Bridging the Gap: How My Health Background is Guiding Me as a New Evaluator
This year’s World Health Day theme, ‘Together for health. Stand with science’, feels particularly relevant as the world battles with widespread illnesses, environmental issues and growing burdens of endemic and non-communicable diseases. As health challenges become more complex in today’s world, we need to collaborate and utilise the insights of science and evidence now more than ever. This year’s theme resonates with me deeply and intersects with my own journey from studying health to now working in evaluation.
The call to Stand with science feels particularly relevant in a time where misinformation can spread faster than evidence. With the rise of AI and constant access to information, it is important that science is communicated and utilised effectively to raise public awareness and trust of new findings and evidence.
I recently completed my Bachelor of Science degree, and this year I am completing my Honours in health at the University of Sydney, exploring the policies and regulations in Australia around consumer use of AI for individual health decision-making. This subject feels extremely topical in this digital era, and I am excited to delve deeper into the regulatory space governing public use of AI for health decision-making in Australia and the implications of using AI for health decision-making.
During my degree, learning about public health systems and how they operate often felt theoretical. In theory, systems need to be set up to benefit the health of as many people as possible and target upstream determinants of health through policy. However, in practice this is not always achieved. I was taught the policy cycle as a sequential, circular process in which evaluation happens after a program’s implementation to assess its effectiveness and inform the beginning of a new cycle.
Stepping into my role in evaluation at ARTD has shown me how complex both policy and evaluation really are. What works in theory doesn’t always neatly translate into practice. I’ve learnt that evaluative thinking does not only exist at the end of the policy cycle but is most effective when embedded throughout.
Working Together for health highlights the need for collaboration across sectors, disciplines and countries to achieve positive health outcomes. It recognises that human, animal and environmental health are all interconnected under the umbrella of One Health. This approach underscores the need for a more holistic, integrated system that emphasises the connections between human and animal health, and the environment, with COVID-19 serving as a recent example. One Health reframes how we think about health, pushing us beyond simply the presence and treatment of diseases in hospitals and clinics to the broader context of how our health interacts and is a result of the complex environment and societal factors that shape the spaces we live in. This framework reminds us that health outcomes are rarely a result of a single intervention.
This broader, interconnected view of health has also shaped my perspective of evaluation. I now understand that evaluating a program isn’t just about measuring its evident outcomes. It’s also about asking questions to understand what’s influenced the presence (or not) of intended outcomes. What assumptions are being made? Does the intervention address the right drivers of ill health? How does the context in which the program is delivered influence the outcomes experienced? Increasingly, it’s about recognising that “success” in health cannot be measured in isolation from environmental or social impacts.
This is where evaluation plays a critical role. Good evaluation doesn’t just seek to answer how a program achieved its intended outcomes, it tells a story about what works, for whom, and why. It helps bridge the gap between evidence and decision-making. In many ways, I’m discovering that evaluation is part of the infrastructure that allows science to influence policy and practice.
My growing experience in evaluation is also influencing how I think about my Honours research on AI and health decision-making. I’m now more attuned to asking: Who truly benefits from these technologies, and why? Are there any hidden impacts or unintended effects? What might this mean for regulation? This evaluative way of thinking is helping me look beyond surface-level outcomes and consider the broader story behind the data.
This year’s theme reminds me that good health is not something we can achieve on our own. I’m learning that evaluation, like public health, is built on the foundations of collaboration and evidence. Together for health. Stand with science.
We all have a part to play in championing science, whether by rigorously collecting data, listening to community voices, or simply being curious and wanting to learn more. It is the art of drawing together research from different disciplines, with lived experience, policy expertise and programmatic data to inform better decisions.
If we can use science to take humans deeper into the universe than ever before, we can also use it to help us work together to build resilient health systems and protect lives into the future.
