@article{fdi:010074323,
  title = {{H}ow {B}urkina {F}aso used evidence in deciding to launch its policy of free healthcare for children under five and women in 2016},
  author = {{R}idde, {V}al{\'e}ry and {Y}ameogo, {P}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{I}n {M}arch 2016, the newly elected government of {B}urkina {F}aso decided on a major change in health financing policy: it abolished direct payment for healthcare for women and children under five. {U}nlike other countries in {A}frica, this decision took a long time, given that the first pilot projects for this policy instrument date from 2008. {T}his article describes that political process and presents a reflexive analysis by two authors who were at the heart of events between 2008 and 2018. {T}he analysis shows that, while the decision took a long time and certainly amounted to a policy paradigm shift, it was the result of a complex series of events and activities whose specific contributions are difficult to identify. {C}rucial to the decision was long-term funding of pilot projects to test the new policy instrument, associated with the generation of evidence mobilised through a myriad of knowledge transfer activities. {M}oreover, it took the continued mobilisation of advocacy coalitions, action to counter preconceived notions about this instrument, and the emergence of an essential window of opportunity-the 2014 popular uprising-for the decision to be possible. {I}n this discussion, we generalise to the conceptual and theoretical levels, but also share practical lessons learned for those interested in engaging in evidence-informed decision-making. {T}he main lessons are: recruit, train, and mobilise people and/or services responsible for knowledge transfer activities; identify and partner with political entrepreneurs early and regularly; be persistent and consistent in producing rigorous and useful knowledge; favour independent evaluation teams using mixed methods; train researchers in policy decision-making processes and decision-makers in knowledge production issues; adapt (content, format, vocabulary, language, etc.) the evidence to the needs of the knowledge users in close collaboration with researchers and disseminate it to target audiences; understand the sometimes different logics of researchers and decision-makers and encourage their interaction; to seize opportunities, regularly analyse the political decision-making processes specific to the national context as well as the social and political contexts favourable (or not) to decision-making.},
  keywords = {{BURKINA} {FASO}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{P}algrave {C}ommunications},
  volume = {4},
  numero = {},
  pages = {art. 119 [9 ]},
  ISSN = {2055-1045},
  year = {2018},
  DOI = {10.1057/s41599-018-0173-x},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010074323},
}