Introduction
Methods
Results
Policy development and review processes
Policy development and implementation process as reported by the program officers | |
---|---|
Presence of guidelines
| |
Written guidelines of policy the development were present | |
Adherence to documented processes was not documented | |
Monitoring and evaluation of the policies was informal and driven by other stakeholders | |
Duration of policy development and Implementation process (in years)
| |
All officers mentioned that process took 1–3 years; longer than the anticipated 6–8 months | |
Reasons cited for the delayed period
| |
-Inadequate capacity in terms of knowledge & skills | |
-Unclear guidelines | |
-Inadequate specific funding for the activities | |
-Busy technical working group members | |
Importance of guidelines
| |
All respondents indicated that it was timely and important to have a policy process framework or protocol tailored to the ACP Uganda. | |
One respondent indicated that this would also apply for the other departments within the MoH | |
Monitoring and evaluation
| |
Four out of five reported involvement of a consultant in the policy-making process |
Revision of HCT policy | Medical male circumcision new policy development | |
---|---|---|
Duration of policy development and implementation process
| 2 years (planned duration to completion was 8 months) | 1 year (planned duration was 6 months) |
Presence of guidelines
| No specific guidelines followed | No specific guidelines followed |
Technical working team (15)
| Leader: DG, MoH; technical staff, implementing partners, development agencies, academicians, and CSO | SMC National Task Force (NTF) for HIV prevention included senior MoH technical staff members, development partners, implementing partners and CSO |
Technical team selection
| Based on previous experience in policy development engagement, experience in HCT implementation | Appointed by the Director General MoH Team included experienced persons in HIV response |
Technical working group meeting
| Several held to produce draft 0 | Consultant hired right from the beginning to produce draft 0 |
Consultative meetings
| Held to develop drafts 1 and 2 | Held to produce draft 2 |
-Stakeholders meeting produced draft 3 | ||
Peer review by technical team
| Develop draft 3 | NTF reviewed draft 0 to produce draft 3 |
Senior management committee review | Develop draft 4 | NTF forwarded final report tosenior management that developed draft 4 |
Director general of Health Services | Endorsed draft 4 | Endorsed draft 4 |
Launching | Launched by MoH before public use | |
Challenges
| Limited indigenous funding for policy development activities | Limited policy development activities |
Busy TWG members |
Duration of policy development processes
SMC policy development and HCT policy revision
Suggestions to improve the policy development/revision processes
Discussion
Availability and utilization of national policy development and management guidelines
Planning processes in policy development/revision | |
---|---|
Policy analysis unit
|
Active involvement by the Ministry of Health (MOH) policy analysis unit
|
Policy development/revision
|
Policy development protocol and standard operating procedures to be developed and followed when need arises to develop/revise any policy
|
- Allocation of required resources by the MoH senior management team as per budget | |
- List and set timelines for both minor and major activities with reference to the guidelines | |
- Selection of technical working group (according to specific criteria) with clear terms of reference | |
- Development of a policy implementation plan including an internal and external monitoring and evaluation plan | |
- Develop a policy surveillance and impact assessment plan | |
Policy approval
|
Prior approval of the policy development protocol by MoH senior management in consultation with the ACP technical team
|