Towards a global framework for capacity building for non-communicable disease advocacy in low- and middle-income countries
Open accessAbstract
Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent an increasing proportion of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Sustained advocacy, carried out by a skilled workforce, is an important strategy to realize the political will and implement the policy changes necessary to reduce the global burden of NCDs. Competencies for effective advocacy include a combination of scientific and technical as well as communication-based skills. Recognizing the need to build local capacity for NCD advocacy in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the InterAmerican Heart Foundation joined efforts to conduct two pilot advocacy courses, one in Thailand and one in Colombia. A Global Advisory Group engaged a Local Organizing Committee in each country to ensure the courses would meet the needs of the local stakeholders. While both courses contained a set of key competencies and helped participants develop joint strategies for moving forward with consensus advocacy targets, the courses differed in content and participant background depending on the local context. A key goal of the courses was to determine and describe the lessons learned and make recommendations for a framework to be used for future advocacy capacity-building activities in LMIC. The planning and execution of each course generated lessons in the following five areas that informed the development of a global framework for capacity building for NCD advocacy: 1) using a comprehensive theoretical framework to teach advocacy competencies, 2) engaging key stakeholders, 3) meeting local needs and priorities, 4) planning local logistics, and 5) ensuring the skills obtained through training are applied to sustained advocacy for NCDs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is important to tailor training initiatives to the particular LMIC's context and to move beyond one-off training to sustain their impact.
“However, in line with previous research,41 our findings show the importance of tailoring training initiatives to the particular LMIC’s context and moving beyond one-off training to sustain their impact.”
From Needs of LMIC-based tobacco control advocates to counter tobacco industry policy interference: insights from semi-structured interviews (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Shilton TR. Creating and making the case: Global advocacy for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2008; 5(5): 765-776.
- Yach D, McKee M, Lopez AD, Novotny T. Improving diet and physical activity: 12 lessons from controlling tobacco smoking. BMJ. 2005; 330: 898-900.
- Slonim A, Wheeler FC, Quinlan KM, Smith SM. Designing competencies for chronic disease practice. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010; 7(2): 1-9. www.cdc.gov/pcd/ issues/2010/mar/08_0114.htm
- Shilton T, Howat P, James R, Burke L, Hutchins C, Woodman R. Health promotion competencies for Australia 2001-5: trends and their implications. Promot Educ. 2008; 15 (2): 21-26.
- Shilton TR. Health promotion competencies: providing a road map for health promotion to assume a prominent role in global health. Glob Health Promot. 2009; 16(2): 42-46.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Matthes, B. K., Robertson, L., & Gilmore, A. B. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044710 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shilton, T., Champagne, B., Blanchard, C., Ibarra, L., & Kasesmup, V.
- Affiliations
- National Heart Foundation of Australia (AU)
- InterAmerican Heart Foundation (US)
- International Union for Health Promotion (IUHPE), St Denis, France
- InterAmerican Heart Foundation, Bogota, Colombia
- Mahidol University (TH)
- Venue
- Global Health Promotion
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4_suppl
- Pages
- 6-19
- ISSN
- 1757-9759 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-9767
- OpenAlex
- W2167750914
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 4.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Global Health Promotion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
- Keywords
- non-communicable diseases, health advocacy, capacity building, advocacy competencies, low- and middle-income countries, stakeholder engagement, health policy implementation, political will
- MeSH terms
- Chronic Disease, Colombia, Community Participation, Developing Countries, Health Policy, Humans, International Cooperation, Politics, Thailand, Program Evaluation, Evidence-Based Medicine, Organizational Case Studies, Information Dissemination, Biomedical Research, Capacity Building
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review