Collaborative dynamics and shared motivation: exploring tobacco control policy development in Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Zambia, efforts to produce a tobacco control policy have stalled for over a decade, and the country is not yet close to developing one. Limited studies have explored the dynamics in this policy process and how they affect the attainment of policy goals and outcomes. This study explored how collaborative dynamics within tobacco control policy development shaped shared motivation among stakeholders in Zambia. The study used a qualitative case study design that adopted a collaborative governance lens, comprising an in-depth exploration of the tobacco control policy working group meetings and their internal collaborative dynamics. The integrative framework for collaborative governance, which identifies mutual trust, mutual understanding, internal legitimacy and shared commitment as key elements of shared motivation, was adapted for this study. Data were collected from 27 key informants and analysed using thematic analysis. Several collaborative dynamics thwarted mutual trust among tobacco control stakeholders, including concerns about associated loyalties, fear of a ban on tobacco production, silo-mentality and lack of comprehensive dialogue. All stakeholders agreed that the limited sharing of information on tobacco control and the lack of reliable local evidence on the tobacco burden hindered mutual understanding. Diverse factors hampered internal legitimacy, including sector representatives' lack of authority and the perceived lack of contextualization of the proposed policy content. Acknowledgement of the need for multisectoral action, lack of political will from other sectors and limited local allocation of funds to the process were some of the factors that shaped shared commitment. To accelerate the development of tobacco control policies in Zambia and elsewhere, policymakers must adopt strategies founded on shared motivation that deliberately create opportunities for open discourse and respectful interactions, promote a cultural shift towards collaborative information sharing and address unequal power relations to enable shaping of appropriate tobacco control actions in respective sectors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".