South-East Asia Regional Conference on Epidemiology

<strong>South</strong>-<strong>East</strong> <strong>Asia</strong> <strong>Regional</strong> <strong>Conference</strong> on Epidemiology | 313
EVIPNet <strong>Asia</strong> has a loose governance arrangement. There is an informal management committee
made up of EVIPNet team members, a Chair and a Secretariat provided by WPRO. The Secretariat
manages a small budget for studies or research projects (which is awarded to country teams in response
to proposals that they submit) and manages the peer review of policy briefs and papers once complete.
Overall funding is limited which creates challenges for expanding the network and sustaining it in the
longer term.
EVIPNet <strong>Asia</strong> organizes one regional workshop every 1-2 years, bringing together teams from
different countries. In 2007, there was a workshop on the conduct of systematic reviews. In 2009, the
workshop focused on creating policy briefs and on communicating research evidence and synthesis to
policy-makers. Following this workshop, four teams began working on a policy brief that would aim
to present evidence on a health systems policy issue of concern in their country. In Malaysia, the focus
was on waiting times at primary health care facilities; in Viet Nam, on public-private partnerships;
and in Sichuan, China, on experience with compulsory rural service for health workers. In each case,
the teams used systematic review techniques to gather evidence from other countries on these issues
and then drew recommendations for their own policy-makers. The format of the policy brief was
designed to be accessible and useful for policy-makers, with key messages upfront, a longer executive
summary, and then the detailed evidence in the main section of the brief. Each policy brief is peerreviewed
by an international expert, who also provides feedback and support to the country team.
Other activities at country level include subnational workshops, held in Malaysia and China, where
EVIPNet team members pass on their new research skills to colleagues in other academic institutions.
There have also been a number of policy dialogue events which aim to bring researchers and policymakers
together to discuss research findings and ideas for future studies. This is another important
aspect of EVIPNet – influencing the research policy agenda and identifying research questions that
are of interest to local policy-makers.
A review of the EVIPNet model suggests that it presents both challenges and opportunities. In
terms of opportunities, EVIPNet provides a forum for linking national and international researchers,
allowing mentoring and capacity building. In the same way, the network brings together teams from
different countries and facilitates south-south learning. Finally, by linking researchers and policymakers,
EVIPNet contributes to the process of building a culture of evidence-based or evidenceinformed
policy-making in the health sector.
However, the governance and management of EVIPNet presents a major challenge. Ensuring that
the right people, working in the right institutions, are engaged is essential. Teams need to have a strong
and credible reputation for research, but should also have good access to government leaders and
policy-makers – a difficult and rare balance. Furthermore, the nature of the research work – which is
time-consuming and challenging – requires very motivated and capable team members. The process
of establishing and maintaining the team thus becomes critical because it influences the quality of the
research work that follows.
This links to the next challenge: the trade-off between capacity building and quality. As teams
master new research techniques, their output at first may not be of high quality, which, in turn, will
impact on its usefulness.
The final challenge is that EVIPNet is operating in a crowded marketplace. Other institutions –
many of them better funded – are competing for the time and capacity of the same health researchers
who are also members of EVIPNet. However, these institutions often come with a defined research
programme. By contrast, EVIPNet funds are not associated with any specific technical agenda beyond
the very broad area of health systems. It is the country team that identifies the policy question for
investigation, not the donor. This, in turn, helps to ensure ownership and relevance and points again to
the added value of the EVIPNet approach.