plueme/wizJson huggingface dataset:
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: A mixed-methods study of system-level sustainability of evidence-based practices in 12 large-scale implementation initiatives 
abstract:BackgroundIn recent decades, evidence-based practices (EBPs) have been broadly promoted in community behavioural health systems in the United States of America, yet reported EBP penetration rates remain low. Determining how to systematically sustain EBPs in complex, multi-level service systems has important implications for public health. This study examined factors impacting the sustainability of parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) in large-scale initiatives in order to identify potential predictors of sustainment.MethodsA mixed-methods approach to data collection was used. Qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys examining sustainability processes and outcomes were completed by participants from 12 large-scale initiatives.ResultsSustainment strategies fell into nine categories, including infrastructure, training, marketing, integration and building partnerships. Strategies involving integration of PCIT into existing practices and quality monitoring predicted sustainment, while financing also emerged as a key factor.ConclusionsThe reported factors and strategies impacting sustainability varied across initiatives; however, integration into existing practices, monitoring quality and financing appear central to high levels of sustainability of PCIT in community-based systems. More detailed examination of the progression of specific activities related to these strategies may aide in identifying priorities to include in strategic planning of future large-scale initiatives.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02543359; Protocol number PRO12060529.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Alliance members’ roles in collective field-building: an assessment of leadership and championship within the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada 
abstract:BackgroundThe Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada (PHIRIC) is a multi-stakeholder alliance founded in 2006 to advance population health intervention research (PHIR). PHIRIC aimed to strengthen Canada’s capacity to conduct and use such research to inform policy and practice to improve the public’s health by building PHIR as a field of research. In 2014, an evaluative study of PHIRIC at organisational and system levels was conducted, guided by a field-building and collaborative action perspective.MethodsThe study involved 17 qualitative key informant interviews with 21 current and former PHIRIC Planning Committee and Working Group members. The interviews examined how individuals and organisations were acting as champions and exerting leadership in building the field of PHIR.ResultsFounding PHIRIC organisational members have been championing PHIR at organisational and system levels. While the PHIR field has progressed in terms of enhanced funding, legitimacy, profile and capacity, some members and organisations faced constraints and challenges acting as leaders and champions in their respective environments. Expectations about the future of PHIRIC and field-building of PHIR were mixed, where longer-term and founding members of PHIRIC expressed more optimism than recent members. All agreed on the need for incorporating perspectives of decision-makers into PHIR directions and initiatives.ConclusionsThe findings contribute to understanding alliance members’ roles in leadership and championship for field-building more generally, and for population health and PHIR specifically. Building this field requires multi-level efforts, collaborative action and distributed leadership to create the necessary conditions for PHIRIC members to both benefit from and contribute to advancing PHIR as a field. Lessons from this 'made in Canada' model may be of interest to other countries regarding the structures needed for PHIR field-building.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Improving health promotion through central rating of interventions: the need for Responsive Guidance 
abstract:BackgroundIn several countries, attempts are made to improve health promotion by centrally rating the effectiveness of health promotion interventions. The Dutch Effectiveness Rating System (ERS) for health promotion interventions is an improvement-oriented approach in which multi-disciplinary expert committees rate available health promotion interventions as ‘theoretically sound’, ‘probably effective’ or ‘proven effective’. The aim of this study is to explore the functioning of the ERS and the perspective of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners regarding its contribution to improvement.MethodsWe interviewed 53 selected key informants from research, policy and practice in the Netherlands and observed the assessment of 12 interventions.ResultsBetween 2008 and 2012, a total of 94 interventions were submitted to the ERS, of which 23 were rejected, 58 were rated as ‘theoretically sound’, 10 were rated as ‘probably effective’ and 3 were rated as ‘proven effective’. According to participants, the ERS was intended to facilitate both the improvement of available interventions and the improvement of health promotion in practice. While participants expected that describing and rating interventions promoted learning and enhanced the transferability of interventions, they were concerned that the ERS approach was not suitable for guiding intervention development and improving health promotion in practice. The expert committees that assessed the interventions struggled with a lack of norms for the relevance of effects and questions about how effects should be studied and rated. Health promotion practitioners were concerned that the ERS neglected the local adaptation of interventions and did not encourage the improvement of aspects like applicability and costs. Policy-makers and practitioners were worried that the lack of proven effectiveness legitimised cutbacks rather than learning and advancing health promotion.ConclusionWhile measuring and centrally rating the effectiveness of interventions can be beneficial, the evidence based-inspired ERS approach is too limited to guide both intervention development and the improvement of health promotion in practice. To better contribute to improving health promotion, a more reflexive and responsive guidance approach is required, namely one which stimulates the improvement of different intervention aspects, provides targeted recommendations to practitioners and provides feedback to those who develop and rate interventions.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Policymakers’ experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: a realist process evaluation 
abstract:BackgroundAn intervention’s success depends on how participants interact with it in local settings. Process evaluation examines these interactions, indicating why an intervention was or was not effective, and how it (and similar interventions) can be improved for better contextual fit. This is particularly important for innovative trials like Supporting Policy In health with Research: an Intervention Trial (SPIRIT), where causal mechanisms are poorly understood. SPIRIT was testing a multi-component intervention designed to increase the capacity of health policymakers to use research.MethodsOur mixed-methods process evaluation sought to explain variation in observed process effects across the six agencies that participated in SPIRIT. Data collection included observations of intervention workshops (n = 59), purposively sampled interviews (n = 76) and participant feedback forms (n = 553). Using a realist approach, data was coded for context-mechanism-process effect configurations (retroductive analysis) by two authors.ResultsIntervention workshops were very well received. There was greater variation of views regarding other aspects of SPIRIT such as data collection, communication and the intervention’s overall value. We identified nine inter-related mechanisms that were crucial for engaging participants in these policy settings: (1) Accepting the premise (agreeing with the study’s assumptions); (2) Self-determination (participative choice); (3) The Value Proposition (seeing potential gain); (4) ‘Getting good stuff’ (identifying useful ideas, resources or connections); (5) Self-efficacy (believing ‘we can do this!’); (6) Respect (feeling that SPIRIT understands and values one’s work); (7) Confidence (believing in the study’s integrity and validity); (8) Persuasive leadership (authentic and compelling advocacy from leaders); and (9) Strategic insider facilitation (local translation and mediation). These findings were used to develop tentative explanatory propositions and to revise the programme theory.ConclusionThis paper describes how SPIRIT functioned in six policy agencies, including why strategies that worked well in one site were less effective in others. Findings indicate a complex interaction between participants’ perception of the intervention, shifting contextual factors, and the form that the intervention took in each site. Our propositions provide transferable lessons about contextualised areas of strength and weakness that may be useful in the development and implementation of similar studies.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Collaborative action for person-centred coordinated care (P3C): an approach to support the development of a comprehensive system-wide solution to fragmented care 
abstract:BackgroundFragmented care results in poor outcomes for individuals with complexity of need. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is perceived to be a potential solution, but an absence of accessible evidence and the lack of a scalable ‘blue print’ mean that services are ‘experimenting’ with new models of care with little guidance and support. This paper presents an approach to the implementation of P3C using collaborative action, providing examples of early developments across this programme of work, the core aim of which is to accelerate the spread and adoption of P3C in United Kingdom primary care settings.MethodsTwo centrally funded United Kingdom organisations (South West Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and South West Academic Health Science Network) are leading this initiative to narrow the gap between research and practice in this urgent area of improvement through a programme of service change, evaluation and research. Multi-stakeholder engagement and co-design are core to the approach. A whole system measurement framework combines outcomes of importance to patients, practitioners and health organisations. Iterative and multi-level feedback helps to shape service change while collecting practice-based data to generate implementation knowledge for the delivery of P3C. The role of the research team is proving vital to support informed change and challenge organisational practice. The bidirectional flow of knowledge and evidence relies on the transitional positioning of researchers and research organisations.ResultsExtensive engagement and embedded researchers have led to strong collaborations across the region. Practice is beginning to show signs of change and data flow and exchange is taking place. However, working in this way is not without its challenges; progress has been slow in the development of a linked data set to allow us to assess impact innovations from a cost perspective. Trust is vital, takes time to establish and is dependent on the exchange of services and interactions. If collaborative action can foster P3C it will require sustained commitment from both research and practice. This approach is a radical departure from how policy, research and practice traditionally work, but one that we argue is now necessary to deal with the most complex health and social problems.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Development of a framework to improve the utilisation of malaria research for policy development in Malawi 
abstract:BackgroundThe existing gap between research evidence and public health practice has attributed to the unmet Millennium Development Goals in Africa and consequently, has stimulated the development of frameworks to enhance knowledge translation. These efforts aim at maximising health research utilisation in policy and practice to address the world’s disease burdens, including malaria. This study aimed at developing a contextual framework to improve the utilisation of malaria research for policy development in Malawi.MethodsThe study used two approaches including: two case studies of policy analysis exploring the policy-making process in Malawi, utilisation of local malaria research, and the role of key stakeholders in policy formulation process; and the assessment of facilitating factors and barriers to malaria research utilisation for policy-making in Malawi.ResultsFrom the case studies’ lessons and elements identified during the assessment of facilitating factors and barriers, a framework is developed to promote an integrated approach to knowledge translation. In this framework the Ministry of Health is considered as the main user of knowledge from research through the demand created by the research directorate and the National Malaria Control Programme. Key documents identified as being particularly relevant to the Ministry of Health for purposes of knowledge translation include the National Health Research Agenda, Guidelines for Policy Development and Analysis, and Guidelines for Evidence Use in Policy-making. Institutions conducting academic and policy-relevant malaria research in Malawi are identified and a consolidation of their linkages with the users of research is established through the Knowledge Translation Unit, the Evidence Informed decision-making Centre, and the African Institute for Development Policy. Equally, key players in this framework are the funding partners for both research and programmes that need to see accountability and impact of their support. Independent advisors, partners, and consultants also have their vital role in the process.ConclusionThe framework offers a practical basis for the factors identified and their linkages to promote a co-ordinated approach to malaria research utilisation in policy-making. Its applicability and success hinges on its wider dissemination and ownership by the government through the National Malaria Control Programme.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Towards fair and effective North–South collaboration: realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research 
abstract:BackgroundAt the turn of the 90s, studies showed that health research contributed little to health and development in low- and middle-income countries because it was oriented towards international priorities and dominated by researchers from the North. A new approach to North–South collaboration was required that would support demand-driven and locally led research in the South. The aim of this study was to analyse the development and functioning of a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in Ghana that was supported by a North–South collaboration.MethodsFor this mixed-method case study, we combined document analysis, key informant interviews and observation of programme events.ResultsThe development of the research programme started with constructing a sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands. After highlighting the problems with traditional research collaboration, an advisory council formulated a vision for a more equal and effective approach to North–South collaboration. Together with Ghanaian partners, this vision was turned into a proposal for a Ghanaian-led programme for demand-driven and locally led research, which was funded by the Netherlands government. Research priority setting showed that the Ghanaian research needs were very different from the priorities of foreign funders and researchers. After a slow start, the number of locally submitted proposals increased from 13 in 2001 to 94 in 2005, revealing the existence of a substantial, but partly latent reservoir of research capacity. In total, 79 studies were funded. An impact evaluation showed that the results of the majority of the studies were used to contribute to action. Despite its success, the research programme came to an end in 2008 after the sponsorship constellation in the Netherlands fell apart.ConclusionOur study shows that realising a programme for demand-driven and locally led research in the South provides an effective approach to North–South collaboration in which results are used and local capacities and institutions are strengthened.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia 
abstract:BackgroundDiscussions within the health community routinely emphasise the importance of evidence in informing policy formulation and implementation. Much of the support for the evidence-based policy movement draws from concern that policy decisions are often based on inadequate engagement with high-quality evidence. In many such discussions, evidence is treated as differing only in quality, and assumed to improve decisions if it can only be used more. In contrast, political science scholars have described this as an overly simplistic view of the policy-making process, noting that research ‘use’ can mean a variety of things and relies on nuanced aspects of political systems. An approach more in recognition of how policy-making systems operate in practice can be to consider how institutions and ideas influence which pieces of evidence appear to be relevant for, and are used within, different policy processes.MethodsDrawing on in-depth interviews undertaken in 2015–2016 with key health sector stakeholders in Cambodia, we investigate the evidence perceived to be relevant to policy decisions for three contrasting health policy examples, namely tobacco control, HIV/AIDS and performance-based salary incentives. These cases allow us to examine the ways that policy-relevant evidence may differ given the framing of the issue and the broader institutional context in which evidence is considered.ResultsThe three health issues show few similarities in how pieces of evidence were used in various aspects of policy-making, despite all being discussed within a broad policy environment in which evidence-based policy-making is rhetorically championed. Instead, we find that evidence use can be better understood by mapping how these health policy issues differ in terms of the issue characteristics, and also in terms of the stakeholders structurally established as having a dominant influence for each issue. Both of these have important implications for evidence use. Contrasting concerns of key stakeholders meant that evidence related to differing issues could be understood in terms of how it was relevant to policy. The stakeholders involved, however, could further be seen to possess differing logics about how to go about achieving their various outcomes – logics that could further help explain the differences seen in evidence utilisation.ConclusionA comparative approach reiterates that evidence is not a uniform concept for which more is obviously better, but rather illustrates how different constructions and pieces of evidence become relevant in relation to the features of specific health policy decisions. An institutional approach that considers the structural position of stakeholders with differing core goals or objectives, as well as their logics related to evidence utilisation, can further help to understand some of the complexities of evidence use in health policy-making.
location: nan, 'Global 
year: 2017 source: BMC 
title: Institutional capacity to generate and use evidence in LMICs: current state and opportunities for HPSR 
abstract:BackgroundEvidence-informed decision-making for health is far from the norm, particularly in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has an important role in providing the context-sensitive and -relevant evidence that is needed. However, there remain significant challenges both on the supply side, in terms of capacity for generation of policy-relevant knowledge such as HPSR, and on the demand side in terms of the demand for and use of evidence for policy decisions. This paper brings together elements from both sides to analyse institutional capacity for the generation of HPSR and the use of evidence (including HPSR) more broadly in LMICs.MethodsThe paper uses literature review methods and two survey instruments (directed at research institutions and Ministries of Health, respectively) to explore the types of institutional support required to enhance the generation and use of evidence.ResultsFindings from the survey of research institutions identified the absence of core funding, the lack of definitional clarity and academic incentive structures for HPSR as significant constraints. On the other hand, the survey of Ministries of Health identified a lack of locally relevant evidence, poor presentation of research findings and low institutional prioritisation of evidence use as significant constraints to evidence uptake. In contrast, improved communication between researchers and decision-makers and increased availability of relevant evidence were identified as facilitators of evidence uptake.ConclusionThe findings make a case for institutional arrangements in research that provide support for career development, collaboration and cross-learning for researchers, as well as the setting up of institutional arrangements and processes to incentivise the use of evidence among Ministries of Health and other decision-making institutions. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to build institutional capacity in HPSR through engaging multiple stakeholders in identifying and maintaining incentive structures, improving research (including HPSR) training, and developing stronger tools for synthesising non-traditional forms of local, policy-relevant evidence such as grey literature. Addressing challenges on both the supply and demand side can build institutional capacity in the research and policy worlds and support the enhanced uptake of high quality evidence in policy decisions.