plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher’s experiences from 20 projects 
abstract:BackgroundGetting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers’ experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services.MethodsInterviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis.ResultsCollaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or ‘student researchers’ were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner’s and researcher’s contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management.ConclusionsCollaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions 
abstract:ObjectiveTo describe a framework for people making and using evidence-informed health system and public health recommendations and decisions.BackgroundWe developed the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions as part of the DECIDE project, in which we simultaneously developed frameworks for these and other types of healthcare decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions and decisions about diagnostic tests.Developing the frameworkBuilding on GRADE EtD tables, we used an iterative approach, including brainstorming, consultation of the literature and with stakeholders, and an international survey of policy-makers. We applied the framework to diverse examples, conducted workshops and user testing with health system and public health guideline developers and policy-makers, and observed and tested its use in real-life guideline panels.FindingsAll the GRADE EtD frameworks share the same basic structure, including sections for formulating the question, making an assessment and drawing conclusions. Criteria listed in the assessment section of the health system and public health framework cover the important factors for making these types of decisions; in addition to the effects and economic impact of an option, the priority of the problem, the impact of the option on equity, and its acceptability and feasibility are important considerations that can inform both whether and how to implement an option. Because health system and public health interventions are often complex, detailed implementation considerations should be made when making a decision. The certainty of the evidence is often low or very low, but decision-makers must still act. Monitoring and evaluation are therefore often important considerations for these types of decisions.We illustrate the different components of the EtD framework for health system and public health decisions by presenting their application in a framework adapted from a real-life guideline.DiscussionThis framework provides a structured and transparent approach to support policy-making informed by the best available research evidence, while making the basis for decisions accessible to those whom they will affect. The health system and public health EtD framework can also be used to facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision-makers to adopt, and adapt, recommendations or decisions.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders 
abstract:BackgroundIt is widely accepted that research can lead to improved health outcomes. However, translating research into meaningful impacts in peoples’ lives requires actions that stretch well beyond those traditionally associated with knowledge creation. The research reported in this manuscript provides an international review of health research funders’ efforts to encourage this process of research uptake, application and scaling, often referred to as knowledge translation.MethodsWe conducted web-site review, document review and key informant interviews to investigate knowledge translation at 26 research funding agencies. The sample comprises the regions of Australia, Europe and North America, and a diverse range of funder types, including biomedical, clinical, multi-health domain, philanthropic, public and private organisations. The data builds on a 2008 study by the authors with the same international sample, which permitted longitudinal trend analysis.ResultsKnowledge translation is an objective of growing significance for funders across each region studied. However, there is no clear international consensus or standard on how funders might support knowledge translation. We found that approaches and mechanisms vary across region and funder type. Strategically tailored funding opportunities (grants) are the most prevalent modality of support. The most common funder-driven strategy for knowledge translation within these grants is the linking of researchers to research users. Funders could not to provide empirical evidence to support the majority of the knowledge translation activities they encourage or undertake.ConclusionsKnowledge translation at a research funder relies on context. Accordingly, we suggest that the diversity of approaches uncovered in our research is fitting. We argue that evaluation of funding agency efforts to promote and/or support knowledge translation should be prioritised and actioned. It is paradoxical that funders’ efforts to get evidence into practice are not themselves evidence based.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The evolution of the field of Health Policy and Systems Research and outstanding challenges 
abstract:BackgroundWe provide a historical analysis of the evolution of the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR) since 1996. In the mid-1990s, three main challenges affected HPSR, namely (1) fragmentation and lack of a single agreed definition of the field; (2) ongoing dominance of biomedical and clinical research; and (3) lack of demand for HPSR. Cross-cutting all these challenges was the problem of relatively limited capacity to undertake high quality HPSR. Our discussion analyses how these problems were addressed so as to facilitate growth and enhanced recognition of the field.DiscussionHPSR has benefitted significantly from increased recognition of the importance of strong health systems to health outcomes, particularly those linked to the Millennium Development Goals. In addition to this, some of the challenges described above have been addressed through (1) sustained advocacy for the importance of HPSR, (2) efforts to clarify the content and focus of the field, and (3) growing appreciation of and efforts to engage health practitioners and policy-makers in HPSR. While advocacy for the field of HPSR was initially fragmented, since the late 1990s there has been a consistent flow of focusing events and publications that have served to enhance the profile and understanding of the field. There have also been multiple efforts to establish greater coherence within the field, for example, interrogating the distinctions between health services research and health systems research, and how critical the “P” for policy is to HPSR. Finally, HPSR has developed at the same time as growing interest in evidence-informed policy and, more recently, implementation science, which have served to underscore the relevance and utility of HPSR to policy- and decision-makers.ConclusionsDuring the past two decades, the field of HPSR has developed significantly, leading to enhanced clarity about its purpose, activity levels and utility. Several challenges remain that will need to be addressed in the decades ahead.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Dissemination and use of WHO family planning guidance and tools: a qualitative assessment 
abstract:BackgroundAs countries continue to improve their family planning (FP) programmes, they may draw on WHO’s evidence-based FP guidance and tools (i.e. materials) that support the provision of quality FP services.MethodsTo better understand the use and perceived impact of the materials and ways to strengthen their use by countries, we conducted qualitative interviews with WHO regional advisors, and with stakeholders in Ethiopia and Senegal who use WHO materials.ResultsWHO uses a multi-faceted strategy to directly and indirectly disseminate materials to country-level decision-makers. The materials are used to develop national family planning guidelines, protocols and training curricula. Participants reported that they trust the WHO materials because they are evidence based, and that they adapt materials to the country context (e.g. remove content on methods not available in the country). The main barrier to the use of national materials is resource constraints.ConclusionsAlthough the system and processes for dissemination work, improvements might contribute to increased use of the materials. For example, providers may benefit from additional guidance on how to counsel women with characteristics or medical conditions where contraceptive method eligibility criteria do not clearly rule in or rule out a method.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The AGING Initiative experience: a call for sustained support for team science networks 
abstract:Team science, defined as collaborative research efforts that leverage the expertise of diverse disciplines, is recognised as a critical means to address complex healthcare challenges, but the practical implementation of team science can be difficult. Our objective is to describe the barriers, solutions and lessons learned from our team science experience as applied to the complex and growing challenge of multiple chronic conditions (MCC). MCC is the presence of two or more chronic conditions that have a collective adverse effect on health status, function or quality of life, and that require complex healthcare management, decision-making or coordination. Due to the increasing impact on the United States society, MCC research has been identified as a high priority research area by multiple federal agencies. In response to this need, two national research entities, the Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) and the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Centers (OAIC), formed the Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure and Network Growth (AGING) Initiative to build nationwide capacity for MCC team science. This article describes the structure, lessons learned and initial outcomes of the AGING Initiative. We call for funding mechanisms to sustain infrastructures that have demonstrated success in fostering team science and innovation in translating findings to policy change necessary to solve complex problems in healthcare.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Challenges to decision-making processes in the national HTA agency in Brazil: operational procedures, evidence use and recommendations 
abstract:BackgroundThe quality of the evidence used in health technology assessment (HTA) agency reports has been considered essential for decision-making processes and their legitimacy. In Brazil, CONITEC is the agency responsible for defining data mandatory for the submission of proposals for the incorporation of new technologies. The objective of this study was to analyse CONITEC recommendation reports, the type of scientific evidence used in them and their compliance with operational procedures.MethodsThis is a descriptive study based on CONITEC official reports from July 2012 through December 2016. Data were collected with a specific extraction form and analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsWe evaluated 199 CONITEC recommendation reports. The annual number of reports increased during the study period. The absolute annual number of new technologies incorporated in 2013 (n = 24) was similar to that observed for 2014 (n = 24) and 2015 (n = 22), decreasing in 2016 (n = 13). The type of technology most frequently evaluated was ‘drugs’ (68.3%), followed by ‘procedures’ (20.1%). Overall, 117 (58.8%) reports were internal demands, 75 (37.7%) were external demands and 7 (3.5%) were mixed demands. There were differences between internal and external demands in terms of the evidence used in the reports and the decision regarding the recommendation to incorporate the technologies. Among the internal demands, the recommendation to incorporate the new technology was made for 70.9% of the reports, only 9.6% of which included full HTAs. Among the external demands, the incorporation of the new technology was recommended for 17.3% of the reports, 76.9% of which included full HTAs. Of the 101 reports in which incorporation of the new technology was recommended, 88 (87.1%) did not include a full health economic evaluation and ICER calculation. There are compliance difficulties with the recommendations in the CONITEC internal regulations regarding the type and quality of evidence considered in the analysis of recommendation reports.ConclusionsThe characteristics of the evidence used in recommendation reports and those considered to be mandatory were very different, indicating problems in decision-making processes. There is a need to study, with a broader perspective, the factors that influence the type of evidence used in decision-making processes in order to contribute to the development of better practices and policies.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Measuring research impact: a large cancer research funding programme in Australia 
abstract:BackgroundMeasuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state’s major universities.MethodsThis study applied Buxton and Hanney’s Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011–2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed.ResultsThe BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future.ConclusionsResearch impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: rising up to the global challenge through institutionalising partnerships with governments and communities 
abstract:The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development covers a wide range of interrelated goals, including poverty eradication and economic growth, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and peace for all people by 2030. Policy decisions to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) need to be informed by policy-relevant evidence co-designed and co-produced with the pertinent stakeholders, taking into consideration local and political contexts. Universities are uniquely placed to lead the cross-sectoral implementation of the SDGs and advance the 2030 agenda. This commentary provides the case for building, strengthening and institutionalising university partnerships with governments and communities to achieve the SDGs. The authors call for a change in mindsets and culture in both academia and government, and invite both parties to start the dialogue if we are to rise up to the global challenge.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: How can the use of data within the immunisation programme be increased in order to improve data quality and ensure greater accountability in the health system? A protocol for implementation science study 
abstract:BackgroundImmunisation remains one of the most important and cost-effective interventions to reduce vaccine-preventable child morbidity, disability and mortality. Health programmes like the Expanded Program of Immunization rely on complex decision-making and strong local level evidence is important to effectively and efficiently utilise limited resources. Lack of data use for decision-making at each level of the health system remains the main challenge in most developing countries. While there is much evidence on data quality and how to improve it, there is a lack of sufficient evidence on why the use of data for decision-making at each level of the health system is low. Herein, we describe a comprehensive implementation science study that will be conducted to identify organisational, technical and individual level factors affecting local data use at each level of the Ethiopian health system.MethodsWe will apply a mixed methods approach using key informant interviews and document reviews. The qualitative data will be gathered through key informant interviews using a semi-structured guide with open- and closed-ended questions with four categories of respondents, namely decision-makers, data producers, data users and community representatives at the federal, regional, zonal, woreda and community levels of the health system. The document review will be conducted on selected reports and feedback documented at different levels of the health system. Data will be collected from July 2017 to March 2018. Descriptive statistics will be analysed for the quantitative study using SPSS version 20 software and thematic content analysis will be performed for the qualitative part using NVivo software.DiscussionAppropriate and timely use of health and health-related information for decision-making is an essential element in the process of transforming the health sector. The findings of the study will inform stakeholders at different levels on the institutionalisation of evidence-based practice in immunisation programmes.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2018 source: BMC 
title: The impact of orthopaedic research evidence on health financing in Australia 
abstract:BackgroundIn Australia, approval by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is an important step in the implementation of new health technologies. The MSAC considers health technology assessments (HTA) when submitting a recommendation to the Minister of Health on a new technology’s suitability for public funding. Despite being such a critical tool in formulating policy, there has been little scrutiny on the impact of limited evidence on the performance of a national HTA agency’s mandate. We aim to determine the proportion of HTAs of orthopaedic technologies prepared for the MSAC that were supported by higher levels of evidence for effectiveness, and whether this affected the MSAC’s ability to conclude on efficacy. We also investigated whether the availability of higher level evidence affected the performance of cost-effectiveness analyses.MethodsWe performed a cohort study of all HTAs prepared for the MSAC from 1998 to 2017 with regards to new technologies in orthopaedic surgery.ResultsWe identified seven HTAs encompassing nine orthopaedic technologies for inclusion. Higher levels of evidence were available for assessing the technology’s effectiveness in six out of the nine technologies. The results did not show a statistically significant relationship between the availability of higher level evidence and MSAC’s ability to make a clear conclusion on the assessment of effectiveness (P = 0.5). The proportion of HTAs where a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed was significantly higher (P < 0.05) when higher levels of evidence were available for the assessment of effectiveness.ConclusionsThe results indicate that there is a paucity of high quality evidence in the formulation of health policy with regards to the implementation of new orthopaedic technologies in the public healthcare system. This represents an opportunity for strong leadership from surgeons to help develop the tools needed for effective clinical decision-making.