Thank you, Neil. I must also acknowledge SuSanA's association with HIFA and that we have benefitted from your experience on numerous occassions. 

You made an important point regarding what the WHO report missed. I am sure most colleagues will agree that civil society does play an important role in supporting evidence-informed policy on WASH. 

In this post, I am borrowing from another HIFA email digest to bring to the attention of our members a related opportunity to contribute to the work of the Lancet Commission for Evidence-based implementation.  It is seeking innovative ways to close the gap between what is known and what is done, particularly in LMICs, where high-impact, evidenced-based interventions are often still not reaching those in need. The Commission has published a crowdsourcing survey through which it hopes to capture inputs from  implementers from every region, all disciplines, and all health topics. Further details, along with links to the survey in nine language options, can be found here: mailchi.mp/lshtm.ac.uk/improve-health-wo...short-survey-9518931

Below are excerpts (my own) from the Commission's comment 

• Global health goals and objectives will not be achieved until these implementation challenges are effectively addressed. Doing so will require that we, as a global community, generate and effectively use improved scientific and technical support for the just implementation of evidence-based interventions, and ensure that these interventions are available, accessible, acceptable, and affordable to all potential beneficiaries evidence-based interventions, and ensure that these interventions are available, accessible, acceptable, and affordable to all potential beneficiaries
• Efforts to build and apply implementation science have been made, the commission recognises three key limitations, viz., most evidence on the effectiveness of implementation strategies is from high-income countries, the generated evidence is limited regarding the scalability and sustainability of interventions, and the implementers themselves—are often insufficiently involved in the generation of the evidence
• Priorities for the Commission will include a determination of the state of implementation evidence being generated and used; the evidence that will be most helpful for improved implementation decision-making, implementation practice, and implementation outcomes; and how to optimally generate this evidence and enable its full and effective use in practice

I am sure evidence from WASH can inform the Commission's work on health as the two are closely linked. I'd urge members to share their perspectives and disseminate this opportunity widely with other colleagues 

Regards
paresh

Dear Paresh,

Thank you for forwarding this from the HIFA discussion forum (I moderate HIFA and we have long worked in collaboration with SuSanA).

There was one important element that was *not* included in the original WHO report (at least, not that I could find) and this is the role of civil society in government policy-making. HIFA has been supporting a large research consortium funded by the Norwegian Research Council to explore this question: "How can decision-making processes for health systems strengthening and universal health coverage be made more inclusive, responsive and accountable, with a particular focus on civil society?"
www.hifa.org/projects/support-systems-ho...ms-strengthening-and

I don't have any specialist knowledge of WASH, but I suspect that civil society has an especially important role in supporting evidence-informed policy on sanitation and hygiene.

(Incidentally, HIFA has increasingly been used for to provide a multistakeholder discussion platform to complement research projects. The PI of the above project writes: 'HIFA has been a dynamic platform for building relationships with individuals from diverse professional backgrounds and roles within health systems worldwide, enabling the collection of insights that would have otherwise been difficult to obtain. The HIFA discussion forum has been especially valuable, enabling the research project to explore concepts and assumptions, and to understand how the research questions resonate with on-the-ground realities through the insights of individuals with relevant experiences.'
This is potentially a role for SuSanA also (and a source of income): a large WASH research project could engage SuSanA from the outset. )

HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dear All,
Sharing extracts of an interesting report from the WHO titled Progress report for the strengthening the use of evidence, information and research for policy-making in the African region available here acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:a83e...31-94b0-bff26cf39388

I came across the report in HIFA's email digest dt 4th October

SELECTED EXTRACTS
The World Report on Knowledge for Better Health emphasized the importance of using research outcomes to inform the development and implementation of health policies and practices to ensure good health outcomes in the Region. The Framework stipulates that by the end of 2024; at least 50% of Member States should have established and funded evidence-informed policy networks (EVIPNets) or other knowledge translation platforms

This first report summarizes the progress made in implementing the Framework from 2021 to date. 
As of 2023, twenty-seven Member States (58%) had established at least one kind of knowledge translation platform and of these, 13 (28%) Member States had established EVIPNets. (pg 1, para 5)

The key challenges which constrained the implementation of the Framework include vertical national knowledge generation and translation platforms; insufficient domestic funding for health research resulting in donor dependency; fragmented coordination of research institutes and systems; and low utilization of eHealth platforms and evidence for policy formulation. (pg 2 para 10)

Member States should: (pg 3, para 11) 

1. integrate and monitor the use of data for policy-making by ensuring linkages between research findings and policy development;
2.  institutionalize knowledge generation and translation platforms within the public sector;
3. provide sustainable domestic funding for knowledge generation and translation; 
4. establish mechanisms for knowledge generation, translation, and integration of eHealth platforms;
5. sustain the gains made in the use of evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic through collaborative knowledge management.

WHO and partners should: (pg 3, para 12) 

1. provide technical and operational guidance to Member States on how to utilize research evidence and information to develop policies for improving health systems performance; 
2. build the capacity of member states on knowledge translation; 
3. work with research and academic institutions to establish knowledge translation platforms;
4. promote knowledge translation within government systems;
5. provide a coordination system for all other knowledge translation platforms existing outside government systems.  

How do you think these recommendations apply to WASH and other regions? 

Regards
paresh