Search

Abstract Background Tens of millions of children lack adequate care, many having been separated from or lost one or both parents. Despite the problem’s severity and its impact on a child’s lifelong health and wellbeing, the care of vulnerable children—which includes strengthening the care of children within families, preventing unnecessary family separation, and ensuring quality care alternatives when reunification with the biological parents is not possible or appropriate—is a low global priority. This analysis investigates factors shaping the inadequate global prioritization of the care of vulnerable children. Specifically, the analysis focuses on factors internal to the global policy community addressing children’s care, including how they understand, govern, and communicate the problem. Methods Drawing on agenda setting scholarship, we triangulated among several sources of data, including 32 interviews with experts, as well as documents including peer-reviewed literature and organizational reports. We undertook a thematic analysis of the data, using these to create a historical narrative on efforts to address children’s care, and specifically childcare reform. Results Divisive disagreements on the definition and legitimacy of deinstitutionalization—a care reform strategy that replaces institution-based care with family-based care—may be hindering priority for children’s care. Multiple factors have shaped these disagreements: a contradictory evidence base on the scope of the problem and solutions, divergent experiences between former Soviet bloc and other countries, socio-cultural and legal challenges in introducing formal alternative care arrangements, commercial interests that perpetuate support for residential facilities, as well as the sometimes conflicting views of impacted children, families, and the disability community. These disagreements have led to considerable governance and positioning difficulties, which have complicated efforts to coordinate initiatives, precluded the emergence of leadership that proponents universally trust, hampered the engagement of potential allies, and challenged efforts to secure funding and convince policymakers to act. Conclusion In order to potentially become a more potent force for advancing global priority, children’s care proponents within international organizations, donor agencies, and non-governmental agencies working across countries will need to better manage their disagreements around deinstitutionalization as a care reform strategy.

Abstract Background The global health agenda is ill-defined as an analytical construct, complicating attempts by scholars and proponents to make claims about the agenda status of issues. We draw on Kingdon’s definition of the agenda and Hilgartner and Bosk’s public arenas model to conceptualize the global health agenda as those subjects or problems to which collectivities of actors operating nationally and globally are paying serious attention at any given time. We propose an arenas model for global health agenda setting and illustrate its potential utility by assessing priority indicators in five arenas, including international aid, pharmaceutical industry, scientific research, news media and civil society. We then apply the model to illustrate how the status of established (HIV/AIDS), emergent (diabetes) and rising (Alzheimer’s disease) issues might be measured, compared and change in light of a pandemic shock (COVID-19). Results Coronavirus priority indicators rose precipitously in all five arenas in 2020, reflecting the kind of punctuation often caused by focusing events. The magnitude of change varied somewhat by arena, with the most pronounced shift in the global news media arena. Priority indicators for the other issues showed decreases of up to 21% and increases of up to 41% between 2019 and 2020, with increases suggesting that the agenda for global health issues expanded in some arenas in 2020— COVID-19 did not consistently displace priority for HIV/AIDS, diabetes or Alzheimer’s disease, though it might have for other issues. Conclusions We advance an arenas model as a novel means of addressing conceptual and measurement challenges that often undermine the validity of claims concerning the global health agenda status of problems and contributing causal factors. Our presentation of the model and illustrative analysis lays the groundwork for more systematic investigation of trends in global health agenda setting. Further specification of the model is needed to ensure accurate representation of vital national and transnational arenas and their interactions, applicability to a range of disease-specific, health systems, governance and policy issues, and sensitivity to subtler influences on global health agenda setting than pandemic shocks.

Abstract Background Proponents have promoted sexuality education as a means of empowering adolescents, yet it has been thwarted in many low and middle-income countries. Nigeria represents an exception. Despite social opposition, the government in 1999 unexpectedly approved sexuality education policy. Since then, implementation has advanced, although efficacy has differed across states. We draw on theory concerning international norm diffusion to understand Nigerian policy development. Results We find that a confluence of international and national norms and interests shaped policy outcomes, including concern over HIV/AIDS. A central dynamic was an alliance of domestic NGOs and international donors pressing the Nigerian government to act. Conclusions We argue that theory on international norms can be applied to understand policy dynamics across a variety of health and population areas, finding value in approaches that integrate rather than juxtapose consideration of (1) international and national influences; (2) long and short-term perspectives on policy change; and (3) norms and interests.