plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Quality improvements of healthcare trajectories by learning from aggregated patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic literature review 
abstract:BackgroundIn healthcare, analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an aggregated level can improve and regulate healthcare for specific patient populations (meso level). This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to summarize and describe the effectiveness of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs. Additionally, it aimed to describe barriers, facilitators and lessons learned when using these quality improvement methods.MethodsA mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that described, implemented or evaluated a quality improvement method based on aggregated PROMs in the curative hospital setting. Quality assessment was conducted via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative data were synthesized into a narrative summary of the characteristics and findings. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic synthesis was conducted.ResultsFrom 2360 unique search records, 13 quantitative and three qualitative studies were included. Four quality improvement methods were identified: benchmarking, plan-do-study-act cycle, dashboards and internal statistical analysis. Five studies reported on the effectiveness of the use of aggregated PROMs, of which four identified no effect and one a positive effect. The qualitative analysis identified the following themes for facilitators and barriers: (1) conceptual (i.e. stakeholders, subjectivity of PROMs, aligning PROMs with clinical data, PROMs versus patient-reported experience measures [PREMs]); (2a) methodological—data collection (i.e. choice, timing, response rate and focus); (2b) methodological—data processing (i.e. representativeness, responsibility, case-mix control, interpretation); (3) practical (i.e. resources).ConclusionThe results showed little to no effect of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs, but more empirical research is needed to investigate different quality improvement methods. A shared stakeholder vision, selection of PROMs, timing of measurement and feedback, information on interpretation of data, reduction of missing data, and resources for data collection and feedback infrastructure are important to consider when implementing and evaluating quality improvement methods in future research.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: How does academia respond to the burden of infectious and parasitic disease? 
abstract:BackgroundAcademic research is one of the main avenues through which humans can fight the threat of infectious diseases. However, there have been concerns regarding whether the academic system has provided sufficient efforts to fight infectious diseases we potentially face. Answering these questions could contribute to evidence-based recommendations for setting research priorities and third-mission policies.MethodsWith a focus on one of the most common categories of communicable diseases, infectious and parasitic diseases (IPDs), we searched Web of Science for articles and reviews relevant to IPDs published during the period 2000–2019 and retrieved WHO data on disease burden in corresponding years. The academic response patterns were explored by IPD subcategory and by human development level (an index established by the United Nations). We conduct the analysis in particular to gain insight into the dynamic relationship between disease burden and research effort on IPDs, scientific efforts contributed by countries with different development levels, and the variation trends in international joint efforts.ResultsThe greatest burden of IPDs is clustered in the developing regions of Africa, but has received academic response from both developed and developing countries. Highly developed countries dominate the ranks of academic research in this area, yet there is also a clear increase in research efforts from the countries most affected, despite their low human development scale. In fact, the overall analysis reveals an improved capability for addressing local problems from African regions. In terms of international collaboration, highly developed countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have commonly collaborated with needy regions, whereas prolific but developing nations, like China, have not.ConclusionsFrom a global perspective, academia has positively responded to health needs caused by IPDs. Although the relevant research output contribution is primarily from the highly developed countries, concentrated and specialized efforts from the undeveloped regions to ease their local burden can be clearly observed. Our findings also indicate a tendency to focus more on local health needs for both developed and undeveloped regions. The insights revealed in this study should benefit a more informed and systemic plan of research priorities.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research 
abstract:As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Development of the Arabic Health Measures database: a bibliometric analysis of Arabic health-related measures 
abstract:BackgroundTo develop an open-access database of Arabic health measures intended for use by researchers and healthcare providers, along with a bibliometric analysis of the measures included in the database.MethodsA search was conducted up to 31 December 2021 in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SAGE, Springer and Elsevier for published articles or abstracts with keywords “Arabic” AND “translation”, “adaptation” OR “validation”. Information on the measure and the methodology used in the study was then entered into a database. An open-access platform was developed to allow users to search for measures according to their needs. A bibliometric analysis of the articles and measures was then conducted.ResultsA total of 894 publications met the inclusion criteria. The articles discussed 716 measures that were developed using participants from at least 38 countries. The number of measures for adults was five times that for children. Mental health was the most frequent construct assessed (11.5%), followed by “function/disability” measures (10.6%). The majority of measures (54%) required 5 minutes or less to complete. Approximately 17% of the tools were available directly from the article. Saudi Arabia and Lebanon had the greatest number of publications, with 217 (23%) and 114 (12%), respectively. The majority of the publications included reporting of the validation and reliability of the instruments (64% and 56%, respectively).ConclusionsThere is a paucity of research on the quantity and quality of Arabic health measures. Similar to previous reviews, we found the number of publications on Arabic measures to be limited in comparison to those in English; however, it is encouraging that the number of publications appears to have increased steadily over the past decade. While we found the majority of publications reported on psychometric testing, we are unable to comment on the quality of the methodology used, and further investigation into this area is recommended. As the Arabic Health Measures database will facilitate the search for health instruments that have published data on their development, this will increase their visibility and use in research and clinical settings.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Competing public narratives in nutrition policy: insights into the ideational barriers of public support for regulatory nutrition measures 
abstract:BackgroundEnacting evidence-based public health policy can be challenging. One factor contributing to this challenge is a lack of public support for specific policies, which may stem from limited interest or conviction by policy arguments. This can happen when messaging strategies regarding policy do not resonate with the target group and/or policy narratives compete in public discourse. To understand how policy messaging can better resonate with a target audience, we examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies.MethodsWe conducted 76 street intercept interviews in urban and regional settings in Queensland, Australia. Quantitative data were analysed using mean agreement scores and t-tests, and the qualitative data were analysed using an adapted qualitative narrative policy framework (QNPF). The QNPF is used to illustrate how competing narratives vary in the way they define different elements. These elements often include setting, characters, plot, policy solution and belief systems.ResultsLevel of support for all nutrition policies was generally moderate to high, although nutrition policies perceived to be most intrusive to personal freedoms were the least popular among the public. The value of fairness was consistently invoked when participants discussed their support for or opposition to policy. Using the QNPF, two distinct settings were evident in the narratives: concern for the community or concern for self. Villains were identified as either “other individuals, in particular parents” or “Big Food”. Victims were identified as “children” or “the food industry, in particular farmers”. Frequently used plots focused on individuals making poor choices because they were uneducated, versus Big Food being powerful and controlling people and the government.ConclusionsThe study examined the frames and narratives used by the Australian public when discussing nutrition policies. By examining these frames and narratives, we gained insight into multiple strategies which may increase public support for certain nutrition policies in Australia.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Assessing the scalability of a health management-strengthening intervention at the district level: a qualitative study in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda 
abstract:BackgroundThe scale-up of successfully tested public health interventions is critical to achieving universal health coverage. To ensure optimal use of resources, assessment of the scalability of an intervention is recognized as a crucial step in the scale-up process. This study assessed the scalability of a tested health management-strengthening intervention (MSI) at the district level in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with intervention users (district health management teams, DHMTs) and implementers of the scale-up of the intervention (national-level actors) in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda, before and 1 year after the scale-up had started. To assess the scalability of the intervention, the CORRECT criteria from WHO/ExpandNet were used during analysis.ResultsThe MSI was seen as credible, as regional- and national-level Ministry of Health officials were championing the intervention. While documented evidence on intervention effectiveness was limited, district- and national-level stakeholders seemed to be convinced of the value of the intervention. This was based on its observed positive results regarding management competencies, teamwork and specific aspects of health workforce performance and service delivery. The perceived need for strengthening of management capacity and service delivery showed the relevance of the intervention, and relative advantages of the intervention were its participatory and sustainable nature. Turnover within the DHMTs and limited (initial) management capacity were factors complicating implementation. The intervention was not contested and was seen as compatible with (policy) priorities at the national level.ConclusionWe conclude that the MSI is scalable. However, to enhance its scalability, certain aspects should be adapted to better fit the context in which the intervention is being scaled up. Greater involvement of regional and national actors alongside improved documentation of results of the intervention can facilitate scale-up. Continuous assessment of the scalability of the intervention with all stakeholders involved is necessary, as context, stakeholders and priorities may change. Therefore, adaptations of the intervention might be required. The assessment of scalability, preferably as part of the monitoring of a scale-up strategy, enables critical reflections on next steps to make the intervention more scalable and the scale-up more successful.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Financial risk protection from out-of-pocket health spending in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of the literature 
abstract:BackgroundFinancial risk protection (FRP), defined as households’ access to needed healthcare services without experiencing undue financial hardship, is a critical health systems target, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the remarkable growth in FRP literature in recent times, we conducted a scoping review of the literature on FRP from out-of-pocket (OOP) health spending in LMICs. The objective was to review current knowledge, identify evidence gaps and propose future research directions.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines to conduct this scoping review. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science in July 2021 for literature published since 1 January 2015. We included empirical studies that used nationally representative data from household surveys to measure the incidence of at least one of the following indicators: catastrophic health expenditure (CHE), impoverishment, adoption of strategies to cope with OOP expenses, and forgone care for financial reasons. Our review covered 155 studies and analysed the geographical focus, data sources, methods and analytical rigour of the studies. We also examined the level of FRP by disease categories (all diseases, chronic illnesses, communicable diseases) and the effect of health insurance on FRP.ResultsThe extant literature primarily focused on India and China as research settings. Notably, no FRP study was available on chronic illness in any low-income country (LIC) or on communicable diseases in an upper-middle-income country (UMIC). Only one study comprehensively measured FRP by examining all four indicators. Most studies assessed (lack of) FRP as CHE incidence alone (37.4%) or as CHE and impoverishment incidence (39.4%). However, the LMIC literature did not incorporate the recent methodological advances to measure CHE and impoverishment that address the limitations of conventional methods. There were also gaps in utilizing available panel data to determine the length of the lack of FRP (e.g. duration of poverty caused by OOP expenses). The current estimates of FRP varied substantially among the LMICs, with some of the poorest countries in the world experiencing similar or even lower rates of CHE and impoverishment compared with the UMICs. Also, health insurance in LMICs did not consistently offer a higher degree of FRP.ConclusionThe literature to date is unable to provide a reliable representation of the actual level of protection enjoyed by the LMIC population because of the lack of comprehensive measurement of FRP indicators coupled with the use of dated methodologies. Future research in LMICs should address the shortcomings identified in this review.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: Development of a STandard reporting guideline for Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP): context and study protocol 
abstract:BackgroundEvidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual.MethodsWe will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use.DiscussionOur protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP.Registration We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network. (https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84)
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: The collaborative research and service delivery partnership between the United States healthcare system and the U.S. Military Health System during the COVID-19 pandemic 
abstract:ObjectivesTo examine the military-civilian collaborative efforts which addressed the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in areas including provision of supplies, patient and provider support, and development and dissemination of new vaccine and drug candidates.
MethodsWe examined peer reviewed and grey literature from September 2020 to June 2021 to describe the relationship between the U.S. healthcare system and Military Health System (MHS). For analysis, we applied the World Health Organization framework for health systems, which consists of six building blocks.ResultsThe strongest collaborative efforts occurred in areas of medicine and technology, human resources, and healthcare delivery, most notably in the MHS supplying providers, setting up treatment venues, and participating in development of vaccines and therapeutics. Highlighting that the MHS, with its centralized structure and ability to deploy assets rapidly, is an important contributor to the nation’s ability to provide a coordinated, large-scale response to health emergencies.ConclusionsContinuing the relationship between the two health systems is vital to maintaining the nation’s capability to meet future health challenges.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2022 source: BMC 
title: The power of partnerships: state public health department multisector collaborations in major chronic disease programme areas in the United States 
abstract:BackgroundMultisector collaboration between state public health departments (SHDs) and diverse community partners is increasingly recognized as important for promoting positive public health outcomes, addressing social determinants of health, and reducing health inequalities. This study investigates collaborations between SHDs in the United States and different types of organizations addressing chronic disease in and outside of the health sector.MethodsSHD employees were randomly selected from the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors membership list for participation in an online survey. Participants were asked about their primary chronic disease work unit (cancer, obesity, tobacco, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and others), as well as their work unit collaborations (exchange of information/cooperation in activities) with organizations in health and non-health sectors. As a measure of the different organizations SHDs collaborated with in health and non-health sectors, a collaboration heterogeneity score for each programme area was calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc tests were used to assess differences in collaborator heterogeneity between programme areas.ResultsA total of 574 participants were surveyed. Results indicated that the cancer programme area, along with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, had significantly less collaboration heterogeneity with organizations outside of the health sector compared to the obesity and tobacco programme areas.ConclusionsWhile collaborations with health sector organizations are commonly reported, public health departments can increase collaboration with sectors outside of health to more fully address chronic disease prevention.