Comparative Analysis of National Drug Policies - Second Workshop Geneva, 10-13 June 1996 - EDM Research Series No. 025: II. Background on the research project: 2. Study approach and research tools

Comparative Analysis of National Drug Policies - Second Workshop Geneva, 10-13 June 1996 - EDM Research Series No. 025
(1997; 175 pages)

Table of Contents

Executive summary
I. Introduction
II. Background on the research project
	1. Research questions and objectives of the study
	2. Study approach and research tools
	3. Project past activities
III. Second workshop
	1. Aim and objectives
	2. Participants
	3. Method of work and proceedings
IV. Preliminary findings
	1. The methods: What has been learnt?
		1.1 Methods in context: How did the country teams use the methods?
		1.2 Methods in question: What were the main problems encountered and how to solve them?
		1.3 Relevance of the methods
	2. National drug policies: what has been learnt?
		2.1 Preliminary findings based on NDP indicators
		2.2 Preliminary interpretations based on NDP indicators
		2.3 Preliminary findings based on the political mapping
	3. Cross national analysis: What can be learnt at this stage?
		3.1 Relevance of the methods for cross national comparison
		3.2 Strengths and weaknesses of NDP from a cross national perspective
		3.3 Tentative explanations for cross national variations
	4. Broader capacity building
V. Conclusions of the workshop and follow-up plans
	1. Main outcomes
	2. Next steps
Annex 1: Research proposal
	I. Introduction
	II. The Problem
	III. Research Question and Objectives of Proposed Study
	IV. Study Approach
	V. Anticipated Outcomes
	VI. Methods
	VII. Time Line and Resources
	Selected References
Annex 2: List of participants
Annex 3: Agenda
Annex 4: Questionnaire on NDP performance assessment
Annex 5: Achievements of the national drug policies in the 12 countries
	Bulgaria
	Chad
	Colombia
	Guinea
	India
	Mali
	Philippines
	Sri Lanka
	Thailand
	Viet Nam
	Zambia
	Zimbabwe
Annex 6: Consolidated tables
Other documents in the DAP Research Series

2. Study approach and research tools

The research provided a cross national, comparative framework. Cross national comparison can assist in placing a single country's experiences within a broader international context, and can help explain both the particular features of a country's policy and more universal aspects of policy-making.

The research combines formative evaluation strategies (focusing on the process of policy formulation and implementation) and summative evaluation strategies (focusing on policy outcomes). The two main research tools used are standardized NDP indicators - for assessment of NDP performance; and political mapping - for the analysis of NDP formulation and implementation processes. Group evaluation is also part of the methods used. These methods are described more in detail in the boxes below and in the research protocol (see Annex 1).

Method 1: Standardized NDP indicators The indicators are derived from the WHO manual on Indicators for monitoring national drug policies (WHO/DAP/94.12). The indicators serve two purposes in the research: • to assess the implementation of NDP by measuring progress in key components (structural and process indicators); • to evaluate the outcomes of NDP (outcome indicators).
Background information	Structural indicators	Process indicators	Outcome indicators
Quantitative	Qualitative	Quantitative	Quantitative
Population data Economic data Health status data Health system data Human resources Drug sector organization	Legislation and regulation Essential drugs selection and drug registration Drug allocation in the health budget/public sector financing policy Public sector procurement procedures Public sector distribution and logistics Pricing policy Information and continuing education on drug use		Availability of essential drugs Accessibility of essential drugs Quality of drugs Rational use of drugs

Method 2: Political mapping

The use of political mapping has three main goals in the research:

• to assess the organizational and political determinants of the policy process;
• to help explain the strengths and weaknesses identified by the indicators; and
• to assist in identifying and assessing strategies to improve pharmaceutical policy implementation.

As described in the research protocol, the methodology has descriptive, explanatory, and prescriptive objectives: to describe the consequences, stakeholders, interests, and networks involved in the national drug policy; to help explain how and why a particular decision was reached in the past; and to assist decision-makers in managing the politics of formulation or implementation.