Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41888805›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026

Making space for happenstance: a proposal for a different 'Theory of Change' to help understand and guide NTD policymaking practices.

Gemma Aellah, Anne Roemer-Mahler, Shahaduz Zaman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gemma AellahCentre for Equitable Global Health Research, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton and University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. g.aellah@bsms.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9713-2100
Anne Roemer-MahlerUniversity of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Shahaduz ZamanCentre for Equitable Global Health Research, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton and University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 200140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHistorically, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) have received far less global attention than the ‘big three’ diseases of global health (HIV, TB, and malaria), reinforcing health inequities experienced by those affected. Policy advocacy has been a necessary part of the work of NTD specialists, including researchers. One commonly used tool to support planned change is Theory of Change (ToC), employed by organisations such as the World Health Organization, non-governmental organisations, and research funders, who often require ToC diagrams at proposal stage. However, ToC practices can produce models of social change that are not particularly human-like, projecting an imaginary of change that is linear, predictable, unidirectional, mechanical, and largely detached from emotion, lived experience, or individual commitment. This paper offers an alternative perspective on how change often happens, informed by an anthropological case study of NTD policy change in practice. We do not argue that conventional ToC models ignore context or uncertainty altogether. Rather, our findings show that, in practice, especially in proposal-stage diagrams, ToC models often focus heavily on linear pathways and planned mechanisms, while treating assumptions and context as background notes rather than as active forces that can change how policy develops.

methodsInsights are drawn from a three-year anthropological research project examining how policy change related to NTDs unfolds in practice, focusing on the experiences of researchers and public health practitioners advocating internationally for three politically neglected NTDs: scabies, mycetoma, and podoconiosis. Methods include in-depth interviews, document analysis, and ethnographic observation.

resultsNarrative ethnographic analysis reveals that policy change in practice is often multidirectional, contingent, and shaped by happenstance. Individual biographies, emotional connections, and sustained personal commitment, observed ethnographically, operate as integral elements of policy change rather than as contextual add-ons, alongside more formal mechanisms. Dramatic events, such as the outbreak of the 2023 Sudan civil war, should not be understood as unusual disruptions of an otherwise stable Theory of Change, but as reminders of the limits of very rigid or mechanical models in capturing real-world unpredictability.

conclusionsDrawing on African ontological philosophy and rhizome theory, this paper proposes a plural and relational perspective on the reality of change. It subsequently argues for a reimagined Theory of Change and suggests practical ways of working with ToC that treat happenstance, serendipity, emotion, and human relationships as constitutive elements of change rather than residual factors. Such an approach may illuminate opportunities for influence that more linear models overlook and offer a more relatable and supportive way of thinking for those engaged in policy advocacy, contributing to more equitable global health responses.

Indexed as

Health PolicyNeglected DiseasesPolicy MakingTropical MedicineGlobal HealthHumansAnthropologyEthnography (min.5-max. 8)Global health. Skin-NTDsNeglected tropical diseasesPolicySDG 3: good health and well-beingTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID41888805
PMCPMC13085655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.