For the second time in history, UN Member States adopted a Political Declaration on AMR in 2024. This declaration outlines ambitious commitments to tackle one of the most pressing health challenges of our time. These commitments will only be successful if the public understands, supports, and ultimately changes behavior to make them work.

Ahead of UNGA, we asked citizens in six countries what they thought about different policy proposals across six themes: Equity, Access and Stewardship; Infection Prevention; Food Security; Awareness and Education; Target setting; and Surveillance.

Working with the Trinity Challenge, we brought together 2,419 citizens from Brazil, Colombia, Nigeria, Tanzania, India, and Indonesia using Deliberative Polling®, a method that assesses what a representative and informed sample would think about policy proposals after extended, evidence-based discussions. Deliberations took place on the innovative Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted Stanford University Online Deliberation Platform across two days.

Citizens left the process not just more informed, but more engaged with the solutions required.

What is Deliberative Polling® ?

Deliberative Polling® is a research methodology developed by Professor James Fishkin at Stanford University's Deliberative Democracy Lab. Unlike standard opinion polling, it measures not just initial public opinion but informed public opinion - what people think after genuine engagement with the issues, trade-offs, and expert perspectives.

It has been applied in over 160 cases around the world, from national referendums to climate policy.

Learn more about the Deliberative Polling® methodology.

On September 25, 2025, FSI Senior Fellow Claire Adida presented her team’s research at a CDDRL Research Seminar Series talk under the title, “Overcoming Barriers to Women’s Political Participation: Evidence from Nigeria.” The seminar addressed a central paradox in global politics: although women’s legal formal right to vote is nearly universal, deep gender gaps remain in informal forms of political participation, such as contacting a local government official or attending a community meeting. This lack of engagement means women’s voices are underrepresented in governance and policies are less likely to reflect their priorities. This is particularly salient in hybrid democracies, where informal political participation may matter more than casting a vote.

Adida situated the study in the context of Nigeria, a large and diverse democracy that remains heavily patriarchal. Surveys highlight these disparities starkly: nearly half of Nigerian men believe men make better leaders than women; two in five women report never discussing politics with friends or family; and women are consistently less likely than men to attend meetings or contact community leaders. Against this backdrop, the project tested interventions designed to reduce barriers that discourage women’s participation.

The research team identified three categories of constraints: resource-based (a lack of time, skills, or information), norms-based (social expectations that women should remain outside the public sphere), and psychological (feelings of disempowerment and doubt about one’s capacity to create change). The study focused on the last two. To explore these, the team partnered with ActionAid Nigeria to conduct a randomized control trial (RCT) across 450 rural wards in three southwestern states. Local leaders identified groups of economically active women, aged 21 to 50, who were permitted by their spouses to join.

All communities began with an informational session on local governance. Beyond that, two types of training were introduced. The first, targeted at women, consisted of five sessions over five months designed to build leadership, organizing, and advocacy skills. These emphasized group-based learning and aimed to foster collective efficacy — the belief that a group can act together to achieve change. The second, targeted at men, encouraged husbands to act as allies in supporting women’s participation. After the initial informational session, communities were randomly assigned to no longer receive further training, to receive the 5 sessions of women’s training, or to receive the 5 sessions of women’s training and the 5 sessions of men’s training.

The findings were striking. Women’s trainings had clear positive effects: participants were more likely to engage in politics, attend meetings, and contact local leaders. The quality of their participation also improved, suggesting greater confidence and effectiveness. There was also evidence that these women’s trainings activated collective and self-efficacy, lending credence to the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), a framework explaining how a sense of shared identity, group-based injustice, and group efficacy build political engagement. By contrast, men’s trainings produced modest results. They did not increase women’s participation beyond the women’s trainings and, in some cases, had small negative effects, such as on grant applications. Still, men’s trainings reduced opposition to women’s involvement, improved beliefs about women in leadership, and increased perceptions of more permissive community norms, even if they did not translate into an increase in women’s political participation.

Adida noted that these limited effects may reflect “ceiling effects” — many men in the sample were already relatively supportive compared to national averages, or lower attendance rates. It is also possible that changes in men’s attitudes take longer to manifest in behavior. The seminar concluded that advocacy trainings for women show strong promise in boosting participation, while efforts to reshape patriarchal norms among men may require longer-term strategies.