Search

Background: The burden of undernutrition is significant in Kenya. Obesity and related non-communicable diseases are also on the increase. Government action to prevent non-communicable diseases is critical. Taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages has been identified as an effective mechanism to address nutrition-related non-communicable diseases, although Kenya is not yet committed to this. Objective: To assess the policy and stakeholder landscape relevant to nutrition related non -communicable diseases and sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Kenya. Methods: A desk review of evidence and policies related to nutrition related non-communicable diseases and sugar-sweetened beverages was conducted. Data extraction matrices were used for analysis. Key informant interviews were conducted with 10 policy actors. Interviews were thematically analysed to identify enablers of, and barriers to, policy change towards nutrition-sweetened beverage taxation. Results: Although nutrition related non-communicable diseases are recognised as a growing problem in Kenya most food-related policies focus on undernutrition and food security, while underplaying the role of nutrition related non-communicable diseases. Policy development on communicable diseases is multi-sectoral, but implementation is biased towards curative rather than preventive services. An excise tax is charged on soft drinks, but is not specific to sugar-sweetened beverages. Government has competing roles: advocating for industrial growth, such as sugar and food processing industries to foster economic development, yet wanting to control nutrition related non-communicable diseases. There is no national consensus about the dangers posed by sugar-sweetened beverages. Conclusion: Nutrition related non-communicable diseases policies should reflect a continuum of issues, from undernutrition to food security, nutrition transition, and the escalation of nutrition related non-communicable diseases. A local advocacy case for sugar-sweetened beverage taxation has not been made. Public and policy maker education is critical to challenge the prevailing attitudes towards sugar-sweetened beverages and the western diet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrated Community Case Management of Childhood Illness (iCCM) is a policy for providing treatment for malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia for children below 5 years at the community level, which is generating increasing evidence and support at the global level. As countries move to adopt iCCM, it becomes important to understand how this growing evidence base is viewed and used by national stakeholders. This article explores whether, how and why evidence influenced policy formulation for iCCM in Niger, Kenya and Mozambique, and uses Carol Weiss' models of research utilization to further explain the use of evidence in these contexts. A documentary review and in-depth stakeholder interviews were conducted as part of retrospective case studies in each study country. Findings indicate that all three countries used national monitoring data to identify the issue of children dying in the community prior to reaching health facilities, whereas international research evidence was used to identify policy options. Nevertheless, policymakers greatly valued local evidence and pilot projects proved critical in advancing iCCM. World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) functioned as knowledge brokers, bringing research evidence and experiences from other countries to the attention of local policymakers as well as sponsoring site visits and meetings. In terms of country-specific findings, Niger demonstrated both Interactive and Political models of research utilization by using iCCM to capitalize on the existing health infrastructure. Both Mozambique and Kenya exhibit Problem-Solving research utilization with different outcomes. Furthermore, the persistent quest for additional evidence suggests a Tactical use of research in Kenya. Results presented here indicate that while evidence from research studies and other contexts can be critical to policy development, local evidence is often needed to answer key policymaker questions. In the end, evidence may not be enough to overcome resistance if the policy is viewed as incompatible with national goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Policy transfer theories explain how policy ideas move across time and geography and offer an approach to understanding waves of policy change, a common phenomenon in global health. Four primary mechanisms for the transfer of policies from global to national levels are posited: learning, coercion, socialization and competition.Methods: We used six concurrent country case studies of policy change for child survival followed by a global study to analyse (1) mechanisms for policy transfer and (2) the roles of international organizations in promoting policy transfer. Our six country cases drew upon early adopters of integrated Community Case Management of Childhood Illness policy (Malawi, Niger), as well as countries that were slower to adopt due either to practical implementation challenges (Mozambique, Mali) and/or policy resistance (Burkina Faso, Kenya). In total, 145 semi-structured interviews and 283 document reviews were conducted across the six country cases, and 25 semi-structured interviews and 72 document reviews for the global study.Results: Three of the four diffusion mechanisms (learning, coercion and socialization) were important in these cases, but not competition. Multiple strategies were employed by multilateral organizations to support policy transfer, such as regional meetings or academic publications, frequently serving multiple diffusion mechanisms simultaneously (e.g. both learning and socialization). In just one country case, funding conditionalities were used to press for policy change. The emphasis of policy transfer mechanisms varied between early and later adopters. Early adopters, for example, were more likely to engage in learning. International multilateral organizations were active policy transfer agents, and national policy-makers perception of them as "trusted partners" made them well suited for this role. However, on occasion their role became more that of advocates than neutral facilitators.Conclusions: International actors use multiple synergistic channels to promote uptake of global health policies in low- and middle-income countries, and tailor strategies employed to country contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]