plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: A framework for value-creating learning health systems 
abstract:BackgroundInterest in value-based healthcare, generally defined as providing better care at lower cost, has grown worldwide, and learning health systems (LHSs) have been proposed as a key strategy for improving value in healthcare. LHSs are emerging around the world and aim to leverage advancements in science, technology and practice to improve health system performance at lower cost. However, there remains much uncertainty around the implementation of LHSs and the distinctive features of these systems. This paper presents a conceptual framework that has been developed in Canada to support the implementation of value-creating LHSs.MethodsThe framework was developed by an interdisciplinary team at the Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS). It was informed by a scoping review of the scientific and grey literature on LHSs, regular team discussions over a 14-month period, and consultations with Canadian and international experts.ResultsThe framework describes four elements that characterise LHSs, namely (1) core values, (2) pillars and accelerators, (3) processes and (4) outcomes. LHSs embody certain core values, including an emphasis on participatory leadership, inclusiveness, scientific rigour and person-centredness. In addition, values such as equity and solidarity should also guide LHSs and are particularly relevant in countries like Canada. LHS pillars are the infrastructure and resources supporting the LHS, whereas accelerators are those specific structures that enable more rapid learning and improvement. For LHSs to create value, such infrastructures must not only exist within the ecosystem but also be connected and aligned with the LHSs’ strategic goals. These pillars support the execution, routinisation and acceleration of learning cycles, which are the fundamental processes of LHSs. The main outcome sought by executing learning cycles is the creation of value, which we define as the striking of a more optimal balance of impacts on patient and provider experience, population health and health system costs.ConclusionsOur framework illustrates how the distinctive structures, processes and outcomes of LHSs tie together with the aim of optimising health system performance and delivering greater value in health systems.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 – Using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements 
abstract:BackgroundWHO has recognised the need to ensure that guideline processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. Along with decision-making criteria that require findings from effectiveness reviews, WHO is increasingly using evidence derived from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the values, acceptability, equity and feasibility implications of its recommendations. This is the first in a series of three papers examining the use of QES in developing clinical and health systems guidelines.MethodsWHO convened a group of methodologists involved in developing recent (2010–2018) guidelines that were informed by QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. Our aim in this paper is to (1) describe and discuss how the findings of QES can inform the scope of a guideline and (2) develop findings for key guideline decision-making criteria.ResultsQES resulted in the addition of new outcomes that are directly relevant to service users, a stronger evidence base for decisions about how much effective interventions and related outcomes are valued by stakeholders in a range of contexts, and a more complete database of summary evidence for guideline panels to consider, linked to decisions about values, acceptability, feasibility and equity.ConclusionsRigorously conducted QES can be a powerful means of improving the relevance of guidelines, and of ensuring that the concerns of stakeholders, at all levels of the healthcare system and from a wide range of settings, are taken into account at all stages of the process.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 – Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations 
abstract:BackgroundWHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that guideline decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. To help achieve this, WHO guidelines now typically enhance intervention effectiveness data with evidence on a wider range of decision-making criteria, including how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, gender and human rights impacts, and the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly used to provide evidence on this wider range of issues. In this paper, we describe and discuss how to use the findings from QES to populate decision-making criteria in evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks. This is the second in a series of three papers that examines the use of QES in developing clinical and health system guidelines.MethodsWHO convened a writing group drawn from the technical teams involved in its recent (2010–2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development.ResultsWe describe a step-wise approach to populating EtD frameworks with QES findings. This involves allocating findings to the different EtD criteria (how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, acceptability and feasibility, etc.), weaving the findings into a short narrative relevant to each criterion, and inserting this summary narrative into the corresponding ‘research evidence’ sections of the EtD. We also identify areas for further methodological research, including how best to summarise and present qualitative data to groups developing guidelines, how these groups draw on different types of evidence in their decisions, and the extent to which our experiences are relevant to decision-making processes in fields other than health.ConclusionsThis paper shows the value of incorporating QES within a guideline development process, and the roles that qualitative evidence can play in integrating the views and experiences of relevant stakeholders, including groups who may not be otherwise represented in the decision-making process.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 – Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes 
abstract:BackgroundThis is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations.MethodsWHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010–2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines.ResultsFor each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts.ConclusionsQES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Experiences of capacity strengthening in sanitation and hygiene research in Africa and Asia: the SHARE Research Consortium 
abstract:The Sanitation and Hygiene Applied Research for Equity (SHARE) Research Programme consortium is a programme funded by the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) that aims to contribute to achieving universal access to effective, sustainable, and equitable sanitation and hygiene worldwide. The capacity development component is an important pillar for this programme and different strategies were designed and implemented during the various phases of SHARE. This paper describes and reflects on the capacity-building strategies of this large multi-country research consortium, identifying lessons learnt and proposing recommendations for future global health research programmes. In the first phase, the strategy focused on increasing the capacity of individuals and institutions from low- and middle-income countries in conducting their own research. SHARE supported six PhD students and 25 MSc students, and organised a wide range of training events for different stakeholders. SHARE peer-reviewed all proposals that researchers submitted through several rounds of funding and offered external peer-review for all the reports produced under the partner’s research platforms. In the second phase, the aim was to support capacity development of a smaller number of African research institutions to move towards their independent sustainability, with a stronger focus on early and mid-career scientists within these institutions. In each institution, a Research Fellow was supported and a specific capacity development plan was jointly developed.Strategies that yielded success were learning by doing (supporting institutions and postgraduate students on sanitation and hygiene research), providing fellowships to appoint mid-career scientists to support personal and institutional development, and supporting tailored capacity-building plans. The key lessons learnt were that research capacity-building programmes need to be driven by local initiatives tailored with support from partners. We recommend that future programmes seeking to strengthen research capacity should consider targeted strategies for individuals at early, middle and later career stages and should be sensitive to other institutional operations to support both the research and management capacities.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Evidence of commitment to research partnerships? Results of two web reviews 
abstract:BackgroundPartnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study.MethodsTwo separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health ‘regions’ in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected.ResultsAbsence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced.ConclusionGuidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Hospital staff perspectives towards health technology assessment: data from a multidisciplinary survey 
abstract:BackgroundTechnology adoption in hospitals is usually based on cost-effectiveness analysis, feasibility and potential success. Different countries have embraced a range of principles to accomplish an effective comprehensive process of health technology assessment (HTA). The aim of the study was to analyse the viewpoints and relative weight of technology-oriented hospital staff members toward the clinical, social, technological and economic aspects of HTA.MethodsUsing a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted among different professionals in an 850-bed hospital.ResultsWe revealed a range of viewpoints among hospital staff members according to their personal characteristics and professional standpoints. The clinical aspects of HTA were considered ‘highly important’ (HI) by most participants, especially the ‘lifesaving’ parameter. Similarly, the ‘lack of effective alternative technology’ was ranked HI by a high percentage of participants, independent of their profession. Economic aspects were ranked HI only by half of the participants, while social and technological aspects were ranked HI only by a relatively low percentage. Nurses added ‘improving quality of life’, ‘increasing teamwork efficiency’ and ‘improving medical standards’. Allied health professionals focused on ‘lack of effective alternative technologies’ as a main argument for adoption of HTA, alongside increasing efficiency, budget savings and contribution to hospital reputation. Engineers emphasised the requirement of significant investment in infrastructure and increasing efficiency. Administrators ranked patient experience as HI. Interestingly, the high ranking of social aspects correlated with older responders, while junior staff ranked safety significantly higher.ConclusionsA multi-perspective multidisciplinary approach would be beneficial for policy-makers at hospitals and even on a national scale in Israel.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Re-orienting health systems through a commissioning approach: finding solutions for improved consumer engagement 
abstract:As many developed health systems grapple with the reorientation of their systems to those that are commissioning led, consumer engagement has emerged as an important theme. Despite many governments asserting the importance of consumer engagement in commissioning, an evidence base is yet to be developed to support this approach. This paper identifies the challenges and gaps in the literature relating to consumer engagement and commissioning, before setting out five potential solutions to these challenges. Ultimately, consumer engagement needs clarity of purpose and any approach should be tailored to context. Effective client involvement needs time and investment. To embark on such a process without this effort can be counterproductive.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Using developmental evaluation to support knowledge translation: reflections from a large-scale quality improvement project in Indigenous primary healthcare 
abstract:BackgroundDevelopmental evaluation is a growing area of evaluation practice, advocated for informing the adaptive development of change initiatives in complex social environments. The utilisation focus, complexity perspective and systems thinking of developmental evaluation suggest suitability for evaluating knowledge translation initiatives in primary healthcare. However, there are few examples in the literature to guide its use in these contexts and in Indigenous settings. In this paper, we reflect on our experience of using developmental evaluation to implement a large-scale knowledge translation research project in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. Drawing on principles of knowledge translation and key features of developmental evaluation, we debate the key benefits and challenges of applying this approach to engage diverse stakeholders in using aggregated quality improvement data to identify and address persistent gaps in care delivery.DiscussionThe developmental evaluation enabled the team to respond to stakeholder feedback and apply learning in real-time to successfully refine theory-informed research and engagement processes, tailor the presentation of findings to stakeholders and context, and support the project’s dissemination and knowledge co-production aim. It thereby contributed to the production of robust, useable research findings for informing policy and system change. The use of developmental evaluation appeared to positively influence stakeholders’ use of the project reports and their responses to the findings. Challenges included managing a high volume of evaluation data and multiple evaluation purposes, balancing facilitative sense-making processes and change with task-focused project management, and lack of experience in using this evaluation approach. Use of an embedded evaluator with facilitation skills and background knowledge of the project helped to overcome these challenges, as did similarities observed between features of developmental evaluation and continuous quality improvement.ConclusionOur experience of developmental evaluation confirmed our expectations of the potential value of this approach for strengthening improvement interventions and implementation research, and particularly for adapting healthcare innovations in Indigenous settings. In our project, developmental evaluation successfully encompassed evaluation, project adaptation, capacity development and knowledge translation. Further work is warranted to apply this approach more widely to improve primary healthcare initiatives and outcomes, and to evaluate implementation research.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2019 source: BMC 
title: Comprehensive analysis of the HIV/AIDS policy-making process in Iran 
abstract:BackgroundA huge number of people living with HIV/AIDS lives in developing countries. Thus, strengthening health systems in these countries is a prerequisite for improving disease prevention and care. After three decades of HIV/AIDS policy-making in Iran, conducting a comprehensive analysis on the policy process seems to be essential. In the present study, we aimed to analyse the HIV/AIDS policy-making process in Iran from 1986 to 2016.MethodsThis was a theory-based, multi-method and retrospective study. Interviewing of key informants and review of policy documents were concurrently conducted to identify and include further key informants (39 participants) and documents in the study. Framework analysis was used to analyse data.ResultsThe mean age of participants working in HIV/AIDS policy-making was of 48 years and participants had a mean of 14 years of working experience. Findings were categorized as contextual factors, content of HIV/AIDS policies, actors involved in the policy process, and evidence use in the policy process. Contextual effective factors on the HIV/AIDS policy-making process were categorized into five major themes, namely situational factors, structural-managerial factors, socioeconomic factors, political and legal factors, and international factors. The HIV/AIDS phenomenon in Iran was identified to be deeply rooted in the culture and traditions of society. The HIV/AIDS policy content has, recently, been crystallized in the national strategic plans and harm reduction policies of the country. The policy process has been conducted with a solely governmental top-down approach and is now suffering from poor evidence and lack of sufficient consideration of contextual factors.ConclusionsThere is a great need for change in the approach of government towards the issue and to increase the participation of non-governmental sectors and civil society in the policy process.