By Hezron Ochiel
When we set out to engage more than 200 media actors across five African countries in a health systems advocacy programme, one thing became clear very quickly: journalists needed more than information.
They needed the skills to understand complex health issues, access to credible experts, opportunities to report from the field and support from the editors who influenced what eventually reached audiences.
That shaped our approach under the Health Systems Advocacy Partnership (HSAP), spearheaded by Amref Health Africa.
The programme sought to contribute to stronger health systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, with a focus on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Our advocacy priorities included human resources for health, access to essential sexual and reproductive health commodities, good governance and equitable health financing.
Media engagement was built into the programme because journalists could help bring health-system issues into public discussion and place evidence before policymakers.
The same principle later became visible in other advocacy work, including efforts around Community Health Promoters in Kenya, where media engagement helped amplify community voices and keep policy issues in the public eye.
The challenge was sustaining that engagement.
Over time, five elements emerged as especially important: journalist capability, expert access, reporting support, editorial engagement and recognition.
Photo: Courtesy
Programme snapshot
- 5 countries involved in the media advocacy work
- 200+ media actors engaged
- Approximately 400 media mentions generated across participating countries
- 4 media award categories covering print, online, television and radio
- Journalists, editors and health experts brought into the programme
The numbers show the scale. The deeper value came from understanding what journalists needed to keep reporting specialised health issues well.
1. Start by understanding what prevents journalists from covering the issue
Our early media roundtables gave us an opportunity to listen before designing the intervention.
One challenge came up repeatedly.
Health stories were competing for attention in newsrooms where politics often dominated coverage. Many reporters were generalists, moving between different subjects with limited opportunities to specialise in health.
A journalist could be interested in a health story and still struggle to interpret technical evidence, identify a strong angle or explain the issue clearly to the public.
We responded by integrating health-reporting training into the programme. The sessions strengthened journalists’ understanding of health issues, helped them interpret evidence and supported them in identifying stories that connected technical subjects with everyday experiences.
This experience reinforced a broader lesson I have also seen in research communication: evidence becomes useful when people can understand it, interpret it and translate it into stories that matter to audiences.
Sustained coverage of a specialised issue starts with helping journalists understand it well enough to report it confidently.
2. Make credible experts easy to reach
Journalists also needed reliable experts they could call while developing stories.
Finding the right specialist could be difficult. Reporters needed experts who understood the subject, could meet newsroom deadlines, and could explain technical issues in language audiences could understand.
We therefore developed a pool of health specialists available for interviews and to provide background information.
Amref’s networks and experience in the health sector helped connect journalists with experts across different areas. Journalists gained access to credible sources and stronger story ideas, while experts gained opportunities to contribute evidence and professional perspectives to public discussion.
Access to expertise became part of the media advocacy system, giving journalists a dependable source of professional insight.
3. Remove practical barriers to good reporting
Some of the strongest health stories required journalists to leave the newsroom, travel to communities and spend time gathering evidence.
That required resources.
Our original programme did not have a dedicated budget for financing journalists’ field reporting, so we turned to partnerships and resource mobilisation.
Through those collaborations, selected journalists were able to undertake field reporting and gather stories from communities as well as meetings and organised events.
The experience showed how partnerships can fill practical gaps that emerge as a programme develops.
It also reflects a wider pattern in advocacy work: stronger communication often depends on bringing together evidence, resources, credible voices and the right channels at the same time.
4. Engage the people who influence editorial decisions
One of the most useful decisions we made was involving news editors.
Reporters may identify strong stories. Editors play an important role in determining what eventually reaches publication or broadcast.
Bringing editors into the programme deepened their understanding of the health issues we were advocating around and exposed them to the same conversations taking place with reporters.
I cannot claim that editor participation alone produced the media results we later recorded. Our experience suggested that involving editors created a stronger environment in which health stories could compete for attention.
That encouraged us to look beyond individual reporters and understand the wider editorial system around them.
The same thinking applies to policy advocacy more broadly. Influence grows when communities, experts, media and decision-makers are connected around the same issue.
5. Give journalists reasons to keep going
Training, expert access and reporting support helped initiate engagement. Sustaining that momentum also required motivation.
Drawing on my own experience as a journalist, I came to understand the professional value of having good work recognised.
We therefore developed a media awards initiative covering print, online, television and radio.
Through partnerships and resource mobilisation, the recognition package included cash awards, scholarships, trophies, certificates and participation in the 2019 Africa Health Agenda International Conference in Kigali, Rwanda.
By this stage, the engagement had grown into a wider community around health reporting.
Photo: Courtesy
What changed
Across the participating countries, the advocacy effort generated approximately 400 media mentions.
Health-system issues also gained greater visibility in mainstream media and policymaking spaces during the programme.
The results came from several interventions working together, creating stronger conditions for continued media coverage of the issues we were working on.
The experience also reinforced why counting media mentions alone gives only part of the picture. As I explore in What PR Teams Should Measure in 2026, stronger communication measurement asks what audiences understood, what gained visibility, and what happened after the communication reached them.
Media advocacy works best when connected to a wider strategy. Coverage can attract attention. Evidence, community voices, trusted messengers and continued engagement with decision-makers help carry that attention further.
The Journalist Enablement Framework
Looking back, our approach can be summarised in a simple chain:
Each element addressed a different barrier.
Training strengthened understanding.
Expert access improved credibility and story development.
Reporting support enabled deeper field reporting.
Editorial engagement brought newsroom decision-makers into the process.
Recognition helped sustain motivation.
The framework reflects one central idea: sustained media engagement is more likely when journalists are supported in understanding complex issues and in pursuing strong, independent reporting.
What the experience changed for me
The experience changed how I think about media advocacy.
A useful starting question is: What do journalists need to understand, investigate and sustain coverage of this issue well?
That question changes how an organisation approaches media engagement.
Journalists do better work when they have access to knowledge, credible sources and the space to pursue stories with confidence and independence.
That principle sits alongside another lesson I have seen repeatedly in advocacy work: media attention becomes more powerful when it connects evidence, community experience and policymaker engagement.
For organisations designing advocacy programmes, that is where stronger media engagement begins.
Sustainable media advocacy is built by creating an ecosystem around good journalism.
The coverage follows.
Hezron Ochiel is an award-winning strategic communications and public relations professional with over 15 years of experience in media, digital communication, and reputation strategy. He serves as the Deputy Corporate Communications Manager at the government-owned Kenya Medical Training College (KMTC) and is the founder of Hezron Insights, where he writes about AI visibility, Digital PR, SEO, GEO, and digital authority. His work has appeared on platforms including Reuters, The New Humanitarian, and The Standard.