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]

Objective: This study sought to evaluate the impact of health care strike action on patient mortality.Data Sources: EMBASE, PubMed CINAHL, BIOETHICSLINE, EconLit, WEB OF SCIENCE, and grey literature were searched up to December 2021.Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were utilized.Data Collection/extraction: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare mortality rate during strike versus pre- or post-strike, with meta-regression employed to identify factors that might influence the potential impact of strike action. Studies were included if they were observational studies that examined in-hospital/clinic or population mortality during a strike period compared with a control period where there was no strike action.Principal Findings: Seventeen studies examined mortality: 14 examined in-hospital mortality and three examined population mortality. In-hospital studies represented 768,918 admissions and 7191 deaths during strike action and 1,034,437 admissions and 12,676 deaths during control periods. The pooled relative risk (RR) of in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ during strike action versus non-strike periods (RR = 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.63, 1.31, p = 0.598). Meta-regression also showed that mortality RR was not significantly impacted by country (p = 0.98), profession on strike (p = 0.32 for multiple professions, p = 0.80 for nurses), the duration of the strike (p = 0.26), or whether multiple facilities were on strike (p = 0.55). Only three studies that examined population mortality met the inclusion criteria; therefore, further analysis was not conducted. However, it is noteworthy that none of these studies reported a significant increase in population mortality attributable to strike action.Conclusions: Based on the data available, this review did not find any evidence that strike action has any significant impact on in-hospital patient mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To document dementia-relevant state assisted living regulations and their changes over time as they pertain to licensed care settings.Data Sources: For all states, current directories of licensed assisted living communities and state regulations for each year, 2007-2018, were obtained from state agency websites and Nexis Uni, respectively.Study Design: We identified multiple types of regulatory classifications for each state and documented the presence or absence of specific dementia care provisions in the regulations for each type by study year. Maps and summary statistics were used to compare results to previous research and document change longitudinally.Data Collection/extraction Methods: We used a policy analysis approach to connect communities listed in directories to applicable regulatory text. Then, we employed policy surveillance and question-based coding to record the presence or absence of specific policies for each classification and study year.Principal Findings: Our team empirically documented provisions requiring dementia-specific training for administrators and direct care staff, and cognitive impairment screening for each study year. We found that 23 states added one or more of these requirements for one or more license types, but the states that had these provisions for all types of licensed assisted living declined from four to two.Conclusions: We identified significant, previously undocumented, within-state policy variation for assisted living licensed settings between 2007 and 2018. Using the regulatory classification instead of the state as the unit of analysis revealed that many policy adoptions were limited to dementia-designated settings. This suggests that people living with dementia in general assisted living are not afforded the same protections. We call our approach health services regulatory analysis and argue that it has the potential to identify gaps in existing policies, an important endeavor for health services research in assisted living and other care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare interactive fixed effects (IFE) and generalized synthetic control (GSC) methods to methods prevalent in health policy evaluation and re-evaluate the impact of the hip fracture best practice tariffs introduced for hospitals in England in 2010.Data Sources: Simulations and Hospital Episode Statistics.Study Design: Best practice tariffs aimed to incentivize providers to deliver care in line with guidelines. Under the scheme, 62 providers received an additional payment for each hip fracture admission, while 49 providers did not. We estimate the impact using difference-in-differences (DiD), synthetic control (SC), IFE, and GSC methods. We contrast the estimation methods' performance in a Monte Carlo simulation study.Principal Findings: Unlike DiD, SC, and IFE methods, the GSC method provided reliable estimates across a range of simulation scenarios and was preferred for this case study. The introduction of best practice tariffs led to a 5.9 (confidence interval: 2.0 to 9.9) percentage point increase in the proportion of patients having surgery within 48 hours and a statistically insignificant 0.6 (confidence interval: -1.4 to 0.4) percentage point reduction in 30-day mortality.Conclusions: The GSC approach is an attractive method for health policy evaluation. We cannot be confident that best practice tariffs were effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the cost of resources required to implement a set of Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) as recommended by the Institute of Medicine.Study Design: A stochastic simulation model was used to generate probability distributions of input and output costs across 11 FPHS domains. We used an implementation attainment scale to estimate costs of fully implementing FPHS.Data Collection/extraction Methods: We use data collected from a diverse cohort of 19 public health agencies located in three states that implemented the FPHS cost estimation methodology in their agencies during 2014-2015.Principal Findings: The average agency incurred costs of $48 per capita implementing FPHS at their current attainment levels with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 16 percent. Achieving full FPHS implementation would require $82 per capita (CV=19 percent), indicating an estimated resource gap of $34 per capita.Conclusions: Substantial variation in costs exists across communities in resources currently devoted to implementing FPHS, with even larger variation in resources needed for full attainment. Reducing geographic inequities in FPHS may require novel financing mechanisms and delivery models that allow health agencies to have robust roles within the health system and realize a minimum package of public health services for the nation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]