The Nigeria Immunization Collaborative what happened after just two weeks

The Nigeria Immunization Collaborative: Early learning from a novel sector-wide approach model for zero-dose challenges

Global health

Less than three weeks after its launch, the Nigeria Immunization Collaborative – a partnership between the Geneva Learning Foundation, the National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA), and UNICEF – has already connected over 4,000 participants from all 36 states and more than 300 Local Government Areas (LGAs).

The Collaborative is part of the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030).

In the Collaborative’s first peer learning exercise that concluded on 6 August 2024, over 600 participants conducted root cause analyses of immunization barriers in their communities.

Participants engaged in a two-week intensive process of analyzing immunization challenges, conducting root cause analyses, and developing actionable plans to address these issues.

They did this without having to stop their daily work or travel, a key characteristic of The Geneva Learning Foundation’s model to support work-based learning.

Watch the General Assembly of the Nigeria Immunization Collaborative on 6 August 2024

What are health workers saying about the Collaborative?

For Mariam Mustapha, a participant from Kano State, the Collaborative is “multiple individuals that perform a task”, united around a shared purpose.

She highlighted the importance of engaging with community members, noting, “These people from the community, most of them, they don’t have enough knowledge or they are receiving misinformation about immunization and vaccines.”

The peer learning exercise employed a structured approach, asking participants to explain their immunization challenge, conduct a “5 Whys” analysis to identify root causes, and develop actionable plans within their scope of work.

How does the Collaborative help health workers?

This method proved enlightening for many participants.

John Emmanuel, a community health worker from Bauchi State, shared his experience: “I just discovered that over the years, I have been superficial in my approach. I’ve been one sided. I’ve been actually peripheral in my approach. So during the root cause analysis, I was able to identify the broader perspective of identifying the challenge and then fixing it as it affects my job here in the community.”

The Collaborative also fostered connections between health workers across different regions of Nigeria.

Mohammed Nasir Umar, a JSI HPV program associate in Zamfara State, noted the value of this cross-pollination of ideas: “The root cause analysis really widened my horizon on how I think around the challenges. The ‘5 Whys’ techniques approach was really, really helpful.”

Participants identified a range of immunization challenges, including vaccine hesitancy, lack of information and awareness, sociocultural and religious factors, reaching zero-dose children, incomplete immunization, healthcare worker issues, logistical challenges, political interference, poor documentation, and community trust issues.

But then each one started asking ‘why’, stopping only once they found a root cause that they are in a position to do something about.

Esther Sharma, working with NPHCDA in a local government area, identified a critical issue in her facility: “The reason why people turn out low for immunization is because there are no health workers in the facilities to attend to them when they get here.”

Her solution involves ensuring consistent staffing during immunization days, which should encourage more community members to seek vaccination services.

How are new stakeholders participating in the Collaborative?

The Collaborative also welcomed participation from organizations not traditionally involved in immunization services.

Angela Emmanuel, a nurse and founder of the Emmanuel Cancer Foundation in Lagos, found value in the exercise for her work on HPV vaccination and cancer prevention.

She emphasized the need for a more educational approach: “Our motive should be education. Our motive should be the awareness, not just asking them to take this vaccine.”

Chijioke Kaduru, a public health physician who served as a Guide for the Collaborative, reflected: “While some of these challenges are similar in many settings, the local context and the nuances that shape these challenges clearly make them a good opportunity to engage, to interact, to understand them better, and to start to also see the ideas that colleagues have about how to solve those problems.”

By connecting frontline health workers, fostering critical thinking, and encouraging the development of locally-tailored solutions, the Nigeria Immunization Collaborative represents a potentially scalable model for strengthening health systems and improving immunization coverage.

As the exercise concludes, participants are poised to implement their action plans in their respective communities.

How are government workers participating in the Collaborative?

A key focus of the final session was the presentation of root cause analyses by government workers from the Federal and State Primary Health Care Development Agencies.

These presentations provided valuable insights into the challenges faced at various levels of the health system and the innovative solutions being developed.

Maimuna Tata, a deputy in-charge at a health facility in Bunkura local government area of Kano State, presented her analysis of why routine immunization sessions were not being conducted at her facility.

Through her “5 Whys” analysis, she uncovered a systemic issue: “The health facility is newly built and was commissioned after the 2024 micro plan exercise and needs to undergo several processes for provision of routine immunization.”

Tata’s proposed solution demonstrated the kind of innovative thinking the Collaborative aimed to foster: “Instead of them coming for outreach session in the settlement, I think the vaccine should be channeled to the health facility so that the health facility can conduct the sessions. And at the end of the day, we will now be submitting our reports to the health facility, that is the model health facility, pending the time the health facility will be recorded or will be updated in the server.”

Esther Sharma, working with NPHCDA in a local government area, identified a critical staffing issue: “The reason why people turn out low for immunization is because there are no health workers in the facilities to attend to them when they get here. I am the routine immuunization focal person where I currently work and when I went there newly, I asked a lot of people, why don’t they come to the hospital for immunization? And they said when they come, they don’t find anybody to attend to them.”

Her solution involves ensuring consistent staffing during immunization days, which she reported has already encouraged more community members to seek vaccination services.

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

7 take-aways from Nigeria’s first Immunization Collaborative peer learning exercise

7 take-aways from Nigeria’s first Immunization Collaborative peer learning exercise

Writing

On August 6, 2024, the Nigeria Immunization Agenda 2030 Collaborative concluded its first peer learning exercise with a final Assembly.

This groundbreaking initiative, a partnership between The Geneva Learning Foundation, Nigeria’s National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA), and UNICEF, has already engaged over 4,400 health workers from all 36 States and more than 300 Local Government Areas (LGAs) across Nigeria.

The Collaborative’s innovative approach focuses on empowering health workers to identify root causes of local immunization challenges and develop practical, context-specific solutions.

As the initiative continues to grow, with new members joining daily, it could help shift how Nigeria approaches immunization capacity building and problem-solving.

Right after the final Assembly on 6 August 2024, Nigeria immunization specialist Jenny Sequeira and The Geneva Learning Foundation’s deputy director Charlotte Mbuh shared their initial thoughts about the exercise.

Here are 7 key takeaways from their discussion.

1. Critical Thinking Evolution: Participants made significant progress in their analytical skills, moving from vague problem statements to nuanced understanding of local immunization challenges. The “5 Whys” technique proved particularly effective.

2. Power of Peer Review: The structured, time-bound peer review process emerged as a practical learning tool, fostering self-reflection and exposing participants to diverse perspectives.

3. Leveling the Playing Field: The Collaborative created an environment where hierarchies dissolved, enabling workers from the local levels to engage laterally with state and national-level participants.

4. Focus on Actionable Solutions: Participants were encouraged to identify root causes within their control, promoting practical, context-specific solutions.

5. Importance of Community Engagement: The process highlighted the crucial role of engaging communities and addressing barriers to improve vaccine uptake.

6. Emphasis on Implementation: While the RCA exercise was valuable, leaders stressed the critical need for follow-through and implementation of proposed solutions.

7. Cross-Sector Collaboration: The collaborative saw participation from diverse stakeholders, including government agencies, civil society organizations, and private sector entities.

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Experience-sharing sessions in the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030- A novel approach to localize global health collaboration

Experience-sharing sessions in the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030: A novel approach to localize global health collaboration

Global health

As immunization programs worldwide struggle to recover from pandemic disruptions, the Movement for Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030) offers a novel, practitioner-led approach to accelerate progress towards global vaccination goals.

From March to June 2022, the Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF) conducted the first Full Learning Cycle (FLC) of the Movement for IA2030, engaging 6,185 health professionals from low- and middle-income countries.

A cornerstone of this programme was a series of 44 experience-sharing sessions held between 7 March and 13 June 2022. These sessions brought together between 20 and 400 practitioners per session to discuss and solve real-world immunization challenges.

IA2030 case study 16, by Charlotte Mbuh and François Gasse, offers valuable insights from these experience-sharing session:

  1. what we learned from the experiences themselves and how it can help practitioners; and
  2. what we learned about the significance and potential of the peer learning process itself.

Download the full case study: IA2030 Case study 16. Continuum from knowledge to performance. The Geneva Learning Foundation.

For every challenge shared during the experience sharing sessions, there was always at least one member who had encountered or was encountering the same challenge and had carried out measures to resolve it.

These sessions provided a space to share practical stories that are making a difference – and supported participants in considering their relevance to their own situations.

Experience sharing also helped build confidence and motivation.

Members were able to identify with experiences shared, realizing they were not alone in facing similar challenges.

The sessions covered a wide range of critical immunization topics.

For instance, a participant from Nigeria discussed strategies for reaching zero-dose children in Borno state.

Facing the challenge of reaching approximately 600,000 unvaccinated children, the presenter received practical suggestions from peers, including developing a zero-dose reduction operational plan, leveraging new vaccine introductions, and partnering with the private sector for evening vaccination services.

In another session, a subnational Ministry of Health staff member from Côte d’Ivoire presented challenges related to cross-border immunization campaigns.

Peers shared experiences of organizing cross-border meetings to identify unvaccinated children, synchronize efforts, and involve community representatives in the process.

Such context-specific, experience-based advice exemplifies the unique value of peer learning in addressing complex health system challenges.

The case study of 44 sessions highlights how these sessions fostered multiple types of learning simultaneously.

Participants reported learning from each other’s experiences, experiencing the power of solving problems together across distances, feeling a growing sense of belonging to a community, and connecting across country borders and health system levels.

A district-level Ministry of Health staff member from Ghana encapsulated the impact: “I have linked up with expert vaccinators worldwide through experience sharing and twinning. I have become more competent and knowledgeable in the area of immunization, and work confidently.”

This sentiment was echoed by many participants who found value not only in acquiring new knowledge but also in expanding their professional networks and gaining confidence in their problem-solving abilities.

The case study also reveals the adaptability of the approach in responding to unique contexts.

This resilience underscores the potential of digital platforms to democratize access to expertise and foster global collaboration.

However, the study also identifies areas for improvement.

  • Participants expressed a desire for more follow-up support and opportunities to continue their peer learning groups beyond the initial sessions.
  • Additionally, the need for better integration of community engagement strategies was identified as a key area for future development.

To contextualize these findings, we can turn to a 2022 study by Watkins et al., which evaluated a prototype of these experience-sharing sessions known as Immunization Training Challenge Hackathons (ITCH), conducted in 2020.

The ITCH methodology, developed by The Geneva Learning Foundation (TGLF), informed the design of the 2022 IA2030 Movement sessions.

Watkins et al. found that the ITCH approach fostered four simultaneous types of learning: peer, remote, social, and networked.

  1. Peer Learning: This involves participants learning directly from each other’s experiences and knowledge. In the context of immunization, imagine a scenario where a vaccination program manager from rural India shares their successful strategy for improving vaccine cold chain management with a colleague facing similar challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. This direct exchange of practical, context-specific knowledge can complement more theoretical training, as it is based on real-world application.
  2. Remote Learning: This refers to the ability to learn and solve problems collaboratively across geographical distances. For an immunization specialist, this might seem counterintuitive, as many believe that hands-on, in-person training is essential. However, the ITCH sessions demonstrated that meaningful learning can occur remotely. For example, a team in Bangladesh could describe their approach to overcoming vaccine hesitancy, and a team in Nigeria could immediately adapt and apply those strategies to their local context, all without the need for costly and time-consuming travel.
  3. Social Learning: This concept emphasizes the importance of learning within a network. In the immunization field, professionals often work in isolation, especially at sub-national levels. The ITCH sessions created a sense of belonging to a global network, community, and platform of immunization practitioners. This social aspect can boost motivation, reduce feelings of isolation, and foster a collective approach to problem-solving that transcends individual or even national boundaries.
  4. Networked Learning: This type of learning emerges from connections made across different levels of health systems and across country borders. For an epidemiologist, this might be analogous to how disease surveillance networks function across borders. In the ITCH context, it means that a district-level immunization officer could learn from and share ideas with national-level policymakers from other countries, fostering a more holistic understanding of immunization challenges and solutions.

These four types of learning operate simultaneously during ITCH sessions, creating a synergistic effect. 

For instance, a participant might learn a new cold chain management technique (peer learning) from a colleague in another country (remote learning), feel supported by the global community in implementing this new technique (social learning), and then share their adaptation of this technique with others across various levels of the health system (networked learning).

From an epidemiological perspective, this approach to learning could be compared to how we understand disease transmission and intervention effectiveness.

Just as multiple factors contribute to disease spread and control, these multiple learning types contribute to knowledge dissemination and capacity building in the immunization field.

The value of this approach lies in its potential to rapidly disseminate practical, context-specific knowledge and solutions across a global network of immunization professionals.

This can lead to faster adoption of best practices, more innovative problem-solving, and ultimately, improvements in immunization program performance that could contribute to better disease control outcomes.

While this approach may seem unconventional compared to traditional training methods in the immunization field, the evidence presented by Watkins et al. suggests that it can be a powerful complement to existing capacity-building efforts, particularly in resource-constrained settings where access to formal training opportunities may be limited.

This multifaceted approach allowed participants to not only acquire new knowledge but also to expand their professional networks and gain confidence in their problem-solving abilities—findings that align closely with the outcomes observed in the 2022 IA2030 Movement sessions.

The Watkins study emphasized the importance of building confidence and motivation through peer learning experiences, a theme strongly echoed in the Mbuh case study.

Furthermore, Watkins et al. highlighted the potential of this approach to create a “space of possibility” for innovation and problem-solving, which is evident in the diverse and creative solutions shared during the 2022 sessions.

Both studies underscore the significance of peer-led, digital learning experiences in accelerating progress towards global health goals.

By fostering peer learning and digital collaboration, these approaches empower health workers to turn global strategies into effective local action.

References

Mbuh, C., Gasse, F., Jones, I., Sadki, R., Brooks, A., Zha, M., Steed, I., Sequeira, J., Churchill, S., Kovanovic, V., 2022. IA2030 Case study 16. Continuum from knowledge to performance. The Geneva Learning Foundation. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7014392

Watkins, K.E., Sandmann, L.R., Dailey, C.A., Li, B., Yang, S.-E., Galen, R.S., Sadki, R., 2022. Accelerating problem-solving capacities of sub-national public health professionals: an evaluation of a digital immunization training intervention. BMC Health Serv Res 22, 736. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08138-4

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

What is norms shifting in immunization and global health

What is norms-shifting in immunization and global health?

Global health

The concept of “norms shifting perspective”, in the field of immunization and global health focuses on strategies that aim to alter norms and attitudes towards vaccination to promote uptake and acceptance.

This perspective acknowledges the influence that social norms have on individuals decisions regarding vaccination. Aims to utilize this insight to enhance acceptance through well crafted policies, messaging and interventions. The goal is to make vaccination the expected and socially endorsed choice across communities

Here are a few aspects of this perspective.

Recognizing the influence of social norms on vaccination behavior:

  • People’s vaccination decisions are significantly influenced by their perceptions of what others in their community think and do regarding vaccines.
  • Misperceptions about how many others accept vaccines can lead to lower uptake.

Using accurate information about norms to increase acceptance:

  • Providing factual information about high levels of vaccine acceptance in a community can increase individuals’ intentions to vaccinate.
  • This works by correcting underestimations of vaccine acceptance and leveraging social conformity.

Shaping norms through public policy:

  • Government policies and messaging around vaccines can shape social norms and expectations.
  • Mandates, passports, and other policies signal what is considered normal or expected behavior.

Designing targeted interventions:

  • Campaigns that feature relatable community members getting vaccinated can help establish vaccination as a social norm.
  • Messaging that emphasizes the social benefits and widespread acceptance of vaccines can be effective.

Considering unintended consequences:

  • Heavy-handed approaches like strict mandates may backfire by creating resistance and polarization.
  • Care must be taken to avoid stigmatizing unvaccinated individuals.

Adapting to local contexts:

  • Effective norm-shifting interventions need to be tailored to specific communities and cultures.
  • What works to shift norms in one setting may not work in another.

Taking a long-term view:

  • Changing deeply held social norms around health behaviors takes time and sustained effort.
  • The goal is to create lasting shifts in how vaccination is perceived and valued in communities.

Where to learn more about norms-shifting in immunization?

Bardosh, K., De Figueiredo, A., Gur-Arie, R., Jamrozik, E., Doidge, J., Lemmens, T., Keshavjee, S., Graham, J.E., Baral, S., 2022. The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Glob Health 7, e008684. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008684

Fayaz-Farkhad, B., Jung, H., Calabrese, C., Albarracin, D., 2023. State policies increase vaccination by shaping social norms. Sci Rep 13, 21227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48604-5

Moehring, A., Collis, A., Garimella, K., Rahimian, M.A., Aral, S., Eckles, D., 2023. Providing normative information increases intentions to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Commun 14, 126. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35052-4

Reñosa, M.D.C., Landicho, J., Wachinger, J., Dalglish, S.L., Bärnighausen, K., Bärnighausen, T., McMahon, S.A., 2021. Nudging toward vaccination: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health 6, e006237. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006237

Vriens, E., Tummolini, L., Andrighetto, G., 2023. Vaccine-hesitant people misperceive the social norm of vaccination. PNAS Nexus 2, pgad132. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad132

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Taking the pulse why and how we change everything in response to learner signals

Taking the pulse: why and how we change everything in response to learner signals

Learning design, Theory

The ability to analyze and respond to learner behavior as it happens is crucial for educators.

In complex learning that takes place in digital spaces, task separation between the design of instruction and its delivery does not make sense.

Here is the practical approach we use in The Geneva Learning Foundation’s learning-to-action model to implement responsive learning environments by listening to learner signals and adapting design, activities, and feedback accordingly.

Listening for and interpreting learner signals

Educators must pay close attention to various signals that learners emit throughout their learning journey. These signals appear in several key ways:

  1. Engagement levels: This includes participation rates, the quality of contributions in discussions, how learners interact with each other, and knowledge artefacts they produce.
  2. Emotional responses: The tone and content of learner feedback can indicate enthusiasm, frustration, or confusion.
  3. Performance patterns: Trends in speed and volume of responses tend to strongly correlate with more significant learning outcome indicators.
  4. Interaction dynamics: Learners can feel a facilitator’s conviction (or lack thereof) in the learning process. Observing the interaction should focus first on the facilitator’s own behavior: what are they modeling for learners?
  5. Technical interactions: The way learners navigate the learning platform, which resources they access most, and any technical challenges they face are important indicators.

Making sense of learner signals

Once these signals are identified, a nuanced approach to analysis is necessary:

  1. Contextual consideration: Understanding the broader context of learners’ experiences is vital. For example, differences between language cohorts might reflect varying levels of real-world experience and cultural contexts.
  2. Holistic view: Look beyond immediate learning objectives to understand all aspects of learners’ experiences, including factors outside the course that may affect their engagement.
  3. Temporal analysis: Track changes in learner behavior over time to reveal important trends and patterns as the course progresses.
  4. Comparative assessment: Compare behavior across different cohorts, language groups, or demographic segments to identify unique needs and preferences.
  5. Feedback loop analysis: Examine how learners respond to different types of feedback and instructional interventions to provide valuable insights.

Adapting learning design in situ

What can we change in response to learner behavior, signals, and patterns?

  1. Customized content: Tailor case studies, examples, and scenarios to match the real-world experiences and cultural contexts of different learner groups.
  2. Flexible pacing: Adjust the rhythm of content delivery and activities based on observed engagement patterns and feedback.
  3. Varied support mechanisms: Implement a range of support options, from technical assistance to emotional support, based on identified learner needs.
  4. Dynamic group formations: Adapt group activities and peer learning opportunities based on observed interaction dynamics and skill levels.
  5. Multimodal delivery: Offer content and activities in various formats to cater to different learning preferences and technical capabilities.

Responding to learner signals

Feedback plays a crucial role in the learning process:

  1. Comprehensive acknowledgment: Feedback mechanisms should demonstrate to learners that their input is valued and considered. This might involve creating, at least once, detailed summaries of learner feedback to show that every voice has been heard.
  2. Timely interventions: Using real-time feedback to address emerging issues or confusion quickly can prevent small challenges from becoming major obstacles.
  3. Personalized guidance: Tailor feedback to individual learners based on their unique progress, challenges, and goals.
  4. Peer feedback facilitation: Create opportunities for learners to provide feedback to each other to foster a collaborative learning environment.
  5. Metacognitive prompts: Incorporate feedback that encourages learners to reflect on their learning process to promote self-awareness and self-directed learning.

Balancing act

When combined, these analyses provide clues to inform decisions.

Nothing should be set in stone.

Decisions need to be pragmatic and rapid.

In order to respond to the pattern formed by signals, what are the trade-offs?

The digital economy of effort makes rapid changes possible.

Nevertheless, we consider the cost of each change versus its benefit.

This adaptive approach involves careful balancing of various factors:

  1. Depth versus speed: Navigate the tension between providing comprehensive feedback and maintaining a timely pace of instruction.
  2. Structure versus flexibility: Maintain a coherent course structure while allowing for adaptations based on learner needs.
  3. Individual versus group needs: Balance addressing individual learner challenges with maintaining the momentum of the entire cohort.
  4. Emotional support versus learning structure: Provide necessary emotional support, especially in challenging contexts, while maintaining focus on learning objectives.

Learning is research

Each learning experience should be treated as a research opportunity:

  1. Data collection: Systematically collect data on learner behavior, feedback, and outcomes.
  2. Team reflection: Conduct regular debriefs with the instructional team to share insights and adjust strategies.
  3. Iterative design: Use insights gained from each cohort to refine the learning design for future iterations.
  4. Cross-cohort learning: Apply lessons learned from one language or cultural group to enhance the experience of others, while respecting unique contextual differences.

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Community-based monitoring for immunization

Integrating community-based monitoring (CBM) into a comprehensive learning-to-action model

Global health

According to Gavi, “community-based monitoring” or “CBM” is a process where service users collect data on various aspects of health service provision to monitor program implementation, identify gaps, and collaboratively develop solutions with providers.

  • Community-based monitoring (CBM) has emerged as a promising strategy for enhancing immunization program performance and equity.
  • CBM interventions have been implemented across different settings and populations, including remote rural areas, urban poor, fragile/conflict-affected regions, and marginalized groups such as indigenous populations and people living with HIV.

By engaging service users, CBM aims to foster greater accountability and responsiveness to local needs.

  • However, realizing CBM’s potential in practice has proven challenging.
  • Without a coherent approach, CBM risks becoming just another disconnected tool.

The Geneva Learning Foundation’s innovative learning-to-action model offers a compelling framework within which CBM could be applied to immunization challenges.

The model’s comprehensive design creates an enabling environment for effectively integrating diverse monitoring data sources – and this could include community perspectives.

Health workers as trusted community advisers… and members of the community

A distinctive feature of TGLF’s model is its emphasis on health workers’ role as trusted advisors to the communities they serve.

The model recognizes that local health staff are not merely service providers, but often deeply embedded community members with intimate knowledge of local realities.

For example, in TGLF’s immunization learning initiatives, participating health workers frequently share insights into the social, cultural, and economic factors shaping vaccine hesitancy and uptake in their communities.

  • They discuss the everyday barriers families face, from misinformation to transportation challenges, and strategize context-specific outreach approaches.
  • This grounding in community realities positions health workers as vital bridges for facilitating community engagement in monitoring.

When local staff are empowered as active agents of learning and change, they can more effectively champion community participation, translating insights into tangible improvements.

Could CBM fit into a more comprehensive system from local monitoring to action?

TGLF’s model supports health workers in this bridging role by providing a comprehensive framework for local monitoring and action.

Through peer learning networks and problem-solving cycles, the model equips health staff to collect, interpret, and act on unconventional monitoring data from their communities.

For instance, in TGLF’s 2022 “Full Learning Cycle” initiative, 6,185 local health workers from 99 countries examined key immunization indicators to inform their analyses of root causes and then map out corrective actions.

  • Participants began monitoring their own local health indicators, such as vaccination coverage rates.
  • For many, this was the first time they had been prompted to use this data for problem-solving a real-world challenge they face, rather than just reporting up the next level of the health system.

They discussed many factors critical for tailoring immunization strategies.

This transition – from being passive data collectors to active data users – has proven transformative.

It positions health workers not as cogs in a reporting machine, but as empowered analysts and strategists.

By discussing real metrics with peers, participants make data actionable and contextually meaningful.

Guided by expert-designed rubrics and facilitated discussions, health workers translated this localized monitoring data into practical improvement plans.

For an epidemiologist, this represents a significant shift from traditional top-down monitoring paradigms.

By valuing and actioning local knowledge, TGLF’s model demonstrates how community insights can be systematically integrated into immunization decision-making.

However, until now, its actors have been health workers, many of them members of the communities they serve, not service users themselves.

CBM’s focus on monitoring is important – but leaves out key issues around community participation, decision-making autonomy, and strategy.

How could we integrate CBM into a transformative approach?

TGLF’s experiences suggest that CBM could be embedded within comprehensive learning-to-action systems focused on locally-led change.

TGLF’s model is more than a monitoring intervention.

  • It combines structured learning, rapid solution sharing, root cause analysis, action planning, and peer accountability to drive measurable improvements.
  • These mutually reinforcing components create an enabling environment for health workers to translate insights into impact.

In this framing, community monitoring becomes one critical input within a continuous, collaborative process of problem-solving and adaptation.

Several features of TGLF’s model illustrate how this integration could work in practice:

  1. Peer accountability structures, where health workers regularly convene to review progress, share challenges, and iterate solutions, create natural entry points for discussing and actioning community feedback.
  2. Rapid dissemination channels, like TGLF’s “Ideas Engine” for spreading promising practices across contexts, enable local innovations in response to community-identified gaps to be efficiently scaled.
  3. Emphasis on root cause analysis and systemic thinking equips health workers to interpret community insights within a broader ecosystem lens, connecting localized issues to upstream determinants.
  4. Cultivation of connected leadership empowers local actors to champion community priorities and navigate complex change processes.

TGLF’s extensive digital network connects health workers across system levels and contexts, enabling them to learn from each other’s experiences with no upper limit to the number of participants.

By contrast, CBM seems to assume that a community is limited to a physical area, which fails to recognize that problem-solving complex challenges requires expanding the range of inputs used.

Within a networked approach that connects both community members and health workers across boundaries of geography, health system level, and roles, CBM could become an integral component of a transformative approach to health system improvement – one that recognizes communities and local health workers as capable architects of context-responsive solutions.

Fundamentally, the TGLF model invites a shift in mindset about whose expertise counts in monitoring and driving system change.

CBM could provide the ‘connective tissue’ for health workers to revise how they listen and learn with the communities they serve.

For immunization programs grappling with persistent inequities, this shift from passive compliance to proactive local problem-solving is critical.

As the COVID-19 crisis has underscored, rapidly evolving public health challenges demand localized action that harnesses the full range of community expertise.

TGLF’s model offers a tested framework for actualizing this vision at scale.

By investing in local health workers’ capacity to learn, adapt, and lead change in partnership with the communities they serve, the model illuminates a promising pathway for integrating CBM into immunization monitoring and beyond.

For epidemiologists and global health practitioners, TGLF’s approach invites a reframing of how we conceptualize and operationalize community engagement in health system monitoring.

It challenges us to move beyond tokenistic participation towards genuine co-design and co-ownership of monitoring processes with local actors.

Realizing this vision will require significant shifts in mindsets, power dynamics, and resource flows.

But as TGLF’s initiatives demonstrate, when we invest in the leadership of those closest to the challenges we seek to solve, transformative possibilities emerge.

Further rigorous research comparing the impacts of different CBM integration models could help accelerate this paradigm shift, surfacing critical lessons for the immunization field and global health more broadly.

TGLF’s model not only offers compelling lessons for reimagining monitoring and improvement in immunization programs, it also provides a pathway for integrating CBM into a system that supports actual change.

CBM practitioners are likely to struggle with how to incorporate it into existing practices.

By investing in frontline health workers as change agents, and surrounding them with an empowering learning ecosystem, the model offers a path to then bring in community monitoring.

Without such leadership from health workers, it is unlikely that communities are able to participate.

The journey to authentic community engagement in health system monitoring is undoubtedly complex.

But if we are to deliver on the promise of equitable immunization for all, it is a journey we must undertake.

TGLF’s model lights one promising path forward – one that positions communities and local health workers as the beating heart of a learning health system.

While Gavi’s evidence brief affirms the promise of CBM for immunization, TGLF’s experience with its own model suggests the full potential of CBM may be realized by embedding it within more comprehensive, digitally-enabled learning systems that activate health workers as agents of change – and do so with both physical and digital communities implementing new forms of peer and community accountability that complement conventional kinds (supervision, administration, donor, etc.).

Heini Utenen OpenWHO confusion about methods and learner preferences

Why asking learners what they want is a recipe for confusion

Global health, Theory

A survey of learners on a large, authoritative global health learning platform has me pondering once again the perils of relying too heavily on learner preferences when designing educational experiences.

One survey question intended to ask learners for their preferred learning method.

The list of options provided includes a range of items.

(Some would make the point that the list conflates learning resources and learning methods, but let us leave that aside for now.)

Respondents’ top choices (source) were videos, slides, and downloadable documents.

At first glance, this seems perfectly reasonable.

After all, should we not give learners what they want?

As it happens, the main resources offered by this platform are videos, slides, and other downloadable documents.

(If we asked learners who participate in our peer learning programmes for their preference, they would likely say that they prefer… peer learning.)

Beyond this availability bias, there is a more significant problem with this approach: learner preferences often have little correlation with actual learning outcomes.

And learners are especially bad at self-evaluating what learning methods and resources are most conducive to effective learning.

The scientific literature is quite clear on this point.

Bjork’s 2013 article on self-regulated learning emphatically states that: “learners are often prone to illusions of competence during learning, and these illusions can be remarkably compelling.”

The study by Deslauriers et al. (2019) provides a compelling demonstration that while students express a strong preference for traditional lectures over active learning methods, they actually learn significantly more from the active approaches they claim to dislike.

This disconnect between preference and efficacy is not surprising when we consider how learning actually works.

Effective learning requires effort, struggle, and sometimes discomfort as we grapple with new ideas and challenge our existing mental models.

It is not always an enjoyable process in the moment, even if the long-term results are deeply rewarding.

Furthermore, learners (like all of us) are subject to various cognitive biases that can lead them astray when evaluating their own learning.

The illusion of explanatory depth, for example, can cause us to overestimate how well we understand a topic after passively consuming information about it.

None of this is to say we should ignore learner perspectives entirely.

Motivation and engagement do matter for learning.

But we need to be thoughtful about how we solicit and interpret learner feedback.

Asking about preferences for specific content formats (videos, slides, etc.) tells us very little about the actual learning activities and cognitive processes involved.

A more productive approach might be to focus on understanding learners’ goals, challenges, and contexts.

What are they trying to achieve?

What obstacles do they face?

What constraints shape their learning environment?

With this information, we can design evidence-based learning experiences that truly meet their needs – even if they don’t always match their stated preferences.

As learning professionals, our job is not to give learners what they think they want.

It is to create the conditions for transformative learning experiences that expand their capabilities and perspectives.

This often means pushing learners out of their comfort zones and challenging their assumptions about how learning should look and feel.

References

Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L.S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., Kestin, G., 2019. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201821936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116

Learn health, but beware of the behaviorist trap

Global health, Theory

The global health community has long grappled with the challenge of providing effective, scalable training to health workers, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

In recent years, digital learning platforms have emerged as a potential solution, promising to deliver accessible, engaging, and impactful training at scale.

Imagine a digital platform intended to train health workers at scale.

Their theory of change rests on a few key assumptions:

  1. Offering simplified, mobile-friendly courses will make training more accessible to health workers.
  2. Incorporating videos and case studies will keep learners engaged.
  3. Quizzes and knowledge checks will ensure learning happens.
  4. Certificates, continuing education credits, and small incentives will motivate course completion.
  5. Growing the user base through marketing and partnerships is the path to impact.

On the surface, this seems sensible.

Mobile optimization recognizes health workers’ technological realities.

Multimedia content seems more engaging than pure text.

Assessments appear to verify learning.

Incentives promise to drive uptake.

Scale feels synonymous with success.

While well-intentioned, such a platform risks falling into the trap of a behaviorist learning agenda.

This is an approach that, despite its prevalence, is a pedagogical dead-end with limited potential for driving meaningful, sustained improvements in health worker performance and health outcomes.

It is a paradigm that views learners as passive recipients of information, where exposure equals knowledge acquisition.

It is a model that privileges standardization over personalization, content consumption over knowledge creation, and extrinsic rewards over intrinsic motivation.

It fails to account for the rich diversity of prior experiences, contexts, and challenges that health workers bring to their learning.

Most critically, it neglects the higher-order skills – the critical thinking, the adaptive expertise, the self-directed learning capacity – that are most predictive of real-world performance.

Clicking through screens of information about neonatal care, for example, is not the same as developing the situational judgment to adapt guidelines to a complex clinical scenario, nor the reflective practice to continuously improve.

Moreover, the metrics typically prioritized by behaviorist platforms – user registrations, course completions, assessment scores – are often vanity metrics.

They create an illusion of progress while obscuring the metrics that truly matter: behavior change, performance improvement, and health outcomes.

A health worker may complete a generic course on neonatal care, for example, but this does not necessarily translate into the situational judgment to adapt guidelines to complex clinical scenarios, nor the reflective practice to continuously improve.

The behaviorist paradigm’s emphasis on information transmission and standardized content may stem from an implicit assumption that health workers 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 not only paternalistic and insulting, but it is also 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.

Even if such a platform achieves its growth targets, it is unlikely to realize its impact goals.

Health workers may dutifully click through courses, but genuine transformative learning remains elusive.

The alternative lies in a learning agenda grounded in advances of the last three decades learning science.

These advances remain largely unknown or ignored in global health.

This approach positions health workers as active, knowledgeable agents, rich in experience and expertise.

It designs learning experiences not merely to transmit information, but to foster critical reflection, dialogue, and problem-solving.

It replaces generic content with authentic, context-specific challenges, and isolated study with collaborative sense-making in peer networks.

It recognizes intrinsic motivation – the desire to grow, to serve, to make a difference – as the most potent driver of learning.

Here, success is measured not in superficial metrics, but in meaningful outcomes: capacity to lead change in facilities and communities that leads to tangible improvements in the quality of care.

Global health leaders faces a choice: to settle for the illusion of progress, or to invest in the deep, difficult work of authentic learning and systemic change, commensurate with the complexity and urgency of the task at hand.

Image: The Geneva Learning Foundation Collection © 2024

Why health leaders who are critical thinkers choose rote learning for others-small

Why health leaders who are critical thinkers choose rote learning for others

Global health

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.”

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.”

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

Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions

8 things we know about learning across the lifespan in a complex world

Theory

The work by Robert A. Bjork and his colleagues is very helpful to make sense of the limitations of learners’ perceptions. Here are 8 summary points from their paper about self-regulated learning.

  1. Our complex and rapidly changing world increasingly requires self-initiated and self-managed learning, not simply during the years associated with formal schooling, but across the lifespan.
  2. Learning how to learn is, therefore, a critical survival tool, but research on learning, memory, and metacognitive processes has demonstrated that learners are prone to intuitions and beliefs about learning that can impair, rather than enhance, their effectiveness as learners.
  3. Becoming sophisticated as a learner requires not only acquiring a basic understanding of the encoding and retrieval processes that characterize the storage and subsequent access to the to-be-learned knowledge and procedures, but also knowing what learning activities and techniques support long-term retention and transfer.
  4. Managing one’s ongoing learning effectively requires accurate monitoring of the degree to which learning has been achieved, coupled with appropriate selection and control of one’s learning activities in response to that monitoring.
  5. Assessing whether learning has been achieved is difficult because conditions that enhance performance during learning can fail to support long-term retention and transfer, whereas other conditions that appear to create difficulties and slow the acquisition process can enhance long-term retention and transfer.
  6. Learners’ judgments of their own degree of learning are also influenced by subjective indices, such as the sense of fluency in perceiving or recalling to-be-learned information, but such fluency can be a product of low-level priming and other factors that are unrelated to whether learning has been achieved.
  7. Becoming maximally effective as a learner requires interpreting errors and mistakes as an essential component of effective learning rather than as a reflection of one’s inadequacies as a learner.
  8. To be maximally effective also requires an appreciation of the incredible capacity humans have to learn and avoiding the mindset that one’s learning abilities are fixed.

Source: Bjork, R.A., Dunlosky, J., Kornell, N., 2013. Self-Regulated Learning: Beliefs, Techniques, and Illusions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823