plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: A mentored hands-on training model for scaling up implementation and intervention research in India: “connecting the dots” 
abstract:Despite the high burden of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), less than 25% of those in need have access to appropriate services, in part due to a scarcity of locally relevant, evidence-based interventions and models of care. To address this gap, researchers from India and the United States and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) collaboratively developed a “Grantathon” model to provide mentored research training to 24 new principal investigators (PIs). This included a week-long didactic training, a customized web-based data entry/analysis system and a National Coordination Unit (NCU) to support PIs and track process objectives. Outcome objectives were assessed via scholarly output including publications, awards received and subsequent grants that were leveraged. Multiple mentorship strategies including collaborative problem-solving approaches were used to foster single-centre and multicentre research. Flexible, approachable and engaged support from mentors helped PIs overcome research barriers, and the NCU addressed local policy and day-to-day challenges through informal monthly review meetings. Bi-annual formal review presentations by all PIs continued through the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling interim results reporting and scientific review, also serving to reinforce accountability. To date, more than 33 publications, 47 scientific presentations, 12 awards, two measurement tools, five intervention manuals and eight research grants have been generated in an open-access environment. The Grantathon is a successful model for building research capacity and improving mental health research in India that could be adopted for use in other LMICs.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: Exploring HIV/AIDS investigator perceptions of equity within research partnerships between low-and middle-income and high-income countries: a pilot survey 
abstract:BackgroundRecommendations for research partnerships between low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs) stress the importance of equity within the collaboration. However, there is limited knowledge of the practical challenges and successes involved in establishing equitable research practices. This study describes the results of a pilot survey assessing key issues on LMIC/HIC partnership equity within HIV/AIDS research collaborations and compares perspectives of these issues between LMIC- and HIC-based investigators.MethodsSurvey participants were selected using clustered, random sampling and snowball sampling. Responses were compared between LMIC and HIC respondents using standard descriptive statistics. Qualitative respondent feedback was analyzed using a combination of exploratory and confirmatory thematic analysis.ResultsThe majority of categories within four themes (research interests and resources; leadership, trust, and communication; cultural and ethical competence; representation and benefits) demonstrated relative consensus between LMIC and HIC respondents except for ‘lack of trust within the partnership’ which was rated as a more pronounced challenge by LMIC respondents. However, subcategories within some of the themes had significant differences between respondent groups including: equitable setting of the research agenda, compromise within a partnership, the role of regulatory bodies in monitoring partnerships for equity, and post-study access to research technology.ConclusionsThese efforts serve as a proof-of-concept survey characterizing contemporary issues around international research partnership equity. The frequency and severity of specific equity issues can be assessed, highlighting similarities versus differences in experiences between LMIC and HIC partners as potential targets for further discussion and evaluation.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: The case for citizen science in public health policy and practice: a mixed methods study of policymaker and practitioner perspectives and experiences 
abstract:BackgroundCitizen science (CS) is increasingly being utilised to involve the public in public health research, but little is known about whether and how CS can address the needs of policy and practice stakeholders in health promotion and chronic disease prevention.MethodsUsing a mixed methods approach we conducted an online survey (n = 83) and semi-structured interviews (n = 21) with policy and practice stakeholders across Australia to explore how CS approaches are perceived and applied in chronic disease prevention, how CS aligns with existing approaches to community engagement, and how the uptake of CS can be supported within policy and practice settings.ResultsMost participants had heard of CS, and while few had experience of using CS, there was widespread support for this approach, with many seeing it as complementary to other community engagement approaches. CS was seen as providing: (a) a robust framework for engagement; (b) access to rich data; (c) opportunities for more meaningful engagement; and (d) a mutually beneficial approach for stakeholders and community members. However, stakeholders identified a need to weigh benefits against potential risks and challenges including competing organisational priorities, resourcing and expertise, data quality and rigour, governance, and engagement.ConclusionsTo expand the use of CS, stakeholders identified the need for increased awareness, acceptance, and capacity for CS within public health organisations, greater access to supporting tools and technology, and evidence on processes, feasibility and impacts to enhance the visibility and legitimacy of CS approaches.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: Impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery 
abstract:BackgroundResearch impact is an emerging measure of research achievement alongside traditional academic outputs such as publications. We present the results of applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke, 2014–2019) and report on the feasibility and lessons from the application of FAIT to a CRE rather than a discrete research project.MethodsData were gathered via online surveys, in-depth interviews, document analysis and review of relevant websites/databases to report on the three major FAIT methods: the modified Payback Framework, an assessment of costs against monetized consequences, and a narrative account of the impact generated from CRE-Stroke activities. FAIT was applied during the last 4 years of CRE-Stroke operation.ResultsWith an economic investment of AU$ 3.9 million over 5 years, CRE-Stroke delivered a return on investment that included AU$ 18.8 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies. Collectively, CRE-Stroke members produced 354 publications that were accessed 470,000 times and cited over 7220 times. CRE-Stroke supported 26 PhDs, 39 postdocs and seven novice clinician researchers. There were 59 capacity-building events benefiting 744 individuals including policy-makers and consumers. CRE-Stroke created research infrastructure (including a research register of stroke survivors and a brain biobank), and its global leadership produced international consensus recommendations to influence the stroke research landscape worldwide. Members contributed to the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines: four researchers’ outputs were directly referenced. Based only on the consequences that could be monetized, CRE-Stroke returned AU$ 4.82 for every dollar invested in the CRE.ConclusionThis case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report the impact of and returns on research investment. The prospective application of FAIT by a dedicated research impact team demonstrated impact in broad categories of knowledge-gain, capacity-building, new infrastructure, input to policy and economic benefits. The methods can be used by other research teams to provide comprehensive evidence to governments and other research funders about what has been generated from their research investment but requires dedicated resources to complete.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: A health-systems journey towards more people-centred care: lessons from neglected tropical disease programme integration in Liberia 
abstract:BackgroundNeglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are associated with high levels of morbidity and disability as a result of stigma and social exclusion. To date, the management of NTDs has been largely biomedical. Consequently, ongoing policy and programme reform within the NTD community is demanding the development of more holistic disease management, disability and inclusion (DMDI) approaches. Simultaneously, integrated, people-centred health systems are increasingly viewed as essential to ensure the efficient, effective and sustainable attainment of Universal Health Coverage. Currently, there has been minimal consideration of the extent to which the development of holistic DMDI strategies are aligned to and can support the development of people-centred health systems. The Liberian NTD programme is at the forefront of trying to establish a more integrated, person-centred approach to the management of NTDs and provides a unique learning site for health systems decision makers to consider how shifts in vertical programme delivery can support overarching systems strengthening efforts that are designed to promote the attainment of health equity.MethodsWe use a qualitative case study approach to explore how policy and programme reform of the NTD programme in Liberia supports systems change to enable the development of integrated people-centred services.ResultsA cumulation of factors, catalysed by the shock to the health system presented by the Ebola epidemic, created a window of opportunity for policy change. However, programmatic change aimed at achieving person-centred practice was more challenging. Deep reliance on donor funding for health service delivery in Liberia limits the availability of flexible funding, and the ongoing funding prioritization towards specific disease conditions limits flexibility in health systems design that can shape more person-centred care.ConclusionSheikh et al.’s four key aspects of people centred health systems, that is, (1) putting peoples voices and needs first; (2) people centredness in service delivery; (3) relationships matter: health systems as social institutions; and (4) values drive people centred health systems, enable the illumination of varying push and pull factors that can facilitate or hinder the alignment of DMDI interventions with the development of people-centred health systems to support disease programme integration and the attainment of health equity.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: Online Health Communities: an alternative feasible data registry tool for developing countries 
abstract:Given the many challenges facing healthcare access in many developing countries and the added limitations observed in emergencies like COVID-19 pandemic, the authors here discuss an alternative and feasible approach to overcome all these limitations.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: Child and adolescent mental health services in a devolved healthcare system: a qualitative exploration of sustainable practices 
abstract:BackgroundThe transference of research evidence into routine healthcare practice remains poorly understood. This includes understanding the prerequisites of longer-term viability. The present study investigated the sustainable practices of GM i-THRIVE, a programme which reconceptualizes mental health services for children and young people (CYP) in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. We aimed to establish whether a sustainable future was likely, and to identify areas of focus to improve that likelihood.MethodsThe NHS Sustainability Model, typically completed as a questionnaire measure, was converted into interview questions. The responses of nine professionals, from a variety of roles across the CYP mental health workforce, were explored using inductive thematic framework analysis. Selected participants completed the original questionnaire.ResultsFive themes (communication; support; barriers to implementation; past, present, and future: the implementation journey; and the nuances of GM i-THRIVE) and 21 subthemes formed the final thematic framework. Relationships with senior leaders and with colleagues across the workforce were seen as important. Leaders’ roles in providing meaning and fit were emphasized. Whilst training delivered the programme’s aims well, monitoring its dissemination was challenging. Widespread issues with dedicating sufficient time to implementation were raised. The flexibility of the programme, which can be applied in multiple ways, was discussed positively. This flexibility links to the idea of GM i-THRIVE as a mindset change, and the uniqueness of this style of intervention was discussed. To varying degrees, themes were supported by responses to the quantitative measure, although several limitations to the use of the questionnaire were discovered. Consequently, they were used to infer conclusions to a lesser degree than originally intended.ConclusionsProfessionals involved with GM i-THRIVE reported many elements that indicate a positive future for the programme. However, they suggested that more attention should be given to embedding the core concepts of the model at the current stage of implementation. Limitations relating to its use within our study are discussed, but we conclude that the NHS Sustainability Model is a suitable way of guiding qualitative implementation research. It is especially valuable for localized interventions. The constraints of our small sample size on transferability are considered.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: Improving prioritization processes for clinical practice guidelines: new methods and an evaluation from the National Heart Foundation of Australia 
abstract:BackgroundReleasing timely and relevant clinical guidelines is challenging for organizations globally. Priority-setting is crucial, as guideline development is resource-intensive. Our aim, as a national organization responsible for developing cardiovascular clinical guidelines, was to develop a method for generating and prioritizing topics for future clinical guideline development in areas where guidance was most needed.MethodsSeveral novel processes were developed, adopted and evaluated, including (1) initial public consultation for health professionals and the general public to generate topics; (2) thematic and qualitative analysis, according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), to aggregate topics; (3) adapting a criteria-based matrix tool to prioritize topics; (4) achieving consensus through a modified-nominal group technique and voting on priorities; and (5) process evaluation via survey of end-users. The latter comprised the organization’s Expert Committee of 12 members with expertise across cardiology and public health, including two citizen representatives.ResultsTopics (n = 405; reduced to n = 278 when duplicates removed) were identified from public consultation responses (n = 107 respondents). Thematic analysis synthesized 127 topics that were then categorized into 37 themes using ICD-11 codes. Exclusion criteria were applied (n = 32 themes omitted), resulting in five short-listed topics: (1) congenital heart disease, (2) valvular heart disease, (3) hypercholesterolaemia, (4) hypertension and (5) ischaemic heart diseases and diseases of the coronary artery. The Expert Committee applied the prioritization matrix to all five short-listed topics during a consensus meeting and voted to prioritize topics. Unanimous consensus was reached for the topic voted the highest priority: ischaemic heart disease and diseases of the coronary arteries, resulting in the decision to update the organization’s 2016 clinical guidelines for acute coronary syndromes. Evaluation indicated that initial public consultation was highly valued by the Expert Committee, and the matrix tool was easy to use and improved transparency in priority-setting.ConclusionDeveloping a multistage, systematic process, incorporating public consultation and an international classification system led to improved transparency in our clinical guideline priority-setting processes and that topics chosen would have the greatest impact on health outcomes. These methods are potentially applicable to other national and international organizations responsible for developing clinical guidelines.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available 
abstract:BackgroundComments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available.MethodsEvidence–comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims.ResultsThe overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release.ConclusionsComments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: A framework for sustainable capacity-building for collaborative North–South translational health research and training in a resource-constrained setting 
abstract:IntroductionSuccess with highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in developing countries has been attributed to collaborative North–South resource-sharing and capacity-building. Academic research and training programmes have contributed towards policy entrepreneurship in a manner that influenced capacity-building within health systems. However, the documented capacity-building frameworks rarely elucidate how such programmes can be designed and implemented efficiently and sustainably.MethodWe implemented the University of Zimbabwe (UZ)–State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) collaborative HIV clinical pharmacology capacity-building programme in Zimbabwe in 1998. We intuitively operationalized the programme around a mnemonic acronym, “RSTUVW”, which spells out a supportive framework consisting of “room (space), skills, tools (equipment)”, underpinned by a set of core values, “understanding, voice (clout) and will”. Subsequent to our two decades of successful collaborative experience, we tested the general validity and applicability of the framework within a prospective programme aimed at expanding the role of health professionals.Results and conclusionBased on this collaborative North–South research and training capacity-building programme which has been positively validated in Zimbabwe, we propose this novel mnemonic acronym-based framework as an extra tool to guide sustainable capacity-building through collaborative North–South implementation research. Its extended use could also include assessment and evaluation of health systems within resource-constrained settings.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2023 source: BMC 
title: Why and how has the United Kingdom become a high producer of health inequalities research over the past 50 years? A realist explanatory case study 
abstract:BackgroundEvidence on health inequalities has been growing over the past few decades, yet the capacity to produce research on health inequalities varies between countries worldwide and needs to be strengthened. More in-depth understanding of the sociohistorical, political and institutional processes that enable this type of research and related research capacity to be generated in different contexts is needed. A recent bibliometric analysis of the health inequalities research field found inequalities in the global production of this type of research. It also found the United Kingdom to be the second-highest global contributor to this research field after the United States. This study aims to understand why and how the United Kingdom, as an example of a “high producer” of health inequalities research, has been able to generate so much health inequalities research over the past five decades, and which main mechanisms might have been involved in generating this specific research capacity over time.MethodsWe conducted a realist explanatory case study, which included 12 semi-structured interviews, to test six theoretical mechanisms that we proposed might have been involved in this process. Data from the interviews and grey and scientific literature were triangulated to inform our findings.ResultsWe found evidence to suggest that at least four of our proposed mechanisms have been activated by certain conditions and have contributed to the health inequalities research production process in the United Kingdom over the past 50 years. Limited evidence suggests that two new mechanisms might have potentially also been at play.ConclusionsValuable learning can be established from this case study, which explores the United Kingdom’s experience in developing a strong national health inequalities research tradition, and the potential mechanisms involved in this process. More research is needed to explore additional facilitating and inhibiting mechanisms and other factors involved in this process in this context, as well as in other settings where less health inequalities research has been produced. This type of in-depth knowledge could be used to guide the development of new health inequalities research capacity-strengthening strategies and support the development of novel approaches and solutions aiming to tackle health inequalities.