What makes advocacy work? Stakeholders’ voices and insights from prioritisation of Maternal and Child Health programme in Nigeria
Abstract Background: The Nigerian government introduced and implemented health programmes to improve maternal and child health (MCH) called Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment programme for MCH (SURE-P/MCH). It ran from 2012 and ended abruptly in 2015 and was followed by increased advocacy for sustaining the MCH as a policy priority. Advocacy is important in allowing social voice, facilitating prioritization and bringing different forces/actors together. Therefore, the study set out to unpack how advocacy works - through understanding what effective advocacy implementation processes comprise and what mechanisms are triggered by which contexts to produce the intended outcome Methods: The study used a Realist Evaluation through a mixed quantitative and qualitative methods case study approach. The advocacy programme theory (PT) was developed from the literature (three substantive social theories of power politics, media influence communication theory and the three-streams theory of agenda setting), data and programme design documentation. We report information from 22 key informant interviews at both National and sub-national levels and review of relevant documents on advocacy events post-SURE-P. Results: Key advocacy organizations and individuals including health professional groups, the media, civil society organizations, powerful individuals and policy makers were involved in advocacy activities. The nature of their engagement included organizing workshops, symposium, town hall meetings, individual meetings, press conferences, demonstrations, and engagements with media. Effective advocacy mechanism involves alliance brokering to increase influence, the media supporting and engaging in advocacy, and use of champions, influencers and spouses (Leadership and Elite Gendered Power Dynamics). The key contextual influences which determined the effectiveness of advocacy measures for MCH include the political cycle, availability of evidence on the issue, networking with powerful and interested champions and alliance building in advocacy. All these enhanced the entrenchment of MCH on the political and financial agenda Conclusions: Advocacy is a useful tool to bring together different forces through allowing expression of voices and ensuring accountability. In the context of poor health outcomes, interest from policymakers and politicians in MCH, combined with advocacy from key policy actors and stakeholders armed with evidence, can lead to prioritization and sustained implementation of MCH services within the context of UHC