plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries 
abstract:BackgroundThe interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsA systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English.ResultsFrom 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting.ConclusionOur systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Health policy and systems research: the future of the field 
abstract:Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has changed considerably over the last 20 years, but its main purpose remains to inform and influence health policies and systems. Whereas goals that underpin health systems have endured – such as a focus on health equity – contexts and priorities change, research methods progress, and health organisations continue to learn and adapt, in part by using HPSR. For HPSR to remain relevant, its practitioners need to re-think how health systems are conceptualised, to keep up with rapid changes in how we diagnose and manage disease and use information, and consider factors affecting people’s health that go well beyond healthcare systems. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a shifting paradigm in human development by seeking convergence across sectors. They also offer an opportunity for HPSR to play a larger role, given its pioneering work on applying systems thinking to health, its focus on health equity, and the strength of its multi-disciplinary approaches that make it a good fit for the SDG era.Globally, population health is being challenged in different ways, from climate change and growing air pollution and toxic environmental exposure to food insecurity, massive population migration and refugee crises, to emerging and re-emerging diseases. Each of these trends reinforce each other and concentrate their harms on the most vulnerable populations. Multi-level governance, together with novel regulatory strategies and socially oriented investments, are key to successful action against many of the new challenges, with HPSR guiding their design and evolution.The HPSR community cannot be complacent about its successful, yet short, history. Tensions remain about how different stakeholders use HPSR such as the contrast between embedding research within government institutions versus independently evaluating and holding decision-makers accountable. Such tensions are inevitable in the boundary-spanning field that HPSR has become. We should strive to enhance the influence of HPSR by staying relevant in a changing world and embracing the strength of our diversity of disciplines, the range of problems addressed, and the opportunity of the SDGs to ensure that health and social benefits are more inclusive for people within and across countries.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study 
abstract:BackgroundMajor research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR.MethodsWe conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the ‘Health Policy and Services’ (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal’s characteristics.ResultsWe included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals’ characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers.ConclusionsDespite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The contribution of Cyprus to non-communicable diseases and biomedical research from 2002 to 2013: implications for evidence-based health policy 
abstract:BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of disease burden and mortality at the European level and in Cyprus. This research was conducted to map the research activities of Cypriot institutions in five NCDs, namely oncology, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, mental health and respiratory conditions.MethodsFor the period 2002–2013, research in Cyprus was assessed on its biomedical outputs and compared to the rest of Europe relative to their GDP. The research output in the five NCDs was obtained and contrasted to their respective disease burdens. The results from each of the five NCDs showed the amount of cross-country collaboration with other researchers from other European countries and from the rest of the world, and the research level of the papers on a clinical to basic scale. For each NCD field the research application was assessed, whereas for oncology the research type was also assessed. Information was collected on the development of clinical guidelines, on Cypriot newspapers reporting on medical and policy documents and advisory committees’ output as well as research and funding organisations available in Cyprus, for potential evaluation of impact in health policy on the five NCDs.ResultsCypriot biomedical research output appeared appropriate in volume compared with its wealth and the expected value from a regression line for other European countries. However, it was focused particularly on the molecular mechanisms of transmittable or hereditary diseases, rather than on the five NCDs. Cyprus performs well in palliative care, which receives funding from several local charities and other non-profit organisations. Cyprus has the highest relative burden from diabetes in Europe, but the subject is largely neglected by researchers. Similarly, it suffers more from mental disorders than most of the rest of Europe, but the amount of research is relatively small. Respiratory conditions research is under-funded and under-researched too.ConclusionsThe biomedical research portfolio in Cyprus is adequate in volume, but not well fitted to its pattern of disease. The means whereby research can be used to improve healthcare in the country are also unsatisfactory, although the Ministry of Health is now developing a comprehensive plan which will include the development of clinical guidelines and proposals for the evaluation of how healthcare is delivered on the island.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The discordance between evidence and health policy in the United States: the science of translational research and the critical role of diverse stakeholders 
abstract:BackgroundThere is often a discordance between health research evidence and public health policies implemented by the United States federal government. In the process of developing health policy, discordance can arise through subjective and objective factors that are unrelated to the value of the evidence itself, and can inhibit the use of research evidence. We explore two common types of discordance through four illustrative examples and then propose a potential means of addressing discordance.DiscussionIn Discordance 1, public health authorities make recommendations for policy action, yet these are not based on high quality, rigorously synthesised research evidence. In Discordance 2, evidence-based public health recommendations are ignored or discounted in developing United States federal government policy. Both types could lead to serious risks of public health and clinical patient harms.We suggest that, to mitigate risks associated with these discordances, public health practitioners, health policy-makers, health advocates and other key stakeholders should take the opportunity to learn or expand their knowledge regarding current research methods, as well as improve their skills for appropriately considering the strengths and limitations of research evidence. This could help stakeholders to adopt a more nuanced approach to developing health policy. Stakeholders should also have a more insightful contextual awareness of these discordances and understand their potential harms. In Discordance 1, public health organisations and authorities need to acknowledge their own historical roles in making public health recommendations with insufficient evidence for improving health outcomes. In Discordance 2, policy-makers should recognise the larger impact of their decision-making based on minimal or flawed evidence, including the potential for poor health outcomes at population level and the waste of huge sums. In both types of discordance, stakeholders need to consider the impact of their own unconscious biases in championing evidence that may not be valid or conclusive.ConclusionPublic health policy needs to provide evidence-based solutions to public health problems, but this is not always done. We discuss some of the factors inhibiting evidence-based decision-making in United States federal government public health policy and suggest ways these could be addressed.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Advancing the science behind human resources for health: highlights from the Health Policy and Systems Research Reader on Human Resources for Health 
abstract:Health workers are central to people-centred health systems, resilient economies and sustainable development. Given the rising importance of the health workforce, changing human resource for health (HRH) policy and practice and recent health policy and systems research (HPSR) advances, it is critical to reassess and reinvigorate the science behind HRH as part of health systems strengthening and social development more broadly. Building on the recently published Health Policy and Systems Research Reader on Human Resources for Health (the Reader), this commentary reflects on the added value of HPSR underpinning HRH. HPSR does so by strengthening the multi-disciplinary base and rigour of HRH research by (1) valuing diverse research inferences and (2) deepening research enquiry and quality. It also anchors the relevance of HRH research for HRH policy and practice by (3) broadening conceptual boundaries and (4) strengthening policy engagement. Most importantly, HPSR enables us to transform HRH from being faceless numbers or units of health producers to the heart and soul of health systems and vital change agents in our communities and societies. Health workers’ identities and motivation, daily routines and negotiations, and training and working environments are at the centre of successes and failures of health interventions, health system functioning and broader social development. Further, in an increasingly complex globalised economy, the expansion of the health sector as an arena for employment and the liberalisation of labour markets has contributed to the unprecedented movement of health workers, many or most of whom are women, not only between public and private health sectors, but also across borders. Yet, these political, human development and labour market realities are often set aside or elided altogether. Health workers’ lives and livelihoods, their contributions and commitments, and their individual and collective agency are ignored. The science of HRH, offering new discoveries and deeper understanding of how universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals are dependent on millions of health workers globally, has the potential to overcome this outdated and ineffective orthodoxy.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Public involvement in health research systems: a governance framework 
abstract:BackgroundGrowing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance.MethodsWe drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories.ResultsWe identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system’s many constituents.ConclusionsA governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Are our ‘UHC systems’ learning systems? Piloting an assessment tool and process in six African countries 
abstract:BackgroundIf there is one universal recommendation to countries wanting to make progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), it is to develop the learning capacities that will enable them to ‘find their own way’ – this is especially true for countries struggling with fragmented health financing systems. This paper explores results from a multi-country study whose main aim was to assess the extent to which UHC systems and processes at country level operate as ‘learning systems’.MethodThis study is part of a multi-year action-research project implemented by two communities of practice active in Africa. For this specific investigation, we adapted the concept of the learning organisation to so-called ‘UHC systems’. Our framework organises the assessment around 92 questions divided into blocks, sub-blocks and levels of learning, with a seven scale score in a standardised questionnaire developed during a protocol and methodology workshop attended by all the research teams. The study was implemented in six francophone African countries by national research teams involving researchers and cadres of the ministries involved in the UHC policy. Across the six countries, the questionnaire was administrated to 239 UHC actors. Data were analysed per country, per blocks and sub-blocks, by levels of learning and per question.ResultsThe study confirms the feasibility and relevance of adapting the learning organisation framework to UHC systems. All countries scored between 4 and 5 for all the sub-blocks of the learning system. The study and the validation workshops organised in the six countries indicate that the tool is particularly powerful to assess weaknesses within a specific country. However, some remarkable patterns also emerge from the cross-country analysis. Our respondents recognise the leadership developed at governmental level for UHC, but they also report some major weaknesses in the UHC system, especially the absence of a learning agenda and the limited use of data.ConclusionCountries will not progress towards UHC without strong learning systems. Our tool has allowed us to document the situation in six countries, create some awareness at country level and initiate a participatory action-oriented process.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Use of post-graduate students' research in evidence informed health policies: a case study of Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda 
abstract:BackgroundWorld over, stakeholders are increasingly concerned about making research useful in public policy-making. However, there are hardly any reports linking production of research by students at institutions of higher learning to its application in society. We assessed whether and how post-graduate students’ research was used in evidence-informed health policies.MethodsThis is a multiple case study of master’s students’ dissertations at Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) produced between 1996 and 2010. In a structured review, we applied a theoretical framework of ‘research use’ and used content analysis to map how research was used in public policy documents. We categorised content of these documents according to the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDG). We defined a case of ‘use’ as citation of research products from a master’s student’s dissertation in a public policy-related document.ResultsWe found 22 cases of research use in policy-related documents (0.5%) out of a total 4230 citations from 16 of 1172 total dissertations (1.4%). Additionally, research was mostly cited in primary studies (95.4%), systematic reviews (3%), narrative reviews (0.8%) and cost-effectiveness analyses (0.2%). Research was predominantly used instrumentally, to either frame the problem (burden of disease or health condition) or select an intervention (treatment or diagnostic option) and rarely symbolically to justify strategies already selected. The bulk of the cases of research use addressed child health (MDG 4), focusing on infectious diseases (MDG 6), mainly in international clinical or public health guidelines, working papers, a consensus statement and a global report. We distilled ‘synergistic relationships’ among organisations or interest groups, ‘globalisation of local evidence’, ‘trade-offs’ in the use of research and use of ‘negative results’ from the documents and text content.ConclusionsResearch from dissertations of post-graduate students at MakCHS is used in evidence-informed health policies, particularly for infectious diseases in child health. Further, we have delineated pathways of research use in the global arena and highlighted the importance of ‘negative results’ from dissertations of post-graduate students at MakCHS.