Bridging Evidence to Inclusive Decision-Making in Latin America

In Latin America, there is still a big gap between research evidence and how people make health decisions every day. Research keeps moving forward and policies often talk about evidence, but millions of people still decide based on rumours or incorrect evidence. If we really want evidence to make a difference, researchers, decision-makers and communities need to work together to make sure knowledge is shared in clear, practical and easy-to-understand ways.

Health literacy means the ability to find, understand and use health evidence; it is key to healthier choices. Participation and empowerment are just as important: people are more likely to trust and act on evidence when they’re part of the conversation. In our region, this is a big challenge.  A significant percentage of the Latin American population suffers from low health literacy. This means that even well-planned health programs can fail if they don’t ‘speak the language’, literally and culturally, of the communities they want to reach.

This is demonstrated by remote communities in Latin America, where inequitable treatment and language barriers contribute to those communities experiencing greater ill health.

Too often, research in Latin America stays locked away in universities, journals or government reports. And when it does get out, it’s shared using technical jargon or through channels that regular people can’t access. This ‘silo effect’ means valuable findings never reach those who need them most.

Luckily, there are inspiring examples across the region that show how evidence can go further when it’s adapted and created together with communities. In the Amazon regions of Ecuador, Brazil and Peru, the integration of scientific evidence with Indigenous knowledge enabled innovative and culturally relevant solutions during the pandemic. 

In Ecuador, the project not only developed operational guidelines for the Amazon vaccination plan but also convened an intercultural dialogue on vaccination with the participation of seven Indigenous organizations – PAHO, UNICEF, and national health authorities. These exchanges resulted in communication materials in Indigenous languages and testimonial videos featuring community leaders who had already been vaccinated. Shared through community radio and social media, these messages helped dispel fears and build trust in the vaccination campaign. Furthermore, the Community Health Promoters Program was formally adopted by the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador as a permanent academic course, ensuring the continuity of this bridge between academic and community knowledge. 

In Brazil, the strategy combined evidence with ancestral traditions: the training for community health promoters included modules on Timbira traditional medicine, validating Indigenous practices as part of the health response. At the same time, interactive healthcare access maps were developed to help navigate vast and isolated territories more effectively. During the oxygen crisis in Manaus, the project also distributed 15 oxygen concentrators, directly benefiting around 150 people per month and demonstrating how culturally grounded responses can also be technically effective and life-saving. 

In Peru, the Indigenous federation, FENAMAD, reactivated the COVID-19 Indigenous Command, a formal coordination body involving the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Culture, and the regional government of Madre de Dios. Within this space, operative guidelines and a culturally adapted communication plan for vaccination were co-designed, with materials disseminated through community radio, WhatsApp, printed brochures, and in-person meetings. This process not only brought accurate information to remote communities in their own languages but also ensured meaningful Indigenous participation in health decision-making, breaking away from the traditional top-down approach.

Together, these experiences demonstrate that when evidence is culturally adapted and co-created with communities, it is transformed into trust and active participation. It is not simply about translating messages, but about recognising ancestral knowledge, respecting local voices, and ensuring that public health decisions are genuinely inclusive.

Another good example in Brazil is the Alfa-Health Program, where weekly workshops helped older adults in vulnerable  communities turn complicated medical advice into simple, practical steps for everyday life. Over 5 months, participants learned how to better manage chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, take medicines safely, and improve their diets with small but meaningful changes. What made the program powerful was that it started from what people already knew, encouraging them to share experiences and ask questions without fear. Many said it ‘opened their eyes’, making them feel more confident in talking to doctors and more in control of their health. Just as importantly, the workshops created a supportive community where participants could learn together, reduce isolation, and pass on what they learned to family and neighbours — multiplying the impact far beyond the classroom.

All these stories show the same thing – just having information is not enough to change lives. People need context, conversation and trust. Raw data without explanation just confuses, and fear-based messages often stop people from acting. But when evidence is shared in ways that fit community realities, it becomes a tool for empowerment.

What’s Next

If we want evidence to really inform lives, bigger changes are needed:

-Researchers, decision-makers and communities must collaborate to share health knowledge clearly and in ways that make sense locally.

-Turn scientific evidence into simple, culturally relevant messages using local languages and accessible communication channels.

-Get communities involved in conversations and decisions so they trust and use health evidence effectively; this could increase the sense of ownership of these health messages.

Key Take-Home Messages

-Information alone doesn’t change lives; people need context, trust and dialogue to act.

-Tailoring evidence to local culture and language helps people understand and use it.

-Collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and communities is essential to close the gap between science and daily health choices.

References

De Jesus, P. R., Bianchini, B. V., Ziegelmann, P. K., &  Dal Pizzol, T. D. S. (2024). The low health literacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 24(1):, 1478. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18972-2

Arrighi, E., Ruiz de Castilla, E.M., Peres, F., et al. Scoping health literacy in Latin America. Globbal Health Promotion. 2021;29(2):78-87. doi:10.1177/17579759211016802

Garza, M., & Abascal Miguel, L. (2025). Health disparities among indigenous populations in Latin America: a scoping review. International journal for equityInt J Equit in h Health, 24(1):, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02495-2

Hivos Foundation (2021). Amazon Indigenous Health Route. Report on Indigenous health in Latin America. Available from: https://america-latina.hivos.org/assets/2021/02/REPORT-Amazon-Indigenous-HR-Jun-2021-V4.pdf

Kharenine Serbim, A., Ayre, J., Manganelli Girardi Paskulin, L., Nutbeam, D., & Muscat, D. (2024). Qualitative evaluation of a health literacy program for older adults who live in a community dwelling in Brazil. Health literacy Lit Res Practresearch and practice, 8(3):, e140–e150. https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20240722-01

To link to this article - DOI: https://doi.org/10.70253/PJUB3367

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this World EBHC Day Blog, as well as any errors or omissions, are the sole responsibility of the author and do not represent the views of the World EBHC Day Steering Committee, Official Partners or Sponsors; nor does it imply endorsement by the aforementioned parties.