The Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself: The Role of Research Evidence in Shaping Policy Change for the Implementation of Publicly Funded Syringe Exchange Programs in Three US Cities

BACKGROUND: A breadth of literature exists that explores the utilization of research evidence in policy change processes. From this work, a number of studies suggest research evidence is applied to change processes by policy change stakeholders primarily through instrumental, conceptual, and/or symbolic applications, or is not used at all. Despite the expansiveness of research on policy change processes, a deficit exists in understanding the role of research evidence during change processes related to the implementation of structural interventions for HIV prevention among injection drug users (IDU). This study examined the role of research evidence in policy change processes for the implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange services in three US cities: Baltimore, MD, Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, DC. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (n=29) from each of the study cities. Stakeholders were asked about the historical, social, political, and scientific contexts in their city during the policy change process. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for common themes pertaining to applications of research evidence. RESULTS: In Baltimore and Philadelphia, the typological approaches (instrumental and symbolic/conceptual, respectively) to the applications of research evidence used by harm reduction proponents contributed to the momentum for securing policy change for the implementation of syringe exchange services. Applications of research evidence were less successful in DC because policymakers had differing ideas about the implications of syringe exchange program implementation and because opponents of policy change used evidence incorrectly or not at all in policy change discussions. CONCLUSION: Typological applications of research evidence are useful for understanding policy change processes, but their efficacy falls short when sociopolitical factors complicate legislative processes. Advocates for harm reduction may benefit from understanding how to effectively integrate research evidence into policy change processes in ways that confront the myriad of factors that influence policy change

Measuring sustainability of opioid agonist therapy programs in the context of transition from Global Fund support

Abstract Background Programmatic and financial sustainability of health responses dependent on donor funding has risen as a major concern. In the HIV field in particular, it generated a number of instruments and assessments on sustainability and processes related to donor transition planning. The authors aimed to develop an instrument specific to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) programs as they were addressed only marginally by the HIV-specific assessments. Methods The development of the OAT sustainability instrument used desk review of existing HIV sustainability concepts and tools, an International Advisory Board, and piloting to validate the instrument. Results The new OAT sustainability instrument is comprised of the three parts: the conceptual framework, methodological guidelines and a practical implementation tool for assessing the degree of OAT sustainability at the country level. It measures sustainability in the three broad areas for sustainability measuring–Policy & Governance; Finance & Resources; and Services. The selection of indicators and their composites for the three sustainability areas extensively used the United Nations and World Health Organization’s guidance on health system building blocks, on care and HIV and viral hepatitis prevention among people using opioids and for opioid dependence, and the definition of access to health framed by the United Nations Convent on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The instrument’s methodological guidelines require the engagement of a national consultant to conduct desk review, key informant interviews and focus groups for measuring discrete milestones and adding qualitative information for interpretation of the data, progress and opportunities. The guidelines advise engaging a country-specific multi-stakeholder advisory group for planning, validation and follow-up of the assessment. The pilot of the instrument in 3 countries in 2020 validated it and required minor adjustments in the instrument. By mid-2023, the instrument has been successfully applied in 5 countries. Conclusions The developed instrument enables a comprehensive review of the resilience of OAT programs and their ability to scale up and to inform a roadmap for improved sustainability. While developed in the context of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, it has been reviewed by a global advisory panel and could be easily adapted outside this regional context