plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges 
abstract:During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO’s framework for research systems. It has four functions—governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research—and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom’s healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users’ needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Improving WHO’s understanding of WHO guideline uptake and use in Member States: a scoping review 
abstract:BackgroundWHO publishes public health and clinical guidelines to guide Member States in achieving better health outcomes. Furthermore, WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work for 2019–2023 prioritizes strengthening its normative functional role and uptake of normative and standard-setting products, including guidelines at the country level. Therefore, understanding WHO guideline uptake by the Member States, particularly the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is of utmost importance for the organization and scholarship.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using a comprehensive search strategy to include published literature in English between 2007 and 2020. The review was conducted between May and June 2021. We searched five electronic databases including CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Scopus. We also searched Google Scholar as a supplementary source. The review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews) guidelines for reporting the searches, screening and identification of evaluation studies from the literature. A narrative synthesis of the evidence around key barriers and challenges for WHO guideline uptake in LMICs is thematically presented.
ResultsThe scoping review included 48 studies, and the findings were categorized into four themes: (1) lack of national legislation, regulations and policy coherence, (2) inadequate experience, expertise and training of healthcare providers for guideline uptake, (3) funding limitations for guideline uptake and use, and (4) inadequate healthcare infrastructure for guideline compliance. These challenges were situated in the Member States’ health systems. The findings suggest that governance was often weak within the existing health systems amongst most of the LMICs studied, as was the guidance provided by WHO’s guidelines on governance requirements. This challenge was further exacerbated by a lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms for uptake and implementation of guidelines. In addition, the WHO guidelines themselves were either unclear and were technically challenging for some health conditions; however, WHO guidelines were primarily used as a reference by Member States when they developed their national guidelines.ConclusionsThe challenges identified reflect the national health systems’ (in)ability to allocate, implement and monitor the guidelines. Historically this is beyond the remit of WHO, but Member States could benefit from WHO implementation guidance on requirements and needs for successful uptake and use of WHO guidelines.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: What implementation strategies and outcome measures are used to transform healthcare organizations into learning health systems? A mixed-methods review protocol 
abstract:BackgroundA learning health system (LHS) framework provides an opportunity for health system restructuring to provide value-based healthcare. However, there is little evidence showing how to effectively implement a LHS in practice.ObjectiveA mixed-methods review is proposed to identify and synthesize the existing evidence on effective implementation strategies and outcomes of LHS in an international context.MethodsA mixed-methods systematic review will be conducted following methodological guidance from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Six databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PAIS, Scopus and Nursing & Allied Health Database) will be searched for terms related to LHS, implementation and evaluation measures. Three reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved articles. Studies will be included if they report on the implementation of a LHS in any healthcare setting. Qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods study designs will be considered for inclusion. No restrictions will be placed on language or date of publication. Grey literature will be considered for inclusion but reviews and protocol papers will be excluded. Data will be extracted from included studies using a standardized extraction form. One reviewer will extract all data and a second will verify. Critical appraisal of all included studies will be conducted by two reviewers. A convergent integration approach to data synthesis will be used, where qualitative and quantitative data will be synthesized separately and then integrated to present overarching findings. Data will be presented in tables and narratively.ConclusionThis review will address a gap in the literature related to implementation of LHS. The findings from this review will provide researchers with a better understanding of how to design and implement LHS interventions. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022293348).
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Public health research priorities for WHO on COVID-19 in the South-East Asia Region: results of a prioritization survey 
abstract:BackgroundEffectively addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the new pathogen requires continuous generation of evidence to inform decision-making. Despite an unprecedented amount of research occurring globally, the need to identify gaps in knowledge and prioritize a research agenda that is linked to public health action is indisputable. The WHO South-East Asia Region (SEAR) is likely to have region-specific research needs.MethodsWe aimed to identify a priority research agenda for guiding the regional and national response to the COVID-19 pandemic in SEAR countries. An online, anonymous research prioritization exercise using recent WHO guidance was conducted among the technical staff of WHO’s country and regional offices engaged with the national COVID-19 response during October 2020. They were each asked to contribute up to five priority research ideas across seven thematic areas. These research ideas were reviewed, consolidated and scored by a core group on six parameters: regional specificity, relevance to the COVID-19 response, feasibility within regional research capacity, time to availability for decision-making, likely impact on practice, and promoting equity and gender responsiveness. The total scores for individual suggestions were organized in descending order, and ideas in the upper tertile were considered to be of high priority.ResultsA total of 203 priority research ideas were received from 48 respondents, who were primarily research and emergency response focal points in country and regional offices. These were consolidated into 78 research ideas and scored. The final priority research agenda of 27 items covered all thematic areas—health system (n=10), public health interventions (n=6), disease epidemiology (n=5), socioeconomic and equity (n=3), basic sciences (n=1), clinical sciences (n=1) and pandemic preparedness (n=1).ConclusionsThis exercise, a part of WHO’s mandate to “shape the research agenda”, can help build a research roadmap ensuring efficient use of limited resources. This prioritized research agenda can act as a catalyst for Member States to accelerate research that could impact the COVID-19 response in SEAR.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Building a virtual community of practice: experience from the Canadian foundation for healthcare improvement’s policy circle 
abstract:BackgroundCommunities of Practice are formed by people who interact regularly to engage in collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor. Virtual Communities of Practice (VCoP) are online communities that use the internet to connect people who share a common concern or passion. VCoPs provide a platform to share and enhance knowledge. The Policy Circle is a VCoP that connects mid-career professionals from across Canada who are committed to improving healthcare policy and practice. We wanted to understand the perceived value of the VCoP.MethodsWe used qualitative and quantitative survey research to explore past and current Policy Circle members’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviours related to the program. Our research was guided by the Value Creation Framework proposed by Wenger and colleagues. Three surveys were created in collaboration with stakeholders. Data were analyzed within cohort and in aggregate across cohorts. Qualitative data was analyzed thematically, and quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics (means of ranked and scaled responses).ResultsSurvey participation was high among members (Cohort 1: 67%, Cohort 2: 64%). Participants came from a variety of disciplines including medicine, health policy, allied health, and nursing, with most members having a direct role in health services research or practice. The program was successful in helping participants make connections (mean = 2.43 on a scale from 1 to 5: 1 = yes, significantly, 5 = not at all); variances in both qualitative and quantitative data indicated that levels of enthusiasm within the program varied among individuals. Members appreciated the access to resources; quarterly meetings (n = 11/11), and a curated reading list (n = 8/11) were the most valued resources. Participants reported the development of a sense of belonging (mean = 2.29) and facilitated knowledge exchange (mean = 2.43). At the time of this study, participants felt the program had minor impact on their work (mean = 3.5), however a majority of participants (50%) from Cohort 2 planned to acknowledge the program in their professional or academic endeavours. Through reflective responses, participants expressed a desire for continued and deeper professional network development.ConclusionsThe Policy Circle was successful in facilitating knowledge exchange by creating a community that promoted trust, a sense of belonging and a supportive environment. Members were satisfied with the program; to promote further value, the Policy Circle should implement strategies that will continue member participation and networking after the program is finished.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Understanding the policy dynamics of COVID-19 vaccination in Ghana through the lens of a policy analytical framework 
abstract:BackgroundGhana became the first African country to take delivery of the first wave of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine from the COVAX facility. But why has this promising start of the vaccination rollout not translated into an accelerated full vaccination of the population? To answer this question, we drew on the tenets of a policy analytical framework and analysed the diverse interpretations, issue characteristics, actor power dynamics and political context of the COVID-19 vaccination process in Ghana.MethodsWe conducted a rapid online review of media reports, journal articles and other documents on debates and discussions of issues related to framing of the vaccination rollout, social constructions generated around vaccines, stakeholder power dynamics and political contentions linked to the vaccination rollout. These were complemented by desk reviews of parliamentary reports.ResultsThe COVID-19 vaccination was mainly framed along the lines of public health, gender-centredness and universal health coverage. Vaccine acquisition and procurement were riddled with politics between the ruling government and the largest main opposition party. While the latter persistently blamed the former for engaging in political rhetoric rather than a tactical response to vaccine supply issues, the former attributed vaccine shortages to vaccine nationalism that crowded out fair distribution. The government’s efforts to increase vaccination coverage to target levels were stifled when a deal with a private supplier to procure 3.4 million doses of the Sputnik V vaccine collapsed due to procurement breaches. Amidst the vaccine scarcity, the government developed a working proposal to produce vaccines locally which attracted considerable interest among pharmaceutical manufacturers, political constituents and donor partners. Regarding issue characteristics of the vaccination, hesitancy for vaccination linked to misperceptions of vaccine safety provoked politically led vaccination campaigns to induce vaccine acceptance.ConclusionsScaling up vaccination requires political unity, cohesive frames, management of stakeholder interests and influence, and tackling contextual factors promoting vaccination hesitancy.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: User involvement in ageing and health research: a survey of researchers’ and older adults’ perspectives 
abstract:BackgroundUser involvement in research has rapidly increased and is often a precondition to obtain research funding. Benefits such as effectiveness and increased relevance of research are described in the literature, but the evidence to support this is weak. Little is known about ageing and health researchers’ experiences and perspectives towards user involvement in research, and their attitudes towards user involvement compared to the attitudes of the users involved are largely unknown. To examine researchers’ experiences and perspectives of user involvement in research on ageing and health, and to compare their attitudes towards user involvement to the attitudes of older adults in the general population.MethodsA panel study survey was used to elicit responses from researchers in ageing and health as well as from older adults (aged 60 years and older). The researcher sample (N = 64) completed the survey online, while the older adult sample (N = 881) could choose among three different options to complete the survey (online, paper format, telephone). A professional survey company collected the data. Descriptive statistics, exploratory comparisons and descriptive qualitative content analysis were used to analyse the data.ResultsMore than half (58%) of the researchers had previous experience of involving different categories of users in a wide range of research activities. The most frequent motivation for involving users was to ensure that the research produced is relevant to the target population. A majority (86%) reported benefits, and more than half (59%) described challenges. Differences in attitudes were found between researchers and older adults in the general population.ConclusionsAgeing and health researchers involve users in their research to improve quality and ensure relevance, but there is no consensus among them whether users should be involved in publicly funded research. While several challenges were identified, training, institutional support and resources from funders could alleviate many of these. Findings reveal significant differences in attitudes between older adults in the general population and researchers. Further research with comparable larger samples is needed to confirm and understand the possible consequences such controversy might have and how to solve them.IRRID (International Registered Report Identifier): RR2-10.2196/17759.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: National governance of de-implementation of low-value care: a qualitative study in Sweden 
abstract:BackgroundThe de-implementation of low-value care (LVC) is important to improving patient and population health, minimizing patient harm and reducing resource waste. However, there is limited knowledge about how the de-implementation of LVC is governed and what challenges might be involved. In this study, we aimed to (1) identify key stakeholders’ activities in relation to de-implementing LVC in Sweden at the national governance level and (2) identify challenges involved in the national governance of the de-implementation of LVC.MethodsWe used a purposeful sampling strategy to identify stakeholders in Sweden having a potential role in governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level. Twelve informants from nine stakeholder agencies/organizations were recruited using snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsFour potential activities for governing the de-implementation of LVC at a national level were identified: recommendations, health technology assessment, control over pharmaceutical products and a national system for knowledge management. Challenges involved included various vested interests that result in the maintenance of LVC and a low overall priority of working with the de-implementation of LVC compared with the implementation of new evidence. Ambiguous evidence made it difficult to clearly determine whether a practice was LVC. Unclear roles, where none of the stakeholders perceived that they had a formal mandate to govern the de-implementation of LVC, further contributed to the challenges involved in governing that de-implementation.ConclusionsVarious activities were performed to govern the de-implementation of LVC at a national level in Sweden; however, these were limited and had a lower priority relative to the implementation of new methods. Challenges involved relate to unfavourable change incentives, ambiguous evidence, and unclear roles to govern the de-implementation of LVC. Addressing these challenges could make the national-level governance of de-implementation more systematic and thereby help create favourable conditions for reducing LVC in healthcare.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Deconstructing design thinking as a tool for the implementation of a population health initiative 
abstract:BackgroundThe translation of evidence-based practices and rapid uptake of innovations into global health practice is challenging. Design thinking is a consultative process involving multiple stakeholders and has been identified as a promising solution to create and apply implementation strategies in complex environments like health systems.MethodsWe conducted a process evaluation of a real-world example, namely an initiative to innovate hypertension screening, diagnosis and care in São Paulo, Brazil. The parameters of the evaluation were informed by a specification rubric and categorization system, recommended for the investigation of implementation strategies, and the double-diamond conceptual framework to describe and examine the strategic architecture and nature of the design thinking approach, with particular emphasis on identifying potential areas of “value-add” particular to the approach. The retrospective evaluation was performed by an independent partner who had not been involved in the setting up and implementation of the design thinking process.ResultsThe evaluation unveiled a dense catalogue of strategically driven, mostly theoretically based, activities involving all identified health system stakeholders including patients. Narrative reconstruction illuminated the systematic and coherent nature of this approach, with different resulting actions progressively accounting for all relevant layers of the health system to engineer a broad selection of specific implementation solutions. The relevance of the identified features and the mechanics used to promote more successful implementation practices was manifested in several distinct ways: design thinking offered a clear direction on which innovations really mattered and when, as well as several new dimensions for consideration in the development of an innovation mindset amongst stakeholders. It thereby promoted relationship quality in terms of familiarity and trust, and commitment to evidence-based enquiry and action. Design thinking was also able to navigate the territory between the need for intervention “fidelity” versus “adaptation” and provide the operational know-how to face familiar implementation hurdles. Lastly, it brought a new kind of skill  set to the public health stakeholders that incorporated diplomacy, multidisciplinary approaches and management sciences—skills that are considered necessary but not yet widely taught as part of public health training.ConclusionsDesign thinking is a sound and viable tool to use as part of an implementation strategy for engaging with health system stakeholders and successfully translating evidence-based practices and new innovations into routine practice, thereby addressing an important knowledge—practice gap and, more broadly, contributing to the strategic repertoire available to implementation science.