plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods 
abstract:BackgroundResearch funding agencies continue to grapple with assessing research impact. Theoretical frameworks are useful tools for describing and understanding research impact. The purpose of this narrative literature review was to synthesize evidence that describes processes and conceptual models for assessing policy and practice impacts of public health research.MethodsThe review involved keyword searches of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, and Google Scholar in July/August 2013. Review search terms included ‘research impact’, ‘policy and practice’, ‘intervention research’, ‘translational research’, ‘health promotion’, and ‘public health’. The review included theoretical and opinion pieces, case studies, descriptive studies, frameworks and systematic reviews describing processes, and conceptual models for assessing research impact. The review was conducted in two phases: initially, abstracts were retrieved and assessed against the review criteria followed by the retrieval and assessment of full papers against review criteria.ResultsThirty one primary studies and one systematic review met the review criteria, with 88% of studies published since 2006. Studies comprised assessments of the impacts of a wide range of health-related research, including basic and biomedical research, clinical trials, health service research, as well as public health research. Six studies had an explicit focus on assessing impacts of health promotion or public health research and one had a specific focus on intervention research impact assessment. A total of 16 different impact assessment models were identified, with the ‘payback model’ the most frequently used conceptual framework. Typically, impacts were assessed across multiple dimensions using mixed methodologies, including publication and citation analysis, interviews with principal investigators, peer assessment, case studies, and document analysis. The vast majority of studies relied on principal investigator interviews and/or peer review to assess impacts, instead of interviewing policymakers and end-users of research.ConclusionsResearch impact assessment is a new field of scientific endeavour and there are a growing number of conceptual frameworks applied to assess the impacts of research.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Policy context and narrative leading to the commissioning of the Australian Indigenous Burden of Disease study 
abstract:BackgroundBurden of disease (BoD) studies have been conducted in numerous international settings since the early 1990’s. Two national BoD studies have been undertaken in Australia, in 1998 and 2003, although neither study estimated the BoD specifically for Indigenous Australians. In 2005 the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health formally commissioned the University of Queensland to undertake, in parallel with the second national BoD study, the “Burden of Disease and Injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples” study, drawing on available data up to 2003. This paper aims to explore the policy context and narrative in the lead up to commissioning the Indigenous BoD (IBoD) study, focusing on relevant contextual factors and insights regarding the perspectives of key stakeholders and their anticipated value of the study. It is part of a broader project that examines the uptake of evidence to policy, using the IBoD study as a case study.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was undertaken in late 2013 and early 2014, and the findings triangulated with 38 key informant interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, researchers, statisticians, policy advisors, and policymakers, conducted between 2011 and 2013.FindingsContextual features which led to commissioning the IBoD study included widespread recognition of longstanding Indigenous disadvantage, lower life expectancy than non-Indigenous Australians, and the lack of an adequate evidence base upon which to determine priorities for interventions. Several anticipated benefits and expectations of key stakeholders were identified. Most informants held at least one of the following expectations of the study: that it would inform the evidence base, contribute to priority setting, and/or inform policy. There were differing or entirely contrasting views to this however, with some sharing concerns about the study being undertaken at all.ConclusionsThe IBoD study, in concept, offered the potential to generate much desired ‘answers’, in the form of a quantified ranking of health risks and disease burden, and it was hoped by many that the results of the study would feed into determining priorities and informing Indigenous health policy.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework 
abstract:BackgroundImplementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed.ResultsFrameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and ‘type’ (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations.ConclusionsThe selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework’s orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Evaluation as evolution: a Darwinian proposal for health policy and systems research 
abstract:BackgroundHealth systems are complex and health policies are political. While grand policies are set by politicians, the detailed implementation strategies which influence the shape and impact of these policies are delegated to technical personnel. This is an underappreciated opportunity for optimising health systems. We propose that selective ‘breeding’ through successive evaluations of and selection among implementation strategies is a metaphor that health system thinkers can use to improve health care.DiscussionSimilar to Darwinian evolution, the acceptance and accumulation of successful choices and the detection and discarding of unsuccessful ones would improve health systems in small and uncontroversial ways, over time. The effects of better implementation choices would be synergistic and cumulative, accumulating large impact (and lessons) from small changes. Just as with evolution of species, this means that even slight improvements over usual outcomes makes these numerous small choices as important a focus for system improvement as the overarching policy itself. Several alternative implementation approaches can be compared under real-world conditions in prospective head-to-head experimental and non-experimental explorations to understand whether and to what extent a strategy works and what works for whom, how, and under what circumstances in different locations. As in breeding or evolution, the best variants would spread to become the new, proven superior, implementation strategies for that policy in those settings.ConclusionsEvolution does not produce a new species whole, in a single transaction. Instead it gathers new parts and powers over time as different combinations are tested through competition with one another, to survive and spread or become extinct. Without necessarily changing or challenging grand policies, extending this idea to health systems innovation can facilitate thinking around how local, small – but cumulative – improvements in implementation potentially contribute to a pattern of successive adaptation spreading within its viable niche and ultimately providing locally-derived, long-term improvements in health systems.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Setting research priorities across science, technology, and health sectors: the Tanzania experience 
abstract:BackgroundIdentifying research priorities is key to innovation and economic growth, since it informs decision makers on effectively targeting issues that have the greatest potential public benefit. As such, the process of setting research priorities is of pivotal importance for favouring the science, technology, and innovation (STI)-driven development of low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe report herein on a major cross-sectoral nationwide research priority setting effort recently carried out in Tanzania by the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) in partnership with the Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED) and the NEPAD Agency. The first of its type in the country, the process brought together stakeholders from 42 sub-sectors in science, technology, and health. The cross-sectoral research priority setting process consisted of a ‘training-of-trainers’ workshop, a demonstration workshop, and seven priority setting workshops delivered to representatives from public and private research and development institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations, and other agencies affiliated to COSTECH.ResultsThe workshops resulted in ranked listings of research priorities for each sub-sector, totalling approximately 800 priorities. This large number was significantly reduced by an expert panel in order to build a manageable instrument aligned to national development plans that could be used to guide research investments.ConclusionsThe Tanzania experience is an instructive example of the challenges and issues to be faced in when attempting to identify research priority areas and setting an STI research agenda in low- and middle-income countries. As countries increase their investment in research, it is essential to increase investment in research management and governance as well, a key and much needed capacity for countries to make proper use of research investments.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Barriers and opportunities for enhancing patient recruitment and retention in clinical research: findings from an interview study in an NHS academic health science centre 
abstract:BackgroundIn the UK, the recruitment of patients into clinical research is a national health research and development policy priority. There has been limited investigation of how national level factors operate as barriers or facilitators to recruitment work, particularly from the perspective of staff undertaking patient recruitment work. The aim of this study is to identify and examine staff views of the key organisational barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment work in one clinical research group located in an NHS Academic Health Science Centre.MethodsA qualitative study utilizing in-depth, one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 11 purposively selected staff with particular responsibilities to recruit and retain patients as clinical research subjects. Thematic analysis classified interview data by recurring themes, concepts, and emergent categories for the purposes of establishing explanatory accounts.ResultsThe findings highlight four key factors that staff perceived to be most significant for the successful recruitment and retention of patients in research and identify how staff located these factors within patients, studies, the research centre, the trust, and beyond the trust. Firstly, competition for research participants at an organisational and national level was perceived to undermine recruitment success. Secondly, the tension between clinical and clinical research workloads was seen to interrupt patient recruitment into studies, despite national funding arrangements to manage excess treatment costs. Thirdly, staff perceived an imbalance between personal patient burden and benefit. Ethical committee regulation, designed to protect patients, was perceived by some staff to detract from clarification and systematisation of incentivisation strategies. Finally, the structure and relationships within clinical research teams, in particular the low tacit status of recruitment skills, was seen as influential.ConclusionsThe results of this case-study, conducted in an exemplary NHS academic research centre, highlight current systematic challenges to patient recruitment and retention in clinical studies more generally as seen from the perspective of staff at the 'sharp end’ of recruiting. Staff experience is that, beyond individual clinical research design and protocol factors, wider organisational and extra-organisational norms, structures, and processes operate as significant facilitators or hindrances in the recruitment of patients as research subjects.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: How does context influence performance of community health workers in low- and middle-income countries? Evidence from the literature 
abstract:BackgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) are increasingly recognized as an integral component of the health workforce needed to achieve public health goals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many factors intersect to influence CHW performance. A systematic review with a narrative analysis was conducted to identify contextual factors influencing performance of CHWs.MethodsWe searched six databases for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies that included CHWs working in promotional, preventive or curative primary health care services in LMICs. We differentiated CHW performance outcome measures at two levels: CHW level and end-user level. Ninety-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were double read to extract data relevant to the context of CHW programmes. Thematic coding was conducted and evidence on five main categories of contextual factors influencing CHW performance was synthesized.ResultsFew studies had the influence of contextual factors on CHW performance as their primary research focus. Contextual factors related to community (most prominently), economy, environment, and health system policy and practice were found to influence CHW performance. Socio-cultural factors (including gender norms and values and disease related stigma), safety and security and education and knowledge level of the target group were community factors that influenced CHW performance. Existence of a CHW policy, human resource policy legislation related to CHWs and political commitment were found to be influencing factors within the health system policy context. Health system practice factors included health service functionality, human resources provisions, level of decision-making, costs of health services, and the governance and coordination structure. All contextual factors can interact to shape CHW performance and affect the performance of CHW interventions or programmes.ConclusionsResearch on CHW programmes often does not capture or explicitly discuss the context in which CHW interventions take place. This synthesis situates and discusses the influence of context on CHW and programme performance. Future health policy and systems research should better address the complexity of contextual influences on programmes. This insight can help policy makers and programme managers to develop CHW interventions that adequately address and respond to context to optimise performance.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Health research improves healthcare: now we have the evidence and the chance to help the WHO spread such benefits globally 
abstract:There has been a dramatic increase in the body of evidence demonstrating the benefits that come from health research. In 2014, the funding bodies for higher education in the UK conducted an assessment of research using an approach termed the Research Excellence Framework (REF). As one element of the REF, universities and medical schools in the UK submitted 1,621 case studies claiming to show the impact of their health and other life sciences research conducted over the last 20 years. The recently published results show many case studies were judged positively as providing examples of the wide range and extensive nature of the benefits from such research, including the development of new treatments and screening programmes that resulted in considerable reductions in mortality and morbidity.Analysis of specific case studies yet again illustrates the international dimension of progress in health research; however, as has also long been argued, not all populations fully share the benefits. In recognition of this, in May 2013 the World Health Assembly requested the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D) as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilise resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poorest countries.As editors of Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS), we are delighted that our journal has been invited to help inform the establishment of the WHO Global Observatory through a Call for Papers covering a range of topics relevant to the Observatory, including topics on which HARPS has published articles over the last few months, such as approaches to assessing research results, measuring expenditure data with a focus on R&D, and landscape analyses of platforms for implementing R&D. Topics related to research capacity building may also be considered. The task of establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D to achieve the specified objectives will not be easy; nevertheless, this Call for Papers is well timed – it comes just at the point where the evidence of the benefits from health research has been considerably strengthened.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Developing and refining the methods for a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems 
abstract:BackgroundPolicymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results.MethodsTo address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a ‘one-stop shop’ for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing ‘added value’ to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages.ResultsThe taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The ‘one-stop shop’, called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.ConclusionsPolicymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2015 source: BMC 
title: Informing the establishment of the WHO Global Observatory on Health Research and Development: a call for papers 
abstract:In May 2013, the WHO Member States requested the WHO to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D), as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilize resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poorest countries.The rationale for establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D is to provide a mechanism to monitor and analyse health R&D resource flows, product pipelines, and research outputs, aiming to contribute to the identification of gaps to inform priority-setting for new R&D investments to be operationalized through a new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D and utilized by all stakeholders informing health research policy decisions in countries, civil society, and the private sector.As one of the mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Observatory on Health R&D, the WHO is launching a Call for Papers to be published as a Thematic Series in Health Research Policy and Systems to contribute state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative approaches to analyse, interpret, and report on health R&D information. Further, to serve as a key resource to inform the future WHO-convened coordination mechanism, which will be utilized to generate evidence-informed priorities for new R&D investments to be financed through a proposed new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D.