Search

Objectives: The study uses a qualitative empirical method to define Health Research for Development. This project explores the perspectives of stakeholders in an international health research partnership operating in Ghana and Tanzania.Methods: We conducted 52 key informant interviews with major stakeholders in an international multicenter partnership between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK, Vaccine Developer) and the global health nonprofit organisation PATH and its Malaria Vaccine Initiative program (PATH/MVI, Funder-Development Partner), (RTS, S) (NCT00866619). The respondents included teams from four clinical research centres (two centres in Ghana and two in Tanzania) and various collaborating partners. This paper analyses responses to the question: What is Health Research for Development?Results: Based on the stakeholders' experience the respondents offered many ways of defining Health Research for Development. The responses fell into four broad themes: i) Equitable Partnerships; ii) System Sustainability; iii) Addressing Local Health Targets, and iv) Regional Commitment to Benefit Sharing.Conclusion: Through defining Health Research for Development six key learning points were generated from the four result themes: 1) Ensure there is local research leadership working with the collaborative partnership, and local healthcare system, to align the project agenda and activities with local research and health priorities; 2) Know the country-specific context - map the social, health, legislative and political setting; 3) Define an explicit development component and plan of action in a research project; 4) Address the barriers and opportunities to sustain system capacity. 5) Support decentralised health system decision-making to facilitate the translation pathway; 6) Govern, monitor and evaluate the development components of health research partnerships. Overall, equity and unity between partners are required to deliver health research for development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives: Strong health systems are said to be paramount to achieving effective and equitable health care. The World Health Organization has been advocating for using system-wide approaches such as 'systems thinking' to guide intervention design and evaluation. In this paper we report the system-wide effects of a complex health system intervention in Zambia known as Better Health Outcome through Mentorship and Assessment (BHOMA) that aimed to improve service quality. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study in three target districts. We used a systems thinking conceptual framework to guide the analysis focusing on intended and unintended consequences of the intervention. NVivo version 10 was used for data analysis. Results: The addressed community responded positively to the BHOMA intervention. The indications were that in the short term there was increased demand for services but the health worker capacity was not severely affected. This means that the prediction that service demand would increase with implementation of BHOMA was correct and the workload also increased, but the help of clinic lay supporters meant that some of the work of clinicians was transferred to these lay workers. However, from a systems perspective, unintended consequences also occurred during the implementation of the BHOMA. Conclusions: We applied an innovative approach to evaluate a complex intervention in low-income settings, exploring empirically how systems thinking can be applied in the context of health system strengthening. Although the intervention had some positive outcomes by employing system-wide approaches, we also noted unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proliferation of terms describing the science of effectively promoting and supporting the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and practice has hampered understanding and development of the field. To address this, an international Terminology Working Group developed and published a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. This paper presents results of validation work and a second international workgroup meeting, culminating in the updated AIMD framework [Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery].Methods: Framework validity was evaluated against terminology schemas (n = 51); primary studies (n = 37); and reporting guidelines (n = 10). Framework components were independently categorized as fully represented, partly represented, or absent by two researchers. Opportunities to refine the framework were systematically recorded. A meeting of the expanded international Terminology Working Group updated the framework by reviewing and deliberating upon validation findings and refinement proposals.Results: There was variation in representativeness of the components across the three types of literature, in particular for the component 'causal mechanisms'. Analysis of primary studies revealed that representativeness of this concept lowered from 92 to 68% if only explicit, rather than explicit and non-explicit references to causal mechanisms were included. All components were very well represented in reporting guidelines, however the level of description of these was lower than in other types of literature. Twelve opportunities were identified to improve the framework, 9 of which were operationalized at the meeting. The updated AIMD framework comprises four components: (1) Aims: what do you want your intervention to achieve and for whom? (2) Ingredients: what comprises the intervention? (3) Mechanisms: how do you propose the intervention will work? and (4) Delivery: how will you deliver the intervention?Conclusions: The draft simplified framework was validated with reference to a wide range of relevant literature and improvements have enhanced useability. The AIMD framework could aid in the promotion of evidence into practice, remove barriers to understanding how interventions work, enhance communication of interventions and support knowledge synthesis. Future work needs to focus on developing and testing resources and educational initiatives to optimize use of the AIMD framework in collaboration with relevant end-user groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is time to move beyond education about qualitative research theory and methods to using them to understand and improve psychiatric practice. There is a good fit between this agenda and current thinking about research use that broadens definitions of evidence beyond the results of experiments. This paper describes a qualitative program evaluation to illustrate what kind of useful knowledge is generated and how it can be created through a clinician-researcher partnership. The linkage and exchange model of effective knowledge translation described involves interaction between clinicians and researchers throughout the research process and results in mutual learning through the planning, disseminating, and application of existing or new qualitative research in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]