Many health leaders are highly analytical, adaptive learners who thrive on solving complex problems in dynamic, real-world contexts.

Their expertise is grounded in years of field experience, where they have honed their ability to rapidly generate insights, test ideas, and innovate solutions in collaboration with diverse stakeholders.

In January 2021, as countries were beginning to introduce new COVID-19 vaccines, Kate O’Brien, who leads WHO’s immunization efforts, connected global learning to local action:

“For COVID-19 vaccines […] there are just too many lessons that are being learned, especially according to different vaccine platforms, different communities of prioritization that need to be vaccinated. So [everyone]  has got to be able to scale, has got to be able to deal with complexity, has got to be able to do personal, local innovation to actually overcome the challenges.”

https://youtube.com/live/uvv-g0lXy4c

In an Insights Live session with the Geneva Learning Foundation in 2022, she made a compelling case that “the people who are working in the program at that most local level have to be able to adapt, to be agile, to innovate things that will work in that particular setting, with those leaders in the community, with those families.”

https://youtube.com/live/nCB20y49hBI

However, unlike Kate O’Brien, some senior leaders in global health disconnect their own learning practices and their assumptions about how others learn best.

When it comes to designing learning initiatives for their teams or organizations, these leaders may default to a more simplistic, behaviorist approach.

They may equate learning with the acquisition and application of specific skills or knowledge, and thus focus on creating structured, content-driven training programs.

The appeal of behaviorist platforms – with their promise of efficient, scalable delivery and easily measured outcomes – can be seductive in the resource-constrained, results-driven world of global health.

Furthermore, leaders may hold assumptions that health workers – especially those at the community level – do not require higher-order critical thinking skills, that they simply need a predetermined set of knowledge and procedures.

This view is fundamentally misguided.

A robust body of scientific evidence on learning culture and performance demonstrates that the most effective organizations are those that foster continuous learning, critical reflection, and adaptive problem-solving at all levels.

Health workers at the frontlines face complex, unpredictable challenges that demand situational judgment, creative thinking, and the ability to learn from experience.

Failing to cultivate these capacities not only underestimates the potential of these health workers, but it also constrains the performance and resilience of health systems as a whole.

The problem is that this approach fails to cultivate the very qualities that make these leaders effective learners and problem-solvers.

Behaviorist techniques, with their emphasis on passive information absorption and narrow, pre-defined outcomes, do not foster the critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative capacity needed to tackle complex health challenges.

They may produce short-term gains in narrow domains, but they cannot develop the adaptive expertise required for long-term impact in ever-shifting contexts.

To help health leaders recognize this disconnect, it is useful to engage them in reflective dialogue about their own learning processes.

By unpacking real-world examples of how they have solved thorny problems or generated novel insights, we can highlight the sophisticated cognitive strategies and collaborative dynamics at play.

We can show how they constantly question assumptions, synthesize diverse perspectives, and iterate solutions – all skills that are essential for navigating complexity, but are poorly served by rigid, content-focused training.

The goal is not to dismiss the need for foundational knowledge or skills, but rather to emphasize that in the face of evolving challenges, adaptive learning capacity is the real differentiator.

It is the ability to think critically, to imagine new possibilities, to learn from failure, and to co-create with others that drives meaningful change.

By tying this insight directly to leaders’ own experiences and values, we can inspire them to champion learning approaches that mirror the richness and dynamism of their personal growth journeys.

Ultimately, the most impactful health organizations will be those that not only equip people with essential skills, but that also nurture the underlying cognitive and collaborative capacities needed to continually learn, adapt, and innovate.

By recognizing and leveraging the powerful learning practices they themselves embody, health leaders can shape organizational cultures and strategies that truly empower people to navigate complexity and drive transformative change.

This shift requires letting go of the illusion of control and predictability that behaviorism offers, and instead embracing the messiness and uncertainty of real learning.

It means creating space for experimentation, reflection, and dialogue, and trusting in people’s inherent capacity to grow and create.

It is a challenging transition, but one that health leaders are uniquely positioned to lead – if they can bridge the gap between how they learn and how they seek to enable others’ learning.

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Share this:

https://redasadki.me/2024/06/30/why-health-leaders-who-are-critical-thinkers-choose-rote-learning-for-others/

#adaptiveLearning #coCreation #criticalThinking #healthLearning #immunization #ImmunizationAgenda2030 #KateOBrien #leadership #learningCulture #learningStrategy #peerLearning

Bevor Sie zu YouTube weitergehen

50 years of the Expanded Programme on Immunization

In two articles published during the fiftieth year of the World Health Organization’s Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), Samarasekera and Shattock provide valuable insights into EPI’s remarkable impact on reducing childhood mortality and morbidity since its launch in 1974.

Shattock et al. present a detailed quantitative analysis of the lives saved and health gains attributed to vaccination.

They estimate that “since 1974, vaccination has averted 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children younger than 5 years of whom 101 million were infants younger than 1 year.” 

The authors further emphasize the long-term benefits of vaccination, noting that “for every death averted, 66 years of full health were gained on average, translating to 10.2 billion years of full health gained.”

These findings underscore the transformative impact of the Expanded Programme on Immunization on global health outcomes.

Bill Moss of the International Vaccines Access Center (IVAC) calls this “one of humankind’s greatest achievements”.

Inherent uncertainties based on the modeling approaches, data limitations and gaps, and challenges in attributing causality over a 50-year time horizon do not diminish their significance.

Fresh challenges

Samarasekera highlights several fresh challenges as EPI moves into its next 50 years:

  • COVID-19 pandemic disruptions: The pandemic has led to 67 million children globally missing out on one or more vaccines. This has resulted in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, with measles outbreaks being reported in twice as many countries in 2023 compared to 2022. Due to pandemic disruption, many unimmunized children are now older than 2 years, requiring new approaches to reach them and prevent further outbreaks.
  • Sustainable funding: Countries are facing challenges in sustaining funding for immunization programs due to debt crises, conflicts, and climate change.
  • Improving collaboration during emergencies: There is a need for quicker access to vaccines and better coordination among stakeholders during humanitarian crises and outbreaks.
  • Reaching the “last child”: Challenges persist in reaching children in conflict areas, active war zones, and those facing humanitarian crises, with immunization coverage in these settings being as low as 50-60%.
  • While both articles recognize the urgent need to address these setbacks and reach underserved populations, they tend to emphasize the role of global agencies and donors in driving progress.

    For example, Samarasekera highlights the importance of initiatives like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which was established in 2000 “to close the equity gap in access to vaccines,” and the Accelerated Development and Introduction Plans, which “expedited vaccine introduction in Gavi-supported countries.”

    While global plans and funding have been – and remain – undoubtedly crucial, this begs three questions:

    How to carry out such coordinated action and advocacy?

    Who will do it?

    What, if anything, should be different, compared to what was done in the past?

    Can we assume deployment?

    Both articles acknowledge that today’s challenges are different, and that immunization strategies should be grounded in local realities.

    Samarasekera’s report suggests exploring ideas such as involving community health workers more effectively, introducing newly approved vaccines (e.g., for malaria), and innovating vaccine delivery methods (e.g., microarray patches, single-dose vaccines).

    Ephrem T. Lemango, for example, emphasizes the role of health workers : “They are the most trusted source of information” for communities. “If we can skill these community health workers to vaccinate, provide them the required vaccines, then the likelihood of reaching the last child could be much more imminent”.

    Samarasekera also quotes O’Brien, who stresses that “every government that has had backsliding needs a plan, and most governments have made a plan and are starting to deploy. We have a very narrow window to get this completed.” 

    Neither article delves deeply into the specific strategies or mechanisms that connect global policy and funding to local action.

    Can “deployment” be assumed?

    There is wide recognition that local adaptation is a key challenge.

    This is most obvious in zones of armed conflict or when faced with the breakdown of trust in vaccines or government

    At the end of the day, it is health workers at the local levels that get the job of vaccination done.

    They are also the first to see epidemic outbreaks and to recognize changes in community trust.

    Does the future of vaccination require new ways of thinking and doing to adapt or invent strategies to lead to improved, sustained health outcomes?

    Global advocacy for community health workers to be paid is undeniably important.

    But paid to do what, how, and with what degree of recognition and support of their capacities, leadership, and expertise?

    This is where learning from the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) may offer useful insights that complement the top-down, global-level efforts emphasized in the articles.

    What is the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030)?

    Launched by the Geneva Learning Foundation in March 2022, the Movement is a global network of over 10,000 health workers from 99 countries who have pledged to work together to achieve the goals of the Immunization Agenda 2030, the global strategy adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2020.

    Through peer learning and locally-led action, IA2030 members are sharing experiences, identifying root causes of immunization challenges, and implementing corrective actions tailored to their specific contexts.

    What does that actually mean?

    Wasnam Faye, a Senegalese midwife, moved the needle of vaccination coverage in a poor-performing remote health outpost from 8% to over 80%.

    How did she do it?

    At Teach to Reach, she met a doctor from the Democratic Republic of Congo who shared his EPI know-how with her, over WhatsApp.

    She then invited and trained caregivers to become peer educators, also building on what she heard at Teach to Reach.

    She then realized that she could speak about HPV vaccination for their daughters to mothers who came for cervical cancer screening.

    In global health, individual case studies and lived experience are often dismissed as anecdotal evidence.

    Each edition of Teach to Reach connects over 15,000 health workers, who share experience around their local challenges.

    At that scale, the cumulative insights gained take us beyond anecdotes and enable us to document how change happens at the local levels.

    Watch: Teach to Reach Insights Live with Orin Levine

    Rethinking immunization’s learning culture: Capacity for change, innovation, and risk

    To catch up and achieve the goals set for 2030, these articles suggest that a combination of increased funding, political commitment, and innovative strategies will be needed.

    It is important to recognize that top-down control and directive management appear to have been key to how immunization programmes achieved impressive results in previous decades.

    This explains why some EPI stakeholders may have an innovation challenge: why risk making changes or consider new models? 

    Addressing these underlying issues may require strengthening learning culture.

    Learning culture” is a new concept in global health that provides the missing link between learning and performance.

    It measures the capacity for change and the leadership to recognize and support that capacity over time.

    That requires sustained financing, including specific funding required to test and scale new models and approaches. 

    But who will risk funding new ways to tackle the challenges facing immunization programs, such as weak health systems, inadequate infrastructure, and community trust?

    References

    Faye, W., Jones, I., Mbuh, C., & Sadki, R. (2023). Wasnam Faye. Vaccine angels – Give us the opportunity and we can perform miracles. (IA2030 Case study 18) (1.0). The Geneva Learning Foundation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7785244

    Jones, I., Eller, K., Mbuh, C., Steed, I., & Sadki, R. (2024). Making connections at Teach to Reach 8 (IA2030 Listening and Learning Report 6) (1.0). Teach to Reach: Connect 8, Geneva, Switzerland. The Geneva Learning Foundation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8398550

    Jones, I., Sadki, R., Brooks, A., Gasse, F., Mbuh, C., Zha, M., Steed, I., Sequeira, J., Churchill, S., & Kovanovic, V. (2022). IA2030 Movement Year 1 report. Consultative engagement through a digitally enabled peer learning platform (1.0). The Geneva Learning Foundation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7119648

    Samarasekera, U., 2024. 50 years of the Expanded Programme on Immunization. The Lancet 403, 1971–1972. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01016-X

    Shattock, A.J., et al. Contribution of vaccination to improved survival and health: modelling 50 years of the Expanded Programme on Immunization. The Lancet S014067362400850X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00850-X

    Share this:

    #AndrewJShattock #BillMoss #COVID19Pandemic #EphremTLemango #EPI #ExpandedProgrammeOnImmunization #globalHealthOutcomes #IA2030 #KateOBrien #MovementForImmunizationAgenda2030 #UdaniSamarasekera #vaccination

    Zero-Dose Learning Hub (ZDLH) Archives

    Learning to make a difference

    Reda Sadki
    The Distance of Irish Modernism

    The Distance of Irish Modernism interrogates the paradox through which Irish modernist fictions have become containers for national and transnational histories…

    Bloomsbury