plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice 
abstract:BackgroundImplementation research is increasingly being recognised as an important discipline seeking to maximise the benefits of evidence-based interventions. Although capacity-building efforts are ongoing, there has been limited attention on the contextual and health system peculiarities in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, given the challenges encountered during the implementation of health interventions, the field of implementation research requires a creative attempt to build expertise for health researchers and practitioners simultaneously. With support from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, we have developed an implementation research short course that targets both researchers and practitioners. This paper seeks to explain the course development processes and report on training evaluations, highlighting its relevance for inter-institutional and inter-regional capacity strengthening.MethodsThe development of the implementation research course curriculum was categorised into four phases, namely the formation of a core curriculum development team, course content development, internal reviews and pilot, and external reviews and evaluations. Five modules were developed covering Introduction to implementation research, Methods in implementation research, Ethics and quality management in implementation research, Community and stakeholder engagement, and Dissemination in implementation research. Course evaluations were conducted using developed tools measuring participants’ reactions and learning.ResultsFrom 2016 to 2018, the IR curriculum has been used to train a total of 165 researchers and practitioners predominantly from African countries, the majority of whom are males (57%) and researchers/academics (79.4%). Participants generally gave positive ratings (e.g. integration of concepts) for their reactions to the training. Under ‘learnings’, participants indicated improvement in their knowledge in areas such as identification of implementation research problems and questions.ConclusionThe approach for training both researchers and practitioners offers a dynamic opportunity for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge for both categories of learners. This approach was crucial in demonstrating a key characteristic of implementation research (e.g. multidisciplinary) practically evident during the training sessions. Using such a model to effectively train participants from various low- and middle-income countries shows the opportunities this training curriculum offers as a capacity-building tool.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: The crucible of COVID-19: what the pandemic is teaching us about health research systems 
abstract:The global health crisis created by COVID-19 is providing valuable insights into the strengths of our health research system and, perhaps even more clearly, displaying its weaknesses. Much of what is being shown so plainly in the current context is not truly new. We are being reminded that health research systems are slow and noisy as well as that there is a desire for research to inform decision-making, that researchers are great collaborators, and that the walls we are so quick to erect between health research and health practice are unhelpful facades. It is our hope that the clarity with which these issues are being demonstrated by COVID-19 might provide the impetus to address these challenges and seize these opportunities to improve our health research system, for the benefit for communities facing COVID-19 now, and for the benefit of us all in facing the further health challenges that are sure to come.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature 
abstract:BackgroundConducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, organisations, patients) is a promising and popular approach to improving the implementation of research findings in policy and practice. This study aimed to identify the principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts reported in different types of reviews of research partnerships in order to obtain a better understanding of the scope of the research partnership literature.MethodsThis review of reviews is part of a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to synthesise the research partnership literature with five conceptually linked literature reviews. The main research question was ‘What principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts are reported in different types of research partnership approaches?’. We included articles describing a literature review of research partnerships using a systematic search strategy. We used an adapted version of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess quality. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2018. Principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts were extracted from the included reviews and analysed using direct content analysis.ResultsWe included 86 reviews using terms describing several research partnership approaches (e.g. community-based participatory research, participatory research, integrated knowledge translation). After the analyses, we synthesised 17 overarching principles and 11 overarching strategies and grouped them into one of the following subcategories: relationship between partners; co-production of knowledge; meaningful stakeholder engagement; capacity-building, support and resources; communication process; and ethical issues related to the collaborative research activities. Similarly, we synthesised 20 overarching outcomes and impacts on researchers, stakeholders, the community or society, and the research process.ConclusionsThis review of reviews is the first that presents overarching principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships. This review is unique in scope as we synthesised literature across multiple research areas, involving different stakeholder groups. Our findings can be used as a first step to guide the initiation and maintenance of research partnerships and to create a classification system of the key domains of research partnerships, which may improve reporting consistency in the research partnership literature.Trial registrationThis study is registered via Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GVR7Y.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Using an equity-based framework for evaluating publicly funded health insurance programmes as an instrument of UHC in Chhattisgarh State, India 
abstract:BackgroundUniversal health coverage (UHC) has provided the impetus for the introduction of publicly funded health insurance (PFHI) schemes in the mixed health systems of India and many other low- and middle-income countries. There is a need for a holistic understanding of the pathways of impact of PFHI schemes, including their role in promoting equity of access.MethodsThis paper applies an equity-oriented evaluation framework to assess the impacts of PFHI schemes in Chhattisgarh State by synthesising literature from various sources and highlighting knowledge gaps. Data were collected from an extensive review of publications on PFHI schemes in Chhattisgarh since 2009, including empirical studies from the first author’s PhD and grey literature such as programme evaluation reports, media articles and civil society campaign documents. The framework was constructed using concepts and frameworks from the health policy and systems research literature on UHC, access and health system building blocks, and is underpinned by the values of equity, human rights and the right to health.ResultsThe analysis finds that evidence of equitable enrolment in Chhattisgarh’s PFHI scheme may mask many other inequities. Firstly, equitable enrolment does not automatically lead to the acceptability of the scheme for the poor or to equity in utilisation. Utilisation, especially in the private sector, is skewed towards the areas that have the least health and social need. Secondly, related to this, resource allocation patterns under PFHI deepen the ‘infrastructure inequality trap’, with resources being effectively transferred from tribal and vulnerable to ‘better-off’ areas and from the public to the private sector. Thirdly, PFHI fails in its fundamental objective of effective financial protection. Technological innovations, such as the biometric smart card and billing systems, have not provided the necessary safeguards nor led to greater accountability.ConclusionThe study shows that development of PFHI schemes, within the context of wider neoliberal policies promoting private sector provisioning, has negative consequences for health equity and access. More research is needed on key knowledge gaps related to the impact of PFHI schemes on health systems. An over-reliance on and rapid expansion of PFHI schemes in India is unlikely to achieve UHC.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Bridging the gap: an economic case study of the impact and cost effectiveness of comprehensive healthcare intermediaries in rural Mexico 
abstract:BackgroundIn rural settings where patients face significant structural barriers to accessing healthcare services, the formal existence of government-provided health coverage does not necessarily translate to meaningful care delivery. This paper analyses the effectiveness of an innovative approach to overcome these barriers, the Right to Health Care programme offered by Compañeros en Salud in Chiapas, Mexico. This programme provides comprehensive free coverage of all additional direct and indirect medical costs as well as accompaniment through the medical system. Over 550 patients had participated from 2013 until November 2018.MethodsFocusing on ten of the most frequently treated conditions, including hernias, cataracts and congenital heart defects, we performed a retrospective case study analysis of the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from treatment and the cost per QALY for 69 patients. This analysis used disability weights and uncertainty intervals from the Global Burden of Disease study and organisational micro-costing data for each patient. Each patient was compared to their own hypothetical counterfactual health outcome had they not received the secondary and tertiary care required for the specific condition. A mixed methods approach is used to establish this counterfactual baseline, drawing on pre-intervention observations, qualitative interviews and established literature precedent.ResultsThe programme was found to deliver an average of 14.4 additional QALYs (95% uncertainty interval 12.4–15.8) without time discounting. The mean cost per QALY over these conditions was $388 USD (95% UI $262–588) at purchasing power parity.ConclusionsThese numbers compare favourably with studies of other health services and international cost per QALY guidelines. They reflect the on-treatment effect for the ten conditions analysed and are presented as a case study indicative of the promise of healthcare intermediaries rather than a definitive assessment of cost-effectiveness. Nonetheless, these results show the potential feasibility and cost effectiveness of a more comprehensive approach to healthcare provision in a resource-limited rural setting.Trial registrationThis study involves economic analysis of a programme facilitating access to public healthcare services. Thus, there was no associated clinical trial to be registered.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Using natural experiments to improve public health evidence: a review of context and utility for obesity prevention 
abstract:BackgroundNatural experiments are increasingly valued as a way to assess the health impact of health and non-health interventions when planned controlled experimental research designs may be infeasible or inappropriate to implement. This study sought to investigate the value of natural experiments by exploring how they have been used in practice. The study focused on obesity prevention research as one complex programme area for applying natural experiment studies.MethodsA literature search sought obesity prevention research from January 1997 to December 2017 and identified 46 population health studies that self-described as a natural experiment.ResultsThe majority of studies identified were published in the last 5 years, illustrating a more recent adoption of such opportunities. The majority of studies were evaluations of the impact of policies (n = 19), such as assessing changes to food labelling, food advertising or taxation on diet and obesity outcomes, or were built environment interventions (n = 17), such as the impact of built infrastructure on physical activity or access to healthy food. Research designs included quasi-experimental, pre-experimental and non-experimental methods. Few studies applied rigorous research designs to establish stronger causal inference, such as multiple pre/post measures, time series designs or comparison of change against an unexposed group. In general, researchers employed techniques to enhance the study utility but often were limited in the use of more rigorous study designs by ethical considerations and/or the particular context of the intervention.ConclusionGreater recognition of the utility and versatility of natural experiments in generating evidence for complex health issues like obesity prevention is needed. This review suggests that natural experiments may be underutilised as an approach for providing evidence of the effects of interventions, particularly for evaluating health outcomes of interventions when unexpected opportunities to gather evidence arise.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: the potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives 
abstract:BackgroundIt has been well established that research is not addressing health needs in a balanced way — much more research is conducted on diseases with more burden in high-income countries than on those with more burden in lower-income countries. In this study, we explore whether these imbalances persist and inquire about the possible influence of three factors, namely geography, industry and publication incentives.MethodsWe use WHO data on the Global Burden of Disease as a proxy measure of health needs and bibliometric information as a proxy for research efforts. Scientific publications on diseases were collected from MEDLINE using MeSH terms to identify relevant publications. We used Web of Science to collect author affiliations and citation data. We developed a correspondence table between WHO ICD-10 and MeSH descriptors to compare global health needs and research efforts. This correspondence table is available as supplementary material.ResultsResearch output is heavily concentrated in high-income countries and is mainly focused on their health needs, resulting in a relative lack of attention to diseases in lower income countries. A new finding is that diseases with a similar burden in high- and middle-income countries are also under-researched, both globally and in relation to disease burden in high- and middle-income countries. Global industrial R&D is found to be very similar to the focus of public research. Diseases more prevalent in high-income countries generate ten-fold more research attention than those in low-income countries. We find no discernible preference towards diseases of high-income countries versus those of low-income countries in the top 25% most prestigious journals. However, in middle-income countries, citation rates are substantially lower for diseases most prevalent in low- and middle-income countries.ConclusionsFrom a global perspective, the imbalance between research needs and research efforts persists as most of the research effort concentrates on diseases affecting high-income countries. Both pharmaceutical companies and the public sector also tend to focus on diseases with more burden in high-income countries. Our findings indicate that researchers in middle-income countries receive more citations when researching diseases more prevalent in high-income countries, and this may divert the attention of researchers in these countries from diseases more prevalent in their contexts.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Implementing without guidelines, learning at the coalface: a case study of health promoters in an era of community health workers in South Africa 
abstract:BackgroundInternationally, there has been renewed focus on primary healthcare (PHC). PHC revitalisation is one of the mechanisms to emphasise health promotion and prevention. However, it is not always clear who should lead health promotion activities. In some countries, health promotion practitioners provide health promotion; in others, community health workers (CHWs) are responsible. South Africa, like other countries, has embarked on reforms to strengthen PHC, including a nationwide CHW programme – resulting in an unclear role for pre-existing health promoters. This paper examined the tension between these two cadres in two South African provinces in an era of primary health reform.MethodologyWe used a qualitative case study approach. Participants were recruited from the national, provincial, district and facility levels of the health system. Thirty-seven face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 health promotion managers, 12 health promoters and 13 facility managers during a 3-month period (November 2017 to February 2018). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both inductive and deductive thematic content analysis approaches were used, supported by MAXQDA software.ResultsTwo South African policy documents, one on PHC reform and the other on health promotion, were introduced and implemented without clear guidelines on how health promoter job descriptions should be altered in the context of CHWs. The introduction of CHWs triggered anxiety and uncertainty among some health promoters. However, despite considerable role overlap and the absence of formal re-orientation processes to re-align their roles, some health promoters have carved out a role for themselves, supporting CHWs (for example, providing up-to-date health information, jointly discussing how to assist with health problems in the community, providing advice and household-visit support).ConclusionsThis paper adds to recent literature on the current wave of PHC reforms. It describes how health promoters are ‘working it out’ on the ground, when the policy or process do not provide adequate guidance or structure. Lessons learnt on how these two cadres could work together are important, especially given the shortage of human resources for health in low- and middle-income settings. This is a missed opportunity, researchers and policy-makers need to think more about how to feed experience/tacit knowledge up the system.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Using developmental evaluation to enhance continuous reflection, learning and adaptation of an innovation platform in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare 
abstract:Effective efforts to strengthen health systems need diverse, multi-stakeholder networks working together on complex or ‘wicked’ problems such as prevention and control of chronic diseases, solutions to which go beyond the role and capability of one organisation. The contextual complexities inherent in ‘wicked’ problems mean that solutions warrant a systems approach that encompasses innovation and new ways of thinking about, facilitating and implementing collective decision-making processes and change practices.Innovation platforms are a mechanism for facilitating communication and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, promoting joint action and stimulating innovation. Developmental evaluation is an approach that is increasingly being used to evaluate innovative and emergent programmes and projects, as it enables evaluators to provide real-time feedback so that evaluation findings can be used to guide development and adaptations. Developmental evaluation emphasises learning and adaptation, and aligns well with the implementation of innovation platforms that have continuous reflection, learning and adaptation as a specific design principle.Here, we outline our rationale for applying a developmental evaluation to enhance the formation, functioning and outcomes of an innovation platform aimed at accelerating and strengthening large-scale quality improvement efforts in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. We provide examples to explain how the developmental evaluation findings were used for adaptation of the innovation platform and assess to what extent our application of developmental evaluation was consistent with, and reflective of, its essential principles.Our evaluation aligned strongly with the principles of developmental evaluation, and the approach we took was well suited to situations with a developmental purpose, innovation niche and complexity such as innovation platforms. As a result, along with the increasing interest in multi-stakeholder platforms (e.g. innovation platforms) and the inherent challenges with evaluating these complex networks, we anticipate our use of this approach being of interest globally.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2020 source: BMC 
title: Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production 
abstract:This article is a response to Oliver et al.’s Commentary ‘The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?’ recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed ‘dark side’, of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary’s limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term ‘co-production’ more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as ‘cobiquity’ – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of ‘co’ words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term ‘co-production’. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to ‘the problem’ of ‘co-production’ seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia’s failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.