Stories

Tag: localization

  • Ahead of Teach to Reach 11, organizational leaders share experience of ‘what works’ for health

    Ahead of Teach to Reach 11, organizational leaders share experience of ‘what works’ for health

    Over 730 organizations have already confirmed their participation in Teach to Reach 11, a peer learning platform, network, and community for health workers facilitated by the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF).

    This announcement came during TGLF’s first partnership briefing held on 16 October 2024. Voir la présentation aux partenaires en français…

    Teach to Reach, which connects health professionals across borders, is expanding its focus on local partnerships for its upcoming 11th edition, scheduled for 5-6 December 2024.

    Why does this matter?

    The initiative’s reach is substantial. Teach to Reach 10, held in June 2024, attracted 21,398 participants from over 70 countries. Notably, 80% of participants were from district and facility levels.

    Each participant is now being encouraged to involve their organization – and to invite staff, volunteers, and community members to join.

    “I plan to involve women from every province. We made a small committee. So our network is represented“ at Teach to Reach, said Isabelle Monga, national president of RENAFER, an NGO based in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    What do organizational leaders say about Teach to Reach?

    Here is what Amadou Gueye, president of the Malaria Youth Corps, said about his first time participating in Teach to Reach 10: “I was very impressed by the sharing and the results I saw at Teach to Reach, especially the real data, and the fact that every time people take part afterwards, we tally it all up and give a report that’s really precise and clear.”

    Watch the first experience-sharing session on malaria at Teach to Reach 10. Voir la séance en français…

    Dr. Ornela Malembe, President of ONG SADF (Santé et Développement de la Femme et de l’Enfant) in the Democratic Republic of Congo, shared how previous Teach to Reach events influenced her work: “Before Teach to Reach, we did not know about Female Genital Schistosomiasis (FGS). With what we learned, we put in place activities to raise awareness among women.”

    FGS is a neglected tropical disease that afflicts an estimated 56 million women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa. Learn more about FGS…

    Vincent Kamuasha, Country Representative of United Front Against River Blindness (UFAR) in DRC, highlighted the practical impact: “At Teach to Reach, we exchanged with the national NTD programme. We approached the national program for the fight against HIV. And recently, we approached the national program for reproductive health and adolescents.”

    Watch the Teach to Reach 10 session about NTDs. Voir la séance en français…

    Teach to Reach aims to deepen engagement and impact by supporting organizational change. As Reda Sadki, co-founder of TGLF, explained, “It’s really about developing your organization: share your experience, increase visibility, and access opportunities.”

    Organizations interested in becoming Teach to Reach partners are guided through the partnership application process.

    There is no cost for participants or locally-led organizations, as global partners subsidize the programme.

    What issues are these organizations about?

    The organizations at Teach to Reach 11’s briefings mirror the complexity of global health.

    They span from local community initiatives to national disease control programs, covering infectious diseases, health system strengthening, maternal and child health, youth empowerment, and community healthcare.

    Environmental health and climate change impacts were represented, as were mental health, nutrition, and digital health solutions.

    Organizations focusing on health equity, emergency response, and One Health approaches were also present.

    This diverse representation highlights the interconnected nature of global health challenges and the need for collaborative, multidisciplinary solutions.

    Teach to Reach emphasizes collaborative intelligence and active knowledge production. Participants are positioned as knowledge creators rather than passive recipients, reflecting a shift towards more inclusive global health practices.

    As global health faces complex, interconnected challenges, Teach to Reach’s focus on peer learning to drive locally-led change offers a new approach to collaboration and knowledge sharing in the field.

    Who actually attended the briefing?

    Attendees spanned a wide spectrum of the health system, from community-based workers to national-level policymakers.

    Government agencies were well-represented, including ministries of health, national immunization programs, and regional health departments from countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

    Civil society organizations (CSOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) formed a significant portion of attendees, ranging from local community groups to international non-profits.

    A strong presence of district and facility-level health workers included nurses, community health workers, and local health facility managers.

    International organizations such as WHO, UNICEF, and various UN agencies were also present, alongside research institutions and academic bodies.

    The linguistic diversity was notable, with a balanced representation from both anglophone and francophone countries.

    Strong participation was seen from nations such as Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Senegal, and Cameroon, among others.

    Building on Teach to Reach 10

    The partnership process was offered for the first time ahead of Teach to Reach 10 in June 2024. 240 organizations from 41 countries joined as local partners.

    Watch the Leaders & Partners Forum at Teach to Reach 10. Voir le Forum des Leaders & Partenaires en français…

    What came out of Teach to Reach 10?

    Outputs from Teach to Reach 10 included almost 2,000 real-world stories and insights shared by participants.

    These experiences are shared back with the community, creating a rich repository of practical knowledge. 

    99.7% of participants reported increased motivation and commitment to their work, and 97.8% stated they learned something new that changed their perspective.

    Learn more

    Find out why you should participate in Teach to Reach, if Teach to Reach can help your organization, and why become a Teach to Reach Partner.

    Listen to the Teach to Reach podcast:

    Are you a health professional? Join the Geneva Learning Foundation’s peer learning programme on climate change and health:

    Is your organisation interested in learning from health workers? Learn more about becoming a Teach to Reach partner.

  • Can Teach to Reach help your organization?

    Can Teach to Reach help your organization?

    Teach to Reach stands as a unique nexus in the global health landscape, offering unprecedented opportunities for diverse stakeholders to engage, learn, and drive meaningful change.

    With over 60,000 participants from more than 90 countries, this platform, network, and community bring together a mix of frontline health workers, policymakers, and key decision-makers.

    At Teach to Reach, research institutions and academic researchers engage health workers to translate their findings into policy and practice

    For research institutions and academic partners, Teach to Reach provides a site for knowledge translation.

    It provides direct access to practitioners and policymakers at all levels, enabling researchers to share findings with those best positioned to apply them in real-world settings.

    The platform’s interactive features, such as “Teach to Reach Questions,” allow for rapid data collection and feedback, helping bridge the gap between research and practice.

    At Teach to Reach, global agencies can listen and learn with local communities

    Global health organizations can leverage Teach to Reach to gain invaluable insights into unmet needs of local communities.

    With half of the participants working in districts and local facilities, and many in challenging contexts such as armed conflict zones (1 in 5) or remote rural areas (>60%), partners can engage with ground-level perspectives that inform development, strategies, and programme design.

    This direct engagement with frontline workers offers a unique window into the realities of diverse health systems.

    At Teach to Global, global actors help elevate the voices and leadership of local actors

    For those looking to make a tangible impact on global health equity, Teach to Reach’s scholarship programme offers a compelling opportunity.

    Scholarship sponsors support health workers from low and middle-income countries to participate in Teach to Reach.

    This investment not only builds individual capacity but strengthens health systems by recognizing and amplifying health worker voices and expertise.

    Facilitate meaningful dialogue on critical issues

    Global health stakeholders find in Teach to Reach a platform that facilitates meaningful dialogue on critical issues.

    The diverse participant base, including national policymakers and heads of national programmes, creates an environment ripe for new kinds of inclusive dialogue that can shape national and global strategies and frameworks.

    Become a Teach to Reach sponsor

    This mix of participants offers partners a unique opportunity to engage with key decision-makers in an interactive, collaborative setting.

    Some partners also become sponsors by contributing to the costs.

    For example, partners can sponsor scholarships for health workers to support their participation in Teach to Reach.

    This is just one of the ways in which partners can help sustain Teach to Reach as a platform, network, and community.

    For private sector organizations, sponsoring Teach to Reach aligns seamlessly with corporate social responsibility goals in global health.

    By this platform, organizations can articulate their concrete commitment to strengthening health systems, showing their support to health workers, and promoting health equity.

    This engagement goes beyond traditional philanthropy, offering sponsors a way to showcase their dedication to improving global health outcomes while enhancing their reputation in the field.

    In essence, Teach to Reach offers a multifaceted value proposition for partners.

    It is a place to listen and learn, to share and collaborate, to influence and be influenced.

    Whether an organization’s goals revolve around research impact, market insights, policy influence, or social responsibility, Teach to Reach provides a unique, efficient, and impactful site to engage.

    By joining this community, partners do not just support a platform – they become part of a movement that is reshaping how we approach global health challenges, one connection at a time.

  • Do Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) actually help global health?

    Do Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) actually help global health?

    This summary analyzes two important articles examining the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in global health: “Civil society organisations and global health initiatives: Problems of legitimacy” by Doyle and Patel (2008), and “Civil society in global health policymaking: a critical review” by Gómez (2018).

    While both articles challenge dominant assumptions about CSOs in global health, Doyle and Patel focus more on issues of legitimacy, representation and effects on democracy. Gómez focuses more on the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence for CSOs’ influence across all stages of the policy process. 

    Doyle and Patel (2008) challenge the assumption that CSOs automatically enhance representation and democracy in global health governance.

    • They argue that talk of ‘partnership’ obscures logistical and political obstacles to Southern CSO participation.
    • The authors also question the real agenda of many global health governance agencies and Western donor countries in the use of CSOs to deliver health interventions directly, bypassing government agencies where possible.
    • They suggest this CSO-led approach and the bypassing of government agencies has had a number of negative effects that either undermines claims of CSOs to be enhancing democracy or undermines the potential effectiveness of global health interventions.

    Gómez (2018) similarly critiques the lack of evidence for CSOs’ assumed comparative advantage in health program delivery.

    • His review finds the literature “narrowly focused on the agenda-setting and policy implementation stages, failing to account for all stages of the policymaking process and civil society’s role in it.”
    • He argues that “very little effort has been made to test and develop theoretical and analytical policymaking frameworks, clearly and consistently defining and conceptualizing civil society’s role and influence in global health policymaking, provide methodological specificity and diversity, while emphasizing the importance of causal mechanisms.”

    Doyle and Patel conclude that failure by advocates to respond to the sceptical arguments put forward here may weaken the legitimacy of CSO involvement in GHIs [global health initiatives].

    They call for research to clarify how different CSOs operate in different contexts to help to identify those variables that promote or impede the success of health interventions in different settings globally.

    Gómez, on the other hand, concludes by “encouraging scholars to address these lacuna in the literature and to explore the utility of political science theory and alternative policymaking models to better define and explain the complexity of civil society’s role and influence in global health policymaking processes.”

    Together, these articles make a compelling case for more critical examination of the role of CSOs in global health, and for moving beyond broad assumptions to more nuanced, context-specific and empirically-grounded analysis. They provide a valuable counterpoint to the often unquestioning enthusiasm for CSO engagement in much of the global health field.

    Dominant Assumption  Evidence Challenging Assumption 
    CSOs enhance representation and democracy in global health governance  Questionable existence of a coherent “global civil society” (Doyle & Patel)
    Lack of accountability and representation of populations claimed to be represented (Doyle & Patel)
    Elevating CSOs can undermine democracy and state legitimacy in developing countries (Doyle & Patel) 
    CSOs have a comparative advantage in delivering health interventions  Lack of evidence for comparative advantage (Gómez)
    Short-term donor funding creates perverse incentives and unsustainable interventions (Doyle & Patel)
    “Marketization” leads to duplication, inefficiencies, and focus on easy to measure outputs vs impact (Doyle & Patel)
    Bypassing and competing with public health systems is detrimental (Doyle & Patel) 
    CSOs play a significant role across all stages of the global health policy process  Literature narrowly focused on agenda-setting and implementation stages (Gómez)
    Lack of theoretical and empirical analysis of CSO roles and influence across all policy stages (Gómez) 
    Partnership rhetoric reflects genuine collaboration and equality between Northern and Southern CSOs  “Talk of ‘partnership” obscures logistical and political obstacles” to Southern CSO participation (Doyle & Patel)
    Unequal power relations and Northern dominance in CSO partnerships (Doyle & Patel) 
    CSO involvement improves the effectiveness of global health interventions  Lack of evidence for impact of CSO involvement on health outcomes (Gómez)
    Focus on short-term, easily measurable outputs vs long-term impact and sustainability (Doyle & Patel)
    Negative effects on health systems and government capacity (Doyle & Patel) 

    References

    Doyle, C., Patel, P., 2008. Civil society organisations and global health initiatives: Problems of legitimacy. Social Science & Medicine 66, 1928–1938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.12.029

    Gómez, E.J., 2018. Civil society in global health policymaking: a critical review. Global Health 14, 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0393-2

  • Pandemic preparedness through connected transnational digital networks of local actors

    Pandemic preparedness through connected transnational digital networks of local actors

    What is the link between pandemic preparedness, digital networks, and local action? In the Geneva Learning Foundation’s approach to effective humanitarian learning, knowledge acquisition and competency development are both necessary but insufficient. This is why, in July 2019, we built the first Impact Accelerator, to support local practitioners beyond learning outcomes all the way to achieving actual health outcomes.

    What we now call the Full Learning Cycle has become a mature package of interventions that covers the full spectrum from knowledge acquisition to implementation and continuous improvement. This package has produced the same effects in every area of work where we have been able to test it: self-motivated groups manifesting remarkable, emergent leadership, connected laterally to each other in each country and between countries, with a remarkable ability to quickly learn and adapt in the face of the unknown. Such networks have obvious relevant for pandemic preparedness.

    In 2020, we got to test this package during the COVID-19 pandemic, co-creating the COVID-19 Peer Hub with over 6,000 frontline health professionals, and building together the Ideas Engine to rapidly share ideas and practices to problem-solve and take action quickly in the face of dramatic consequences of the new virus on immunization services (largely due to fear, risk, and misinformation). By January 2021, over a third of Peer Hub members had successfully implemented their immunization service recovery project, far faster than colleagues who faced the same problems but worked alone, without a global support network. Once connected to each other, these country teams then organized inter-country peer learning to help them figure out “what works” for COVID-19 vaccine introduction and scale-up.

    Such a holistic approach is about mobilizing and connecting country-based impact networks for pandemic preparedness that reach and involve practitioners at the local levels, as well as national MoH leaders and planners – quite different from conventional approaches (whether online or face-to-face) to building capacity and preparedness.

    TGLF’s global health network and platform reach significant numbers of practitioners at all levels of the health system. It is not only the number of people who participate (47,000 as I write this) but also the depth of engagement and diversity of contexts that they work in. Globally, 21.2% face armed conflict; 24.5% work with refugees or internally-displaced populations; 61.6% work in remote rural; 47% with the urban poor; 35.7% support the needs of nomadic/migrant populations. This is across 110 countries, with over 70 percent in “high burden” countries. Many have deep experience in responding to epidemic outbreaks of all kinds. Health professionals who join come from all levels of the health system, but most are (logically) from health facilities and districts, the bottom of the health pyramid.

    Through the network and platform, they build lateral connections, forging bonds not only of knowledge but also of trust. They do this not because they are from the same profession, but primarily (we believe) because they face similar challenges and see the benefit of sharing their experience in support of each other. Engagement is voluntary (ie people opt in and contribute because they want to), with no per diem or other extrinsic incentives offered. The concern for both epidemic outbreak and pandemic preparedness is shared.

    Individuals develop and implement corrective actions to tackle the root causes of the challenges they are taking on, drawing on both peer learning and the best available global guidelines. For the IA2030 Movement, our largest initiative so far, participants are simultaneously implementing 1,024 projects in 99 countries, learning from each other what works, sharing successes, lessons learned, and challenges. Here are four examples of what collective action through digital networks looks like :

    • In Ghana, TGLF’s alumni (including national and regional MoH EPI directors) decided to organize online sessions country-wide to share the latest information about COVID-19 with local staff, starting in April 2020. They had learned how to use digital tools to find the best available global knowledge and to combine it with their local expertise and experience to inform collective action.
    • In Burkina Faso, the national EPI manager entrusted the first “masked” vaccination campaign to the TGLF alumni team, which has organized itself country-wide, with over half of alumni working in conflict-affected areas. He told me no one else had the network and the capacity for change to figure out quickly how to get this right.
    • In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the TGLF alumni team is increasingly being asked by national EPI to contribute to various activities, due to their effectiveness in connecting and coordinating. The alumni network is country-wide and includes many from very remote areas. When Monkeypox was reported in Europe and North America, we were already seeing a steady stream of information through the DRC and other country networks.

    We believe that this continuous learning and action is actually the definition of pandemic preparedness. Trying to imagine preparedness and response to new pandemics using old, failed methods of training and capacity building – whether face-to-face or online – is both dangerous and irrational.

    Image: Remote villages illuminated by rays of light, with mountains beyond mountains in the background. The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection.