Civil Society’s Evidence-Generating Role for Health Policy Decisions: A Thematic Analysis of a Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) Community Online Discussion

Document Type : Short Communication

Authors

1 Cluster for Global Health, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

2 Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

3 Independent consultant, Port Harcourt, Nigeria

4 Venezuelan Breast Cancer Research and Education Foundation (FUVEICAM), Caracas, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

5 School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana

6 Independent Patient Advocate, Calgary, AB, Canada

7 Geneva Foundation for Medical Education & Research (GFMER), Geneva, Switzerland

8 George Institute for Global Health, Hyderabad, India

9 Department of Health and Functioning, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway

10 School of Pharmacy, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana

11 External Consultant, National Health Systems Resource Centre, New Delhi, India

12 Department of Health Sciences Ålesund, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Ålesund, Norway

13 Health Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya

14 Discipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

15 Madhira Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

16 Discipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal (Westville Campus), Durban, South Africa

17 National Health Service (NHS) Lothian, Edinburgh, UK

18 Healthcare Information For All, Chipping Norton, UK

Abstract

Civil society actors are widely recognized for advocating the public interest in health policy. However, their role in contributing different types of evidence to inform policy is less explored. To explore this topic, members of the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) online forum and the Supporting Inclusive and Accountable Health Systems Decisions for Universal Health Coverage (SUPPORT-SYSTEMS) research project conducted a four-week online discussion. The discussion focused on defining civil society, its role in health policy, the types of evidence it provides, and how this evidence is used and valued. Weekly focal questions encouraged HIFA members to share experiences of civil society engagement and the use of evidence in health policy-making. The thematic analysis identified four key messages. First, defining civil society requires critical reflection, as actors differ significantly in their interests, political ties, and influence. These distinctions affect how representative their evidence is and whether it reflects vested interests. Second, policy-making structures can support meaningful civil society participation, thereby strengthening the use of evidence and the legitimacy of policy decisions. Third, civil society provides valuable local and tacit knowledge that complements scientific evidence, though safeguards are needed to prevent bias or misrepresentation. Fourth, political economy factors—such as power imbalances, gatekeeping, and funding constraints—shape the influence of civil society evidence on policy. Overall, the discussion highlighted the diverse roles civil society can play in health policy and the importance of institutional mechanisms to support responsible evidence use. Thematic discussions in communities of practice (CoPs) like HIFA offer a dynamic and inclusive approach to engaging stakeholder knowledge in research projects. 

Keywords


  1. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: what is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S1. doi:1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s1
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Evidence, Policy, Impact: WHO Guide for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making. Geneva: WHO; 2021.
  3. World Health Organization (WHO). Voice, Agency, Empowerment - Handbook on Social Participation for Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: WHO; 2023.
  4. Sekalala S, Rawson B. The role of civil society in mobilizing human rights struggles for essential medicines: a critique from HIV/AIDS to COVID-19. Health Hum Rights. 2022;24(2):177-189.
  5. Greer SL, Wismar M, Kosinska M. What is civil society and what can it do for health? In: Civil Society and Health: Contributions and Potential. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2017.
  6. Kothari AR, Bickford JJ, Edwards N, Dobbins MJ, Meyer M. Uncovering tacit knowledge: a pilot study to broaden the concept of knowledge in knowledge translation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:198. doi:1186/1472-6963-11-198
  7. Langlois EV, Becerril Montekio V, Young T, Song K, Alcalde-Rabanal J, Tran N. Enhancing evidence informed policymaking in complex health systems: lessons from multi-site collaborative approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:20. doi:1186/s12961-016-0089-0
  8. English M, Nzinga J, Oliwa J, et al. Improving facility-based care: eliciting tacit knowledge to advance intervention design. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(8):e009410. doi:1136/bmjgh-2022-009410
  9. Gopinathan U, Peacocke E, Abankwah DNY, et al. Using evidence from civil society in national and subnational health policy processes: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;6(6):CD015810. doi:1002/14651858.Cd015810
  10. Glenton C, Nabukenya J, Agarwal S, et al. Using an online community of practice to explore the informal use of mobile phones by health workers. Oxf Open Digit Health. 2023;1:oqac003. doi:1093/oodh/oqac003
  11. Pakenham-Walsh N, Godlee F. Healthcare information for all. BMJ. 2020;368:m759. doi:1136/bmj.m759
  12. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Recommendations: Optimizing Health Worker Roles to Improve Access to Key Maternal and Newborn Health Interventions Through Task Shifting. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
  13. Owolabi OO, Glenton C, Lewin S, Pakenham-Walsh N. Stakeholder views on the incorporation of traditional birth attendants into the formal health systems of low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative analysis of the HIFA2015 and CHILD2015 email discussion forums. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:118. doi:1186/1471-2393-14-118
  14. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Guideline on Health Policy and System Support to Optimize Community Health Worker Programmes. Geneva: WHO; 2018.
  15. Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH). Supporting Inclusive and Accountable Health Systems Decisions in Ghana and Kenya for Universal Health Coverage (SUPPORT-SYSTEMS). NIPH; 2025. https://www.fhi.no/en/projects/support-systems/. Accessed March 4, 2025.
  16. Health Information For All (HIFA). SUPPORT-SYSTEMS - How Can Decision-Making Processes for Health Systems Strengthening and Universal Health Coverage Be Made More Inclusive, Responsive and Accountable? HIFA; 2024. https://www.hifa.org/projects/support-systems-how-can-decision-making-processes-health-systems-strengthening-and. Accessed June 26, 2024.
  17. SUPPORT-SYSTEMS. Concept Note for the SUPPORT-SYSTEMS WP1 Systematic Review. Open Science Framework; 2021. https://osf.io/djba2.
  18. Health Information for All (HIFA). Global Healthcare Information Network/HIFA Privacy/Data Protection Policy. HIFA; 2019. https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/other_publications_uploads/Privacy-Policy-GDPR-GHIN.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2025.
  19. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
  20. Yin RK. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. Guilford Publications; 2015.
  21. Crosbie E, Sosa P, Glantz SA. Defending strong tobacco packaging and labelling regulations in Uruguay: transnational tobacco control network versus Philip Morris International. Tob Control. 2018;27(2):185-194. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053690
  22. Ardila-Gómez S, Agrest M, Fernández MA, et al. The mental health users' movement in Argentina from the perspective of Latin American Collective Health. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(6-7):1008-1019. doi:1080/17441692.2018.1514063
  23. Abdulmalik J, Fadahunsi W, Kola L, et al. The Mental Health Leadership and Advocacy Program (mhLAP): a pioneering response to the neglect of mental health in Anglophone West Africa. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2014;8(1):5. doi:1186/1752-4458-8-5
  24. Heywood M. South Africa's treatment action campaign: combining law and social mobilization to realize the right to health. J Hum Rights Pract. 2009;1(1):14-36. doi:1093/jhuman/hun006
  25. Ho CJ, Khalid H, Skead K, Wong J. The politics of universal health coverage. Lancet. 2022;399(10340):2066-2074. doi:1016/s0140-6736(22)00585-2
  26. World Health Organization (WHO). Implementing Citizen Engagement Within Evidence-Informed Policy-Making: An Overview of Purpose and Methods. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
  27. World Health Organization (WHO). World Health Assembly Endorses Resolution on Social Participation. 2024. https://www.who.int/news/item/29-05-2024-world-health-assembly-endorses-resolution-on-social-participation. Accessed April 1, 2025.
  28. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Civil Society Commission. 2025. https://www.who.int/about/collaboration/civil-society-and-ngo-engagement/civil-society-commission. Accessed February 28, 2025.
  29. McCoy MS, Warsh J, Rand L, Parker M, Sheehan M. Patient and public involvement: two sides of the same coin or different coins altogether? Bioethics. 2019;33(6):708-715. doi:1111/bioe.12584
  30. Lim S, Lee KH, Suh HS, Bae KH. To whom do bureaucrats need to respond? Two faces of civil society in health policy. Soc Sci Med. 2014;123:269-277. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.025
  31. Lewin S, Langlois EV, Tunçalp Ö, Portela A. Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024;22(1):2. doi:1186/s12961-023-01080-9
  32. Gopinathan U, Dale E, Evans DB. Procedural fairness in health financing for universal health coverage: why, what and how. Health Policy Plan. 2023;38(Suppl 1):i1-i4. doi:1093/heapol/czad069
  33. Lang I, King A, Jenkins G, Boddy K, Khan Z, Liabo K. How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e063356. doi:1136/bmjopen-2022-063356

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 19 May 2025
  • Received Date: 14 July 2024
  • Revised Date: 01 April 2025
  • Accepted Date: 17 May 2025
  • First Published Date: 19 May 2025