The Communication Initiative
Development action with informed and engaged societies
The Communication Initiative
As of March 15 2025, The Communication Initiative (The CI) platform is operating at a reduced level, with no new content being posted to the global website and registration/login functions disabled. (La Iniciativa de Comunicación, or CILA, will keep running.) While many interactive functions are no longer available, The CI platform remains open for public use, with all content accessible and searchable until the end of 2025. 

Please note that some links within our knowledge summaries may be broken due to changes in external websites. The denial of access to the USAID website has, for instance, left many links broken. We can only hope that these valuable resources will be made available again soon. In the meantime, our summaries may help you by gleaning key insights from those resources. 

A heartfelt thank you to our network for your support and the invaluable work you do.
Time to read
5 minutes
Print
a- a+
Read so far

Programme updates and discussion - SBCC Summit 18 Secretariat

4 comments

This is the space for the SBCC Summit 18 Secretariat to address issues related to the development and agremeent of the Programme for the Summit

Comments

Submitted by cmorry on Wed, 09/13/2017 - 12:43 Permalink

Hi Everyone

We have established some discussion spaces which bring together the documents and threads in one space.   I'm sure Warren will walk you through it very soon.  

As a way of getting it up and running and as I will be off tomorrow and not able to join the call I thought I'd send off an inaugural note to the programme committee with a few thoughts that might fit with other's thinking.  If not, feel free to ignore them!

I wondered if we should consider using the coming week or so to firm up membership in both the programme and academic committees with the Secretariat call next week being a final moment to confirm at least the core of this group.  There is an initial list in the Aug 31 sub-committee document https://www.comminit.com/global/content/sub-committee-organisation-sbcc… but it needs some firming up.

I also wondered if a way of getting the discussion on programme going could be to use the programme structure from the Ethiopia conference as a skeleton which we can use as a starting point for thinking through the various elements from plenaries to discussion streams to poster presentations to ....  Sue's recently AIDS conference Chair role may offer other/better approaches but for me these things often feel like a rubics cube and a structure might help to frame at least our initial discussions.

Just a few thoughts to get this group up and running.  I'm very much looking forward to working on this with everyone.

Cheers

Chris

Submitted by cmorry on Sat, 09/23/2017 - 11:08 Permalink

Hi Everyone

As we discussed in the last Sec mtg I will be coming through Baltimore Sep 26 to 28.  I am participating in Core Group Polio Project meetings but am available on the 26th after 12 noon and anytime on the 27th.  Lebo sent a note saying Sep 26 worked for her and if she is still available we could organise a call with Secretariat members of the programme committee.  I can come to JHU offices to join the call from there.

From the Aug 31 list https://www.comminit.com/global/content/sub-committee-organisation-sbcc… we had listed the following membership from the Secretariat (though it is not clear if this is final/accurate or not):

Chair: SC (Lebo)

CI (Chris), CCP (Doug & Caroline); UNICEF (Diane), Sonali Khan, someone from BBCMA

Would it be possible to organise a call on Sep 26 around 12:30 DC time (17:30 in the UK, 18:00 in SA and 22:00 in India) or Sep 27 anytime (at least in terms of my availability).

As Sue noted in the last Sec call we can start with this group and hammer out membership needs and the best way forward for pulling together a draft programme that the Sec can review.

Let me know if this makes sense and if people are available.

Cheers

Chris

Submitted by Warren Feek on Thu, 10/12/2017 - 11:52 Permalink

Hi - as promised a quick note expanding on the suggestion this morning? 

The overriding theme of the Summit is What Works? The three major international orgs on the Secretariat have over the past 10-20 years been amongst the most active and best resourced for evaluation and research on social and behaviour change, communication and media (for) development. On a back of the envelope calculation maybe USD 50 million over the past 10 years? (Check - more?) Soul City has played a very prominent research role albeit with a much lower resource base. The CI has been a bit-part player at best (though pleae do look for the soon to be published paper in Vaccine!).

So, I wondered on my beach walk with Richie the dog (named after the greatest rugby player of all time of course!) how we could translate that capacity and the results that flowed from the research undertaken into a "product" that would give the Summit a very substantive boost - perhaps provide a sharp edge into the What Works Q. There was an assumption that each of the Secretariat orgs would submit something to the Abstracts process. But could we so something more, something together, in order to provide that coherent "boost"? 

Let me suggest the following as the basis for a discussion about the way forward.

That there is one person from each of the Secretariat orgs tasked with the following:

Identify, from the research work of the past 20 years undertaken by the 4 Secretariat orgs most active on research and evaluation, the 10 (or 15 or 20) most compelling and defendable (rigorous and reliable methodology) research results demonstrating the direct impact of a social and behavioural change, communication and media development initiative or dynamic on a specified development issue. 

A set of selection criteria would need to be agreed - for example:

1. There must be a social and behaviour change, communication and media (for) development strategy or dynamic (eg impact of social media spread) "in play".

2. The results need to demonstrate impact on a particular, specified development issue or issues with the ability to state and locate those issues within an SDG or SDGs.

3. The research must be published in a peer-reviewed journal - and ideally in a peer reviewed journal that is (a) a leader in its field and (b) not a communication, media, social or behaviour chnage specific journal (so it has been reviewed by people not centrally involved in our field of work). 

One further quick note in explanation. A reason for suggesting this collective approach is that it will ensure a rigorous peer critique process that will considerably improve the "product" that results. 

I would suggest that that product is no more than 5 pages - strictly enforced. It would need to be really tightly written and thoroughly edited. 

Though I have some ideas about how this product could be used these are probably best left for when we see the results. 

Thanks for considering - W

Hi - as this was mentioned above just a quick update that the peer reviewed jorunal paper has been published in Vaccines online and will soon be in the hard copy version. Below for your eyes only (as the full study is published in a fee for access journal) is a very quick and brief summary of some elements of the research and results. Interested people will be able to access the full paper at the link here and below. Perhaps this also provides an example of what is outlined above. I am sure that UNICEF, BBC MA and JHU CCP all have many peer reviewed journal papers along with the peer reviewed journal papers from SCIfSJ. Look forward to returning to this prep theme for the Summit - Warren

Understanding vaccine hesitancy in polio eradication in northern Nigeria.
 

This study is based on a purposive sampling survey of 1,653 households in high and low-performing (relative to vaccine hesitancy) rural, semiurban and urban areas of three high-risk states of northern Nigeria in 2013–14 (Sokoto, Kano and Bauchi). Variables relating to particular household dimensions (e.g. ‘asset wealth’, ‘health experience’, ‘vaccine knowledge’, ‘intensity of religious observation’, ‘trust in government’, ‘community participation’) were grouped to define a number of discrete, mutually exclusive indices. These could then be compared between the high and low performing areas.

Just a very few results as examples but obviously recommend that you access and review the full paper with its considerable data and analysis:

Approval of polio vaccination reduced risk of [Oral Polio Vaccine] refusal;

Higher vaccine knowledge … was associated with lower risk of vaccine refusal;

… little evidence that ethnicity, religious identity or measures of religious observation were directly associated with propensity to refuse Oral Polio Vaccine;

Very high-risk (VHR) settlements reported systematically greater trust in government

… VHR communities manifested systematically lower levels of self-efficacy in terms of faith in government attentiveness or confidence in their ability to effect improvement in circumstances

… households in very high risk settlements reported systematically lower levels of confidence in their ability to influence either local or state-level government

Women in very low-risk settlements were considerably more likely to have participated in community meetings, regardless of type of meeting

Please access the full paper at this link: Understanding vaccine hesitancy in polio eradication in northern Nigeria