This study drew on interviews with 19 experienced public health leaders from a range of jurisdictions and crisis contexts. Analysis of 1,104 coded excerpts (762 discrete excerpts) highlighted a consistent set of competencies and personal qualities that support effective engagement with political decision makers during crises. Core practical skills identified were communication, diplomacy, and advocacy. Participants stressed the need to translate complex technical evidence into concise, actionable messages for political audiences, to broker constructive relationships, and to advocate for resources and policy action without eroding trust.
Equally important were personal attributes. Interviewees emphasized integrity and humility as traits that enable credibility and the willingness to admit uncertainty, defer when necessary, and collaborate across sectors. These attributes support sustained relationships with political leaders and increase the likelihood that public health advice will be heard and considered.
The study describes a reciprocal role for political leaders and public health leaders in crises. Political leaders must engage productively, and at the appropriate moments, to preserve societal cohesion and to mobilize multisectoral resources. Public health leaders need to judge when to escalate issues to political leadership and when to manage responses within technical channels. That threshold for political engagement depends on factors such as the scale of the crisis, potential societal disruption, and the degree of policy trade-offs that require political legitimacy.
Interviewees described the importance of timing, framing, and proposing feasible policy options when engaging political leaders. Public health leaders are expected to provide clear recommendations while also acknowledging political constraints; doing so preserves relationships and supports pragmatic decision making.
Participants identified structural supports that enable an effective interface between public health and political leadership. Pre-established relationships, routine coordination mechanisms, and formal channels of communication were reported to make interactions during crises more productive. These structures reduce the need to build trust from scratch under pressure and allow for rapid exchange of information and joint decision making.
The analysis further noted that well-resourced, multisectoral response frameworks with public health at their center help ensure that advice can be operationalized. Political actors play a role in ensuring necessary resources and cross-sector alignment; conversely, public health leaders must be prepared to operationalize policy decisions and advise on implementation trade-offs.
Across interviews and the literature review, experiential learning approaches were emphasized over purely didactic training. Approaches that surfaced as effective included real-world exercises, mentorship, peer collaboration, and fellowships that embed leaders in cross-sectoral environments. These modalities foster practical skills such as stakeholder engagement, negotiation, and political navigation, and help leaders practice communication under realistic pressure.
Participants noted that peer networks and mentorship provide both technical and psychosocial support during crises, reinforcing resilience and enabling rapid problem solving. Structured fellowships and rotational placements in policy settings were described as ways to deepen understanding of political processes and constraints.
Based on themes from interviews and course reviews, the authors describe several actionable strategies to strengthen the public health–political interface:
The study frames these steps as complementary: building skills and attributes in leaders while also enhancing structural conditions increases the likelihood that public health advice will be considered and implemented during crises.
The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 individuals who had direct involvement in crises; these interviews were transcribed in full, anonymized, and coded to generate findings. The manuscript also includes a concise literature review and a brief review of relevant leadership courses, training programs, and fellowships. The Resolve to Save Lives research committee reviewed the design and waived ethical approval on the basis that the research was exempt. All data relevant to the study are included in the article; full interview transcripts are not publicly available to protect participant privacy. The authors declared no competing interests and reported funding support from the Gates Foundation (INV-048317).
Limitations such as participant sampling details beyond the count of 19, country-level composition, and specific examples from interviews are not reported in the abstract; readers should consult the full preprint for more granular information.