Health Policy Advocacy Training Course

Participants can define a policy problem with a clear causal and equity-focused rationale.

• Problem statements specifying population, burden, drivers and policy consequences
• Problem tree analysis separating root causes, immediate causes and effects
• Burden-of-disease measures: incidence, prevalence, mortality, DALYs and YLLs
• Health inequity analysis using disaggregated data and social determinants
• Root-cause assumptions tested against available epidemiological and service data
• Policy problem boundaries set by mandate, geography and timeframe
• Issue prioritisation matrix scoring urgency, feasibility, equity and political salience

Participants can match public health problems to appropriate policy instruments and implementation mechanisms.

• WHO health system building blocks applied to policy choices
• Regulatory instruments: licensing, standards, taxation, restrictions and enforcement
• Financing mechanisms: budgets, insurance benefits, grants and conditional transfers
• Service-delivery reforms addressing access, quality, continuity and referral
• Information instruments including labelling, surveillance, reporting and public campaigns
• Policy mixes assessed for effectiveness, cost, equity and enforceability
• Implementation capacity assessed through workforce, supplies, data and governance

Participants can analyse a health policy issue through content, context, actors and process.

• Walt and Gilson Policy Triangle components and analytical questions
• Policy content examined for benefits, obligations, costs and exclusions
• Political, economic and social context shaping policy feasibility
• Actors classified by authority, interests, resources and stated positions
• Policy process mapped from formulation through adoption and implementation
• Competing narratives identified within contested public health proposals
• Analysis findings converted into advocacy implications and priority actions

Participants can assess why some health issues gain political attention while others do not.

• Political economy analysis of incentives, rents, institutions and power
• Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework for agenda-setting opportunities
• Policy windows identified through elections, crises, budgets and consultations
• Institutional veto points affecting approval of health policy proposals
• Interest group incentives examined for support, opposition or neutrality
• Timing strategies aligned with official planning and budget calendars
• Political feasibility assessed without overstating technical evidence

Participants can identify priority stakeholders and choose appropriate engagement approaches.

• Stakeholder inventory covering government, providers, communities, donors and industry
• Power-interest matrix used to segment advocacy audiences
• Influence mapping traces formal authority and informal relationships
• Stakeholder positions assessed as supportive, opposed, undecided or conditional
• Gatekeepers, champions, blockers and brokers identified systematically
• Engagement approaches matched to stakeholder incentives and decision roles
• Stakeholder maps updated when alliances, interests or authority change

Participants can assemble and appraise evidence suitable for a health policy recommendation.

• Evidence hierarchy applied to intervention effectiveness and policy claims
• GRADE certainty concepts interpreted for advocacy without technical distortion
• Routine health information assessed for completeness, timeliness and bias
• Economic evidence includes costs, budget impact and distributional effects
• Community experience documented through ethical qualitative evidence collection
• Evidence gaps declared clearly rather than filled with unsupported claims
• Evidence register links sources, findings, limitations and intended use

Participants can formulate and compare practical policy options for a defined health problem.

• Options generated from problem drivers, evidence and institutional authority
• Status quo option retained as a baseline comparison
• Multi-criteria decision analysis compares equity, cost, impact and feasibility
• Implementation pathways specify responsible bodies, resources and sequencing
• Unintended consequences assessed for vulnerable groups and service providers
• Costed options distinguish recurring expenditure from one-time investment
• Recommendation logic connects evidence, criteria, trade-offs and proposed action

Participants can write a decision-focused policy brief with a clear recommendation.

• Policy brief structure: issue, evidence, options, recommendation and action
• Executive summaries written for senior officials with limited reading time
• Recommendation statements specify actor, action, timeframe and expected result
• Tables present options, costs, benefits, risks and implementation requirements
• Plain-language editing removes jargon, ambiguity and unsupported assertions
• References selected for credibility, recency and decision relevance
• Brief design supports scanning through headings, callouts and logical sequence

Participants can create a structured advocacy strategy for a policy objective.

• SMART advocacy objectives linked to a specific policy decision
• Theory of change connects activities, influence pathways and policy outcomes
• Target audiences prioritised by decision authority and influence potential
• Strategy choices combine insider engagement, public mobilisation and coalition action
• Advocacy tactics selected for timing, resources, credibility and risk
• Milestone plans identify decision dates, owners and review points
• Assumptions documented for political access, evidence acceptance and partner commitment

Participants can develop persuasive, accurate messages for distinct policy audiences.

• Message house structure: core message, pillars, proof points and responses
• Audience segmentation considers values, concerns, authority and information needs
• Frames tested for health equity, fiscal responsibility and public protection
• Narratives connect statistical evidence with credible human experience
• Message discipline maintains consistency across spokespeople and communication channels
• Counterarguments anticipated using rebuttal, refutation and bridging techniques
• Plain language improves accessibility without weakening policy precision

Participants can establish coalitions with clear governance, shared aims and accountable roles.

• Coalition value proposition identifies shared interests and mutual contributions
• Partner due diligence reviews mandate, credibility, conflicts and capacity
• Terms of reference define purpose, roles, decisions and confidentiality
• Shared advocacy platforms establish common asks and evidence standards
• Coalition governance manages disagreement, attribution and public representation
• Community participation methods include consultation, representation and feedback loops
• Private-sector engagement assessed for conflicts of interest and reputational risk

Participants can prepare for formal policy engagement with government and regulatory bodies.

• Government decision routes mapped through ministries, cabinets and technical committees
• Legislative stages include drafting, committee scrutiny, debate and enactment
• Regulatory consultations analysed for evidence requirements and submission rules
• Meeting briefs define purpose, participants, key asks and anticipated objections
• Oral testimony structured around evidence, recommendation and public interest
• Follow-up protocols record commitments, deadlines and responsible contacts
• Public-service neutrality requirements considered when engaging government counterparts

Participants can link health policy recommendations to budget decisions and fiscal arguments.

• Public budget cycle mapped from formulation through execution and audit
• Costed advocacy asks distinguish programme inputs from system costs
• Budget impact analysis estimates affordability over defined planning periods
• Fiscal space arguments consider revenue, reprioritisation, efficiency and borrowing
• Cost-effectiveness evidence interpreted alongside equity and implementation criteria
• Finance ministry concerns addressed through credible assumptions and sensitivity analysis
• Budget narratives connect investment decisions to measurable population health outcomes

Participants can plan responsible media engagement that supports defined policy goals.

• Media landscape mapping identifies influential outlets, journalists and audience segments
• Press releases state news value, evidence, spokesperson and policy ask
• Interview preparation uses bridging, flagging and concise evidence statements
• Risk communication principles guide messaging during outbreaks and emergencies
• Social media content plans align channels, audiences, timing and approval processes
• Misinformation response protocols distinguish correction, pre-bunking and non-engagement
• Spokesperson briefing packs prepare factual answers for difficult questions

Participants can manage ethical, legal and reputational risks within advocacy activity.

• Ethical advocacy principles: truthfulness, transparency, consent and accountability
• Conflicts of interest declared, assessed and managed through formal procedures
• Safeguarding risks considered when involving patients, children and marginalised communities
• Data protection requirements applied to case stories and stakeholder records
• Do-no-harm analysis identifies possible social, political and clinical consequences
• Risk register captures likelihood, impact, mitigation and escalation owners
• Crisis response protocols protect participants, partners and organisational credibility

Participants can plan the transition from policy adoption to operational implementation.

• Implementation roadmap sequences legal, financial, operational and communication actions
• RACI matrix assigns responsibility, accountability, consultation and information duties
• Readiness assessment examines workforce, infrastructure, commodities and data systems
• Change management plans address resistance among providers and affected communities
• Standard operating procedures translate policy provisions into routine actions
• Pilot criteria determine when phased introduction is preferable
• Implementation bottlenecks tracked through escalation routes and corrective actions

Participants can design measures that track advocacy delivery, influence and policy progress.

• Advocacy results framework distinguishes outputs, outcomes and policy impact
• Indicators measure meetings, commitments, media reach, adoption and implementation
• Contribution analysis tests plausible links between advocacy and observed change
• Outcome harvesting documents significant influence results and supporting evidence
• Monitoring plans specify data sources, frequency, owners and reporting audiences
• Learning reviews examine failed assumptions, emerging risks and tactical adjustments
• Dashboard design presents decision-relevant indicators without misleading attribution

Participants can conduct structured policy dialogue while protecting core advocacy objectives.

• BATNA analysis establishes alternatives before high-stakes policy negotiations
• Interest-based negotiation separates underlying interests from stated positions
• Negotiation mandates define non-negotiables, concessions and approval authority
• Policy dialogue agendas sequence evidence, concerns, options and agreements
• Active listening techniques surface objections, uncertainty and hidden constraints
• Concession planning protects equity objectives while building workable agreement
• Meeting records distinguish commitments, unresolved issues and agreed next steps

Participants can build, review and present a complete evidence-based health policy advocacy strategy.

• Policy problem analysis integrates burden, equity, systems and political factors
• Stakeholder and power map identifies targets, allies, blockers and engagement routes
• Evidence package substantiates the preferred policy recommendation and investment case
• Policy brief communicates options, recommendation, implementation steps and anticipated benefits
• Advocacy strategy specifies objectives, messages, tactics, milestones and accountable owners
• Risk register addresses ethical, political, safeguarding and reputational concerns
• Monitoring framework defines indicators, evidence sources, learning reviews and adaptations
• Decision-panel presentation defends recommendations against technical and political challenge