention has been given to the policy exigencies in lower- and middle-income countries where the impacts of these conditions have been most severe, and further clarification of the policy requirements for effective prevention is needed. This paper presents a policy approach to prevention that, although relevant to high-income countries, recognizes the peculiar situation of low-and middle-income countries. Rather than a narrow emphasis on the implementation of piecemeal interventions, this paper encourages policymakers to utilize a framework of four embedded policy levels, namely health services, risk factors, environmental, and global policies. For a better understanding of the non-communicable disease challenge from a policy standpoint, it is proposed that a policy framework that recognizes responsible health services, addresses key risk factors, tackles underlying health determinants, and implements global non-communicable disease conventions, offers the best leverage for prevention.