Participation of civil society organizations and academia in COVID-19 governance: insights from a six country study.

This paper focuses on the engagement of persons and groups with diverse interests in the governance of the COVID-19 pandemic. During emergencies, involving diverse perspectives in governance mechanisms can contribute to more equitable and evidence-based policies that address societal needs. Previous literature shows that, even with the intent to include diverse perspectives, there can be gaps in engaging non-governmental entities in epidemic governance. This study sought to analyze participation of two important interest groups: academia and civil society organizations (CSOs) during the COVID-19 response, to identify best practices and strategies for enhancing their roles in future health crisis governance. We adopted a comparative case study design to collect data from six countries: Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Bangladesh, Jordan, and the United Kingdom, representing varied political and economic contexts, geographic locations, and response strategies during the pandemic. Data sources included key informant interviews and focus group discussions with a total of 64 stakeholders, including government officials, academic experts, and personnel from CSOs. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CSOs actively participated in response efforts, but in the six countries we analyzed, they largely did so independently of the government, particularly during the initial response phase. In some countries, governments involved CSOs only after reports of clusters of new transmission, primarily for risk communication and service delivery like vaccine distribution, without involving them in governance mechanisms like making pandemic preparedness and response policies. Other governments worked with public universities to gather evidence for decision-making and policy formulation starting from the pre-pandemic phase to the initial phase of the pandemic. Across disciplines, experts in epidemiology, mathematical modelling, and infectious diseases were more likely to be consulted, whereas economists, sociologists, ethicists, and anthropologists were less involved.