Search

Background The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique global health challenge which disrupted essential health services (EHS). Most early data related to EHS during the COVID-19 pandemic came from country and regional "pulse" surveys conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEEF), which relied on respondent perceptions and not necessarily routine health information system (RHIS) data. By conducting a scoping review, we aimed to describe the use of RHIS data for monitoring changes in EHS coverage for maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We performed a scoping review using Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type (SPIDER) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Scoping Review (PRISMA-SCR) guidelines. We included descriptive or analytic reports on the availability and use of RHIS data published in peer-reviewed, pre-publication, or gray literature on MNCH essential health services coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following databases were searched for studies published between January 2020 and May 2022: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Google, MedRXiv (pre-publication), Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, Campbell, and Open-Grey. A single reviewer screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the retrieved publications, while a second reviewer screened 20% of the total sample. Publications were tabulated by WHO Region, World Bank income group, country, data sources, study topic, and period. We used content analysis to qualitatively describe the trends and use of data for policy or programming in the studies. Results We included 264 publications after the full-text review. The publications came from 81 countries, covering all WHO regions and World Bank income groups. The most common data sources were hospital information systems (27%) and primary health care management information systems (26%). Most studies examined data trends before COVID-19 compared to periods during COVID-19. Most publications reported a decrease in MNCH services (45%). Reports with follow-up beyond August 2020 (first six months of pandemic) were significantly more likely to report recovery of service coverage (8% vs 30%, P<0.001). Low- and middle-income countries reported significantly higher morbidity and/or mortality in COVID-19 periods than high-income countries (54% vs 30%, P<0.001). Less than 10% of reports described RHIS data quality specifically during the COVID-19 period and only 22% reported program mitigation strategies to address reductions noted from routine data. Conclusion Results suggest awareness and usefulness of RHIS to monitor MNCH service disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, with only 22% of reports including descriptions of policy or program adaptations, use of RHIS data to monitor MNCH service disruptions was not necessarily followed by data-informed policies or program adaptations. RHIS data on MNCH services should be strengthened to enable its use by program managers and policymakers to respond to direct and indirect effects of future public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High rates of youth re‐offending indicate that young custody‐leavers face challenges when reintegrating into their communities. Aftercare and resettlement programs can occur pre‐, during, and post‐release and generally provide multiple forms of support services to address youths' transitional needs. Objectives: The present review examines (1) the impact of youth aftercare/resettlement programs on crime‐related outcomes, (2) how treatment effect is moderated by participant, program, and study characteristics, (3) whether some types of interventions are more effective than others, (4) barriers/facilitators to effective program implementation, (5) the theory of change underlying resettlement interventions, and (6) available research on intervention cost. Search Methods: A comprehensive set of keywords and synonyms was combined in a Boolean search across 26 electronic databases. Multiple gray literature sources were also searched, including 23 journals, 4 meeting archives, 11 organization websites, 3 open access journal websites, and the CVs of 8 well‐known researchers in the field. The search was completed in January 2023. Selection Criteria: For objectives 1–3, studies were included if they utilized a randomized controlled design or quasi‐experimental comparison group design in which participants were matched on at least some baseline variables and included at least one quantitative individual‐measure of crime. For objective 4, included studies presented process evaluations of aftercare/reentry programs, clearly stated their research goals, and used qualitative methods in an appropriate way to answer the stated research question. For objectives 5 and 6, no specific methods were required; any study meeting the criteria for objectives 1–4 which presented findings on theory of change or cost data were included. For all outcomes, only studies conducted in a westernized country, and published after 1991 in English, French, or German were considered. Data Collection and Analysis: Two coders conducted primary data extraction for the included studies. Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel database. After data extraction, the two coders validated the coding by cross‐checking the database with each research report. Discrepancies between coders were discussed until consensus was reached. Where consensus could not be reached, a third coder was consulted. Study risk of bias was addressed using the ROBINS‐I (Sterne et al., 2016), ROB‐2 (Higgins et al., 2019), and the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP, 2018). Objectives 1–3 were addressed by synthesizing quantitative outcomes from rigorous impact evaluations of aftercare interventions using random effects models and meta‐regression. Thematic and narrative analysis was conducted to address objectives 4–6. Results: The search resulted in 15 impact studies, representing 4,718 participants across 21 program sites, and 35 effect sizes. The 21 impact evaluations were rated as having either low/moderate bias (k = 11) or serious bias (k = 10). The synthesis of 15 impact studies found no significant effects for arrest (k = 14; OR = 1.044, 95% prediction interval [0.527, 2.075], t = 0.335) or incarceration (k = 8, OR = 0.806, 95% prediction interval [2.203, 1.433], t = −1.674). A significant pooled effect was found for conviction (k = 13, OR = 1.209, 95% prediction interval [1.000, 1.462], t = 2.256), but results were highly sensitive to the inclusion of specific studies. No meaningful pattern of results emerged in moderator analyses with respect to study, sample, program component, or program delivery characteristics. The 19 process studies were rated as either high quality (k = 12) or moderate quality (k = 7). Thematic synthesis of the process evaluations revealed 15 themes related to the strengths/challenges of program implementation. The assessment of program cost (k = 7) determined a lack of data within the literature, preventing any summative analysis. Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence is promising with respect to conviction outcomes but overall does not find that aftercare/resettlement interventions have a reliably positive impact on crime‐related outcomes for young people who have offended. High variability across outcomes and reported data resulted in small sample sizes per outcome and limited moderator analyses. Multiple challenges for program implementation exist; additional rigorous research is sorely needed to further investigate the nuances of the program effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: South Africa uses government-funded return-of-service (RoS) schemes to train, recruit and retain skilled health professionals in underserved areas. These educate health professionals locally or internationally in return for a commitment to serve in a specified area for an agreed period. While such schemes are used widely and are funded by substantial public funds, their exact makeup differs across jurisdictions, and little is known about why these differences have emerged or how they influence their effectiveness or impact on the health system. We aimed to fill these gaps through an analysis of the origins, architecture, and evolution of RoS schemes in South Africa. Methods: A multimethod research study including a policy review, a literature review, and semi-structured interviews of policymakers was undertaken between October 2020 and August 2022. The included policy documents and literature were analysed using the Walt and Gilson framework and narrative synthesis. Qualitative data were analysed using inductive, thematic analysis in NVIVO 12. Results: RoS schemes are used as a recruitment and retention strategy and a mechanism to address equity in access to medical education. Whilst there is evidence of RoS schemes existing in 1950, no evidence of beneficiaries was found in databases until 1989. The impact of these schemes is likely being limited by sub-optimal institutional arrangements and poor transparency in their design and implementation. Conclusion: Despite rigorous research methods, the origins of RoS policies in South Africa could not be established due to poor preservation of institutional memory. Opportunities to monitor the value of public investment into RoS programs are being missed and often the underlying objective of the programs has not been well-specified. Policies were found to have been developed and operate in isolation from other health workforce planning activities and thus may not be maximising their impact as a retention and training tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the UK, altruism has featured explicitly as an underpinning principle for biobanking. However, conceptualizing donation as altruistic downplays the role of reciprocity and personal or family benefit. Objective: To investigate how biosample donors talk about their donation and whether they regard samples as ‘gifts’. Methods: In this qualitative study, 21 people, both healthy volunteers and people with health conditions, who had been invited to give biosamples took part in semi‐structured narrative interviews. The data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results: The term ‘gift’ was considered appropriate by some, but it also evoked puzzlement, especially in relation to ‘waste’ material (e.g. urine or tumour samples). Whilst ‘giving’ or ‘donating’ were commonly mentioned, the noun ‘gift’ signified something more special and deliberate. Analysis suggested biosamples could be interpreted as gifts in several different ways, including unreserved gift; reciprocal gift; collective gift; unwanted/low‐value gift; and gift as an exaggeration. Discussion and conclusions: Although people describe a network of exchange consistent with anthropological understandings of gift relationships, lay (and biomedical) understandings of the term ‘gift’ may differ from anthropological definitions. For donors (and researchers), value is attached to the information derived from the sample, rather than the sample itself. Consequently, when asking people for biosamples, we should avoid using the term ‘gift’. Acknowledging the value of participation and the information the sample holds may mean more to potential donors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Quebec primary health care delivery system has experienced numerous reforms over the last 15 years. In this study, we sought to examine how managers and primary care providers made sense of the creation of successive new primary care organizational forms. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal qualitative case study in a primary care practice group located in Montreal, Quebec, for over 6 years (2002 to 2008). The data sources for the study include 31 semi-structured interviews with key informants, in-situ observations of group meetings, as well as documents and field notes. Textual material was submitted to narrative and metaphor analysis. Results: The core metaphor of the journey came from a set of stories in which the members of this primary care group depicted the processes undertaken towards developing a multidisciplinary cooperative practice, which include an uneasy departure, uncertainty about the destination, conflict among members who jump ship or stay on board, negotiations about the itinerary, and, finally, enduring challenges in leading the way and being pioneers of change in the organization of primary care in their institutional context. Identification with the initial family medicine unit identity was persistent over time, but successive reforms further enriched its meaning as it became a multidisciplinary primary care practice pioneering organizational change. Conclusions: In order to support primary care reforms in complex institutional fields, this study proposes that decision-makers undertake a journey in which they recognize both the need to capitalize existing meaningful and legitimated organizational identities, as well as the necessity for collective leadership in the management of multiple organizational identities over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of African Journal of Reproductive Health is the property of Women's Health & Action Research Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Little is known about how GPs determine whether and when patients need palliative care. Little research has been done regarding the assumption underpinning Lynn and Adamson's model that palliative care may start early in the course of the disease. This study was conducted to explore how GPs identify a need for palliative care in patients. Methods: A qualitative interview study was performed among 20 GPs in the Netherlands. Results: GPs reported that a combination of several signals, often subtle and not explicit, made them identify a need for palliative care: signals from patients (increasing care dependency and not recuperating after intercurrent diseases) and signals from relatives or reports from medical specialists. GPs reported differences in how they identified a need for palliative care in cancer patients versus those with other diseases. In cancer patients, the need for palliative care was often relatively clear because of a relatively strict demarcation between the curative and palliative phase. However, in patients with e.g. COPD or in the very old, GPs' awareness of palliative care needs often arises gradually, relatively late in the disease trajectory. GPs consider the diagnosis of a life-threatening illness as a key point in the disease trajectory. However, this does not automatically mean that a patient needs palliative care at that point. Conclusions: GPs recognize a need for palliative care on the basis of various signals. They do not support the idea underlying Lynn and Adamson's model that palliative care always starts early in the course of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]