Contexte : Les injustices épistémiques sont de plus en plus décriées dans le domaine de la santé mondiale. Cette étude vise à déterminer si la source des connaissances influence la perception de ces connaissances et la volonté de les utiliser.
Méthodes : L’étude suit un devis expérimental randomisé dans lequel les participant·es ont été assigné·es au hasard à l'une des sept notes de politique conçues avec le même contenu scientifique, mais avec différentes organisations présentées comme autrices. Chaque organisation était représentative d'une autorité financière, scientifique ou morale. Pour chaque type d'autorité, deux organisations étaient proposées : l'une nord-américaine ou européenne, l'autre africaine.
Résultats : Les résultats montrent que le type d’autorité et la localisation des organisations autrices ne sont pas significativement associés à la qualité perçue et à l’utilisation instrumentale déclarée. Toutefois, des interactions entre le type d’autorité et la localisation étaient significatives. Ainsi, les analyses stratifiées ont mis en évidence que pour la qualité perçue, les notes de politique signées par l'organisme bailleur (autorité financière) africain obtenaient de meilleurs scores que les notes de politique signées par l’organisme bailleur nord-américain/européen. Tant pour la qualité perçue que pour l'utilisation instrumentale déclarée, ces analyses stratifiées ont révélé que les notes de politique signées par l'université africaine (autorité scientifique) étaient associées à des scores plus faibles que les notes de politique signées par l'université nord-américaine/européenne.
Interprétation : Les résultats confirment l'influence significative des sources sur la perception des connaissances en santé mondiale et rappellent l’intersectionnalité de l’influence des sources d’autorité. Cette analyse nous permet à la fois d'en apprendre davantage sur les organisations qui dominent la scène de la gouvernance mondiale en santé et de réfléchir aux implications pour les pratiques d'application des connaissances.

Efficiency within the health system is well recognised as key for achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). However, achieving equity and efficiency simultaneously is often seen as a conflicting effort. Using 12 years of data (2003–2014) from the selection of a number of low- and lower middle-income countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Indonesia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Tajikistan, Togo, Uzbekistan and Yemen Republic), we compute an index of Universal health coverage (UHC), measure the health system’s performance (HSp) and, finally, investigate the cross-dynamics of the resulting HSp and the UHC previously obtained. We find that, with the few exceptions over the statistical sample, the causality between performances of the national health system and the universal health coverage is typically bidirectional. From an empirical standpoint, our findings challenge the idea from economic orthodoxy that efficiency must precede equity in healthcare services. Rather, our findings support the view of simultaneous efforts to improve expansion of the coverage and efficiency of the health system, directing attention towards the importance of organisation of the health system in the country context.

The public acceptability of a policy is an important issue in democracies, in particular for anti-COVID-19 policies, which require the adherence of the population to be applicable and efficient. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) can help elicit preference ranking among various policies for the whole population and subgroups. Using a representative sample of the French population, we apply DCE methods to assess the acceptability of various anti-COVID-19 measures, separately and as a package. Owing to the methods, we determine the extent to which acceptability depends on personal characteristics: political orientation, health vulnerability, or age. The young population differs in terms of policy preferences and their claim for monetary compensation, suggesting a tailored policy for them. The paper provides key methodological tools based on microeconomic evaluation of individuals’ preferences for improving the design of public health policies.

Background:
Epistemic injustices are increasingly decried in global health. This study aims to investigate whether the source of knowledge influences the perception of that knowledge and the willingness to use it in francophone African health policy-making context.
Methods:
The study followed a randomized experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to one of seven policy briefs that were designed with the same scientific content but with different organizations presented as authors. Each organization was representative of financial, scientific or moral authority. For each type of authority, two organizations were proposed: one North American or European, and the other African.
Results:
The initial models showed that there was no significant association between the type of authority or the location of the authoring organization and the two outcomes (perceived quality and reported instrumental use). Stratified analyses highlighted that policy briefs signed by the African donor organization (financial authority) were perceived to be of higher quality than policy briefs signed by the North American/European donor organization. For both perceived quality and reported instrumental use, these analyses found that policy briefs signed by the African university (scientific authority) were associated with lower scores than policy briefs signed by the North American/European university.
Conclusions:
The results confirm the significant influence of sources on perceived global health knowledge and the intersectionality of sources of influence. This analysis allows us to learn more about organizations in global health leadership, and to reflect on the implications for knowledge translation practices.