Search

Background: There is an often-held assumption that the engagement of clinicians and healthcare organizations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels. Previous reviews found up to 28 studies suggesting a positive association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organizations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The current study sought to provide an update. Methods: We updated our existing published systematic review by again addressing the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organizations) improve healthcare performance? The search covered the period 1 January 2012 to March 2024, in two phases. First, the formal updated search ran from 1 January 2012 to 31 May 2020, in any healthcare setting or country and focussed on English language publications. In this phase two searches identified 66 901 records. Later, a further check of key journals and citations to identified papers ran from May 2020 to March 2024. In total, 168 papers progressed to full-text appraisal; 62 were identified for inclusion in the update. Then we combined papers from our original and updated reviews. Results: In the combined review, the literature is dominated by papers from the United States (50/95) and mostly drawn from the Global North. Papers cover various clinical fields, with more on cancer than any other field; 86 of the 95 papers report positive results, of which 70 are purely positive and 16 positive/mixed, meaning there are some negative elements (i.e. aspects where there is a lack of healthcare improvement) in their findings. Conclusions: The updated review collates a substantial pool of studies, especially when combined with our original review, which are largely positive in terms of the impact of research engagement on processes of care and patient outcomes. Of the potential engagement mechanisms, the review highlights the important role played by research networks. The review also identifies various papers which consider how far there is a "dose effect" from differing amounts of research engagement. Additional lessons come from analyses of equity issues and negative papers. This review provides further evidence of contributions played by systems level research investments such as research networks on processes of care and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer is a major public health challenge globally. However, little is known about the evolution patterns of cancer research communities and the influencing factors of their research capacity and impact, which is affected not only by the social networks established through research collaboration but also by the knowledge networks in which the research projects are embedded. Methods: The focus of this study was narrowed to a specific topic – 'synthetic lethality' – in cancer research. This field has seen vibrant growth and multidisciplinary collaboration in the past decade. Multi-level collaboration and knowledge networks were established and analysed on the basis of bibliometric data from 'synthetic lethality'-related cancer research papers. Negative binomial regression analysis was further applied to explore how node attributes within these networks, along with other potential factors, affected paper citations, which are widely accepted as proxies for assessing research capacity and impact. Results: Our study revealed that the synthetic lethality-based cancer research field is characterized by a knowledge network with high integration, alongside a collaboration network exhibiting some clustering. We found significant correlations between certain factors and citation counts. Specifically, a leading status within the nation-level international collaboration network and industry involvement were both found to be significantly related to higher citations. In the individual-level collaboration networks, lead authors' degree centrality has an inverted U-shaped relationship with citations, while their structural holes exhibit a positive and significant effect. Within the knowledge network, however, only measures of structural holes have a positive and significant effect on the number of citations. Conclusions: To enhance cancer research capacity and impact, non-leading countries should take measures to enhance their international collaboration status. For early career researchers, increasing the number of collaborators seems to be more effective. University–industry cooperation should also be encouraged, enhancing the integration of human resources, technology, funding, research platforms and medical resources. Insights gained through this study also provide recommendations to researchers or administrators in designing future research directions from a knowledge network perspective. Focusing on unique issues especially interdisciplinary fields will improve output and influence their research work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health information systems are crucial to provide data for decision-making and demand for data is constantly growing. However, the link between data and decisions is not always rational or linear and the management of data ends up overloading frontline health workers, which may compromise quality of healthcare delivery. Despite limited evidence, there is an increasing push for the digitalization of health information systems, which poses enormous challenges, particularly in remote, rural settings in low- and middle-income countries. Paper-based tools will continue to be used in combination with digital solutions and this calls for efforts to make them more responsive to local needs. Paper-based Health Information Systems in Comprehensive Care (PHISICC) is a transdisciplinary, multi-country research initiative to create and test innovative paper-based health information systems in three sub-Saharan African countries.Methods/design: The PHISICC initiative is being carried out in remote, rural settings in Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria through partnership with ministries of health and research institutions. We began with research syntheses to acquire the most up-to-date knowledge on health information systems. These were coupled with fieldwork in the three countries to understand the current design, patterns and contexts of use, and healthcare worker perspectives. Frontline health workers, with designers and researchers, used co-creation methods to produce the new PHISICC tools. This suite of tools is being tested in the three countries in three cluster-randomized controlled trials. Throughout the project, we have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and have maintained the highest scientific standards to ensure that results are relevant to the realities in the three countries.Discussion: We have deployed a comprehensive research approach to ensure the robustness and future policy uptake of findings. Besides the innovative PHISICC paper-based tools, our process is in itself innovative. Rather than emphasizing the technical dimensions of data management, we focused instead on frontline health workers' data use and decision-making. By tackling the whole scope of primary healthcare areas rather than a subset of them, we have developed an entirely new design and visual language for a suite of tools across healthcare areas. The initiative is being tested in remote, rural areas where the most vulnerable live. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In May 2013, the WHO Member States requested the WHO to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D), as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilize resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world's poorest countries. The rationale for establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D is to provide a mechanism to monitor and analyse health R&D resource flows, product pipelines, and research outputs, aiming to contribute to the identification of gaps to inform priority-setting for new R&D investments to be operationalized through a new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D and utilized by all stakeholders informing health research policy decisions in countries, civil society, and the private sector. As one of the mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Observatory on Health R&D, the WHO is launching a Call for Papers to be published as a Thematic Series in Health Research Policy and Systems to contribute state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative approaches to analyse, interpret, and report on health R&D information. Further, to serve as a key resource to inform the future WHO-convened coordination mechanism, which will be utilized to generate evidence-informed priorities for new R&D investments to be financed through a proposed new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles. Methods: We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors' affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level. Results: Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran (n = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (n = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan (n = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding (n = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles' first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author's affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%. Conclusion: This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The translation of research into healthcare practice relies on effective communication between disciplines, however strategies to address the gap between information sharing and knowledge transfer are still under exploration. Communities of Practice (CoP) are informal networks of stakeholders with shared knowledge or endeavour and present an opportunity to address this gap beyond disciplinary boundaries. However, the evidence-base supporting their development, implementation and efficacy in health is not well described. This review explores the evidence underpinning the use of CoP in health research and translation. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. A comprehensive search of health databases and grey literature was performed using keywords and controlled vocabulary. Studies were not restricted by date or research method. Results: A total of 1355 potentially relevant articles were identified through the global search strategy. Following screening, six articles were retained for analysis. Included studies were published between 2002 and 2013 in the United Kingdom (n = 3), Canada (n = 2) and Italy (n = 1). Three papers reported primary research; one used a quantitative methodology, one a qualitative, and one a descriptive evaluation approach. The three remaining papers explored seminal and evolving theories of CoP in the context of knowledge transfer and translation to the health sector. Conclusions: A paucity of evidence exists regarding the development and efficacy of CoP in health research and translation. Further empirical research is required to determine if communities of practice can enhance the translation of research into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measuring and optimizing a health system is challenging when patient care is split between many independent organizations. For example, patients receive care from their primary care provider, outpatient specialist clinics, hospitals, private providers and, in some instances, family members. These silos are maintained through different funding sources (or lack of funding) which incentivize siloed service delivery. A shift towards prioritizing patient outcomes and keeping the patient at the centre of care is emerging. However, competing philosophies on patient needs, how health is defined and how health is produced and funded is creating and engraining silos in the delivery of health services. Healthcare and health outcomes are produced through a series of activities conducted by diverse teams of health professionals working in concert. Health professionals are continually learning from each patient interaction; however, silos are barriers to information exchange, collaborative evidence generation and health system improvement. This paper presents a systems view of healthcare and provides a systems lens to approach current challenges in health systems. The first part of the paper provides a background on the current state and challenges to healthcare in Canada. The second part presents potential reasons for continued health system underperformance. The paper concludes with a system perspective for addressing these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers' evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers. Methods: We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence. Results: Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts. Conclusion: The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In May 2013, the WHO Member States requested the WHO to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D), as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilize resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world's poorest countries. The rationale for establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D is to provide a mechanism to monitor and analyse health R&D resource flows, product pipelines, and research outputs, aiming to contribute to the identification of gaps to inform priority-setting for new R&D investments to be operationalized through a new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D and utilized by all stakeholders informing health research policy decisions in countries, civil society, and the private sector. As one of the mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Observatory on Health R&D, the WHO is launching a Call for Papers to be published as a Thematic Series in Health Research Policy and Systems to contribute state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative approaches to analyse, interpret, and report on health R&D information. Further, to serve as a key resource to inform the future WHO-convened coordination mechanism, which will be utilized to generate evidence-informed priorities for new R&D investments to be financed through a proposed new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: International collaboration for health system development has been identified as a critical input to meet pressing global health needs. North-South collaboration has the potential to benefit both parties, while South-South collaboration offers promise to strengthen capacity rapidly and efficiently across developing countries. There is an emerging trend to analyze the fruits of such collaboration. This paper builds on this trend by applying an innovative concept-based bibliometric method to identify the international scope of collaboration within the field of health policy and systems research. Two key questions are addressed: to what extent are papers comparing developing countries as against reporting on single country studies? To what extent are papers in either case being produced by researchers within their respective countries or through North-South or South-South collaboration? Methods: A total of 8,751 papers published in Medline between 1999 and 2003 with data on health systems and policies in developing countries were identified and content-analyzed using an innovative concept-based search technology. A sample of 13% of papers was used to identify the corresponding institution and countries covered. The sampled data was then analyzed by income group. Results: Papers with an international, cross-country focus account for only 10% of the total. Just over a third of all papers are led by upper middle income country authors, closely followed by authors from high income countries. Just under half of all papers target low income countries. Cross-country papers are led mostly by institutions in high income countries, with 74% of the total. Only seven countries concentrate 60% of the papers led by developing country institutions. Institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom concentrate between them as many as 68% of the papers led by high income countries. Only 11% of all single-country papers and 21% of multi-country studies are the product of South-South collaboration. Health Financing is the topic with the greatest international scope, with 26% of all papers in the topic. Topics such as Costing and Cost Effectiveness, Finance, Sector Analysis and Insurance, regardless of their national or international scope, are led in 38% to 54% of cases by high income authors. Conclusion: While there is modest health systems research capacity in many developing countries for single country studies, capacity is severely limited for multi-country studies. While North-South collaboration is important, the number of international studies is still very limited to produce the kind of knowledge required to learn from experiences across countries. The fact that lead institutions as well as study countries are concentrated in a handful of mostly middle income countries attests to great disparities in research capacity. However, disparities in research capacity and interest are also evident in the North. It is urgent to build cross-country research capacity including appropriate forms of South-South and North-South collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1982, the Annals of Virology published a paper showing how Liberia has a highly endemic potential of Ebola warning health authorities of the risk for potential outbreaks; this journal is only available by subscription. Limiting the accessibility of such knowledge may have reduced information propagation toward public health actors who were indeed surprised by and unprepared for the 2014 epidemic. Open access (OA) publication can allow for increased access to global health research (GHR). Our study aims to assess the use, cost and impact of OA diffusion in the context of GHR.Method: A total of 3366 research articles indexed under the Medical Heading Subject Heading "Global Health" published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved using PubMed to (1) quantify the uptake of various types of OA, (2) estimate the article processing charges (APCs) of OA, and (3) analyse the relationship between different types of OA, their scholarly impact and gross national income per capita of citing countries.Results: Most GHR publications are not available directly on the journal's website (69%). Further, 60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy. The total amount paid for APCs was estimated at US$1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US$2732 per publication; 94% of APCs were paid to journals owned by the ten most prominent publication houses from high-income countries. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries are generally citing less expensive types of OA, while researchers in high-income countries are citing the most expensive OA.Conclusions: Although OA may help in building global research capacity in GHR, the majority of publications remain subscription only. It is logical and cost-efficient for institutions and researchers to promote OA by self-archiving publications of restricted access, as it not only allows research to be cited by a broader audience, it also augments citation rates. Although OA does not ensure full knowledge transfer from research to practice, limiting public access can negatively impact implementation and outcomes of health policy and reduce public understanding of health issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research priority setting aims to identify research gaps within particular health fields. Given the global burden of mental illness and underfunding of mental health research compared to other health topics, knowledge of methodological procedures may raise the quality of priority setting to identify research with value and impact. However, to date there has been no comprehensive review on the approaches adopted with priority setting projects that identify mental health research, despite viewed as essential knowledge to address research gaps. Hence, the paper presents a summary of the methods, designs, and existing frameworks that can be adopted for prioritising mental health research to inform future prioritising projects. Method: A systematic review of electronic databases located prioritisation literature, while a critical interpretive synthesis was adopted whereby the appraisal of methodological procedures was integrated into the synthesis of the findings. The synthesis was shaped using the good practice checklist for priority setting by Viergever and colleagues drawing on their following categories to identify and appraise methodological procedures: (1) Comprehensive Approach—frameworks/designs guiding the entire priority setting; (2) Inclusiveness –participation methods to aid the equal contribution of stakeholders; (3) Information Gathering—data collecting methods to identify research gaps, and (4) Deciding Priorities—methods to finalise priorities. Results: In total 903 papers were located with 889 papers removed as either duplicates or not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 14 papers were identified, describing 13 separate priority setting projects. Participatory approaches were the dominant method adopted but existing prioritisation frameworks were modified with little explanation regarding the rationale, processes for adaptation and theoretical foundation. Processes were predominately researcher led, although with some patient involvement. Surveys and consensus building methods gathered information while ranking systems and thematic analysis tend to generate finalised priorities. However, limited evidence found about transforming priorities into actual research projects and few described plans for implementation to promote translation into user-informed research. Conclusion: Prioritisation projects may benefit from justifying the methodological approaches taken to identify mental health research, stating reasons for adapting frameworks alongside reasons for adopting particular methods, while finalised priorities should be worded in such a way as to facilitate their easy translation into research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research co-production is about doing research with those who use it. This approach to research has been receiving increasing attention from research funders, academic institutions, researchers and even the public as a means of optimising the relevance, usefulness, usability and use of research findings, which together, the argument goes, produces greater and more timely impact. The papers in this cross BMC journal collection raise issues about research co-production that, to date, have not been fully considered and suggest areas for future research for advancing the science and practice of research co-production. These papers address some gaps in the literature, make connections between subfields and provide varied perspectives from researchers and knowledge users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As systematically developed statements regarding possible courses of action, health system guidance (HSG) can assist with making decisions about addressing problems or achieving goals in health systems. However, there are conceptual and methodological challenges in HSG implementation due to the complexity of health-system policy-making, the diversity of available evidence and vast differences in contexts. To address these gaps, we aim to develop a theoretical framework for supporting HSG implementation as part of a broader effort to promote evidence-informed policy-making in health systems.Methods: To develop a theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation, we will apply a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to synthesize the findings from a range of relevant literature. We will search 11 electronic databases and seven organizational websites to identify relevant published and grey literature. We will check the references of included studies and contact experts to identify additional eligible papers. Finally, we will conduct purposively sampling of the literature to fill any identified conceptual gaps. We will use relevance and five quality criteria to assess included papers. A standardized form will be developed for extracting information. We will use an interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the findings, including a constant comparative method throughout the analysis. Two independent reviewers will conduct the literature screening and relevance assessment, and disagreements will be resolved through discussion. The principal investigator will conduct data extraction and synthesis, and a second reviewer will check the sample of extracted data for consistency and accuracy.Discussion: A new theoretical framework about facilitators, barriers and strategies for HSG implementation will be developed using a CIS approach. The HSG implementation framework could be widely used for supporting the implementation of HSG covering varied topics and in different contexts (including low-, middle- and high-income countries). In later work, we will develop a tool for supporting HSG implementation based on the theoretical framework. Registration PROSPERO CRD42020214072. Date of Registration: 14 December 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the sharp increase in the involvement of patients (including family and informal caregivers) as active participants, collaborators, advisors and decision-makers in health systems, a new role has emerged: the patient partner. The role of patient partner differs from other forms of patient engagement in its longitudinal and bidirectional nature. This systematic review describes extant work on how patient partners are conceptualized and engaged in health systems. In doing so, it furthers the understanding of the role and activities of patient partners, and best practices for future patient partnership activities. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature published in English or French that describes patient partner roles between 2000 and 2021 in any country or sector of the health system. We used a broad search strategy to capture descriptions of longitudinal patient engagement that may not have used words such as "partner" or "advisor". Results: A total of 506 eligible papers were identified, representing patient partnership activities in mostly high-income countries. These studies overwhelmingly described patient partnership in health research. We identified clusters of literature about patient partnership in cancer and mental health. The literature is saturated with single-site descriptive studies of patient partnership on individual projects or initiatives. There is a lack of work synthesizing impacts, facilitating factors and outcomes of patient partnership in healthcare. Conclusions: There is not yet a consolidated understanding of the role, activities or impacts of patient partners. Advancement of the literature has been stymied by a lack of consistently used terminology. The literature is ready to move beyond single-site descriptions, and synthesis of existing pockets of high-quality theoretical work will be essential to this evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Seguro Popular (SP) was launched in 2004 to increase access to healthcare and reduce catastrophic expenditures among the Mexican population. To document the evidence on its effectiveness, we conducted a systematic review of impact evaluations of the SP.Methods: We included papers using rigorous quasi-experimental designs to assess the effectiveness of the SP. We evaluated the quality of each study and presented the statistical significance of the effects by outcome category.Results: We identified 26 papers that met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies that evaluated the impact of SP on financial protection found consistent and statistically significant positive effects in 55% of the 65 outcomes analyzed. Nine studies evaluating utilization of health services for the general and infant populations found effectiveness on 40% of 30 outcomes analyzed. Concerning screening services for hypertension, diabetes, and cervical and prostate cancer, we found three studies evaluating 14 outcomes and finding significant effects on 50% of them. Studies looking at the impact of SP on diabetes, hypertension, and general health care and treatment evaluated 19 outcomes and found effects on 21% of them. One study assessed five diabetes monitoring services and found positive effects on four of them. The only study on morbidity and mortality found positive results on three of the four outcomes of interest.Conclusion: We found mixed evidence on the impact of SP on financial protection, healthcare utilization, morbidity and mortality. In the 26 studies included in this review, researchers found positive effects in roughly half of the outcomes and null results on the rest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The assessment of primary care organizations is considered to be essential for improving care. However, the assessments' acceptability to professionals poses a challenge. Developing assessment programmes in collaboration with the end-users is a strategy that is widely encouraged to make interventions better targeted. By doing so, it can help to prevent resistance and encourage adherence to the assessment. This process, however, is rarely reported. This paper aims to fill this gap by describing the process of the co-production of an assessment programme for community health centres (CHCs) affiliated to the Federation of Community Health Centres (FCHC) in French-speaking Belgium. Methods: We conducted a documentary study on the co-production of the assessment programme before carrying out semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved in its development. Results: CHCs in French-speaking Belgium are increasing in number and are becoming more diverse. For the FCHC, this growth and diversification pose challenges for the meaning of CHC (an identity challenge) and what beneficiaries can expect in terms of the quality of organizations declaring themselves CHC (a quality challenge). Faced with this double challenge, the FCHC decided to develop an assessment programme, initially called Label, using participatory action research. During the co-production process, this initial programme version was abandoned in favour of a new name "DEQuaP". This new name embodies new objectives and new design regarding the assessment programme. When studying the co-production process, we attributed these changes to two controversies. The first concerns how much and which type of variety is desired among CHCs part of the FCHC. The second concerns the organization of the FCHC in its capacity as a federation. It shed light on tensions between two professional segments that, in this paper, we called "political professionalism" and "pragmatic professionalism". Conclusions: These controversies show the importance of underlying challenges behind the development of an assessment programme for CHCs. This provided information about the evolution of the identity of multidisciplinary organizations in primary care. Issues raised in the development of this assessment programme also show the importance of considering assessment methods that reflect and embody the current realities of these organizations and the way of developing these assessment methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Of numerous proposed frameworks for analyzing and impacting health systems, three stand out for the large number of publications that cite them and for their links to influential international institutions: Murray and Frenk (Bull World Health Organ 78:717–31, 2000) connected initially to the World Health Organization (WHO) and then to the Global Burden of Disease Project; Roberts et al. (Getting health reform right: a guide to improving performance and equity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) sponsored by the World Bank/Harvard Flagship Program; and de Savigny and Adam (Systems thinking for health systems strengthening, WHO, 2009) linked to the WHO and the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. In this paper, we examine the citation communities that form around these works to better understand the underlying logic of these citation grouping as well as the dynamics of Global Health research on health systems. We conclude that these groupings are largely independent of one another, reflecting a range of factors including the goals of each framework and the problems that it was meant to explore, the prestige and authority of institutions and individuals associated with these frameworks, and the intellectual and geographic proximity of the citing researchers to each other and to the framework authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-based primary care, such as general practice (GP) or urgent care, serves as the primary point of access to healthcare for most Australians and New Zealanders. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created significant and ongoing disruptions to primary care. Traditional research methods have contributed to gaps in understanding the experiences of primary care workers during the pandemic. This paper describes a novel research design and method that intended to capture the evolving impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers in Australia and New Zealand. Recurrent, rapid cycle surveys were fielded from May 2020 through December 2021 in Australia, and May 2020 through February 2021 in New Zealand. Rapid survey development, fielding, triangulated analysis and dissemination of results allowed close to real-time communication of relevant issues among general practice workers, researchers and policy-makers. A conceptual model is presented to support longitudinal analysis of primary care worker experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and New Zealand, and key learnings from applying this novel method are discussed. This paper will assist future research teams in development and execution of policy-relevant research in times of change and may inform further areas of interest for COVID-19 research in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When deciding whether to implement an intervention, decision-makers typically have questions on feasibility and acceptability and on factors affecting implementation. Descriptions of programme implementation and of policies and systems are rich sources of information for these questions. However, this information is often not based on empirical data collected using explicit methods. To use the information in unconventional source materials in syntheses or other decision support products, we need methods of assessing their strengths and limitations. This paper describes the development and content of the Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool, a new tool to assess the strengths and limitations of these sources. Methods: We developed the ACE tool in four stages: first, we examined existing tools to identify potentially relevant assessment criteria. Second, we drew on these criteria and team discussions to create a first draft of the tool. Third, we obtained feedback on the draft from potential users and methodologists, and through piloting the tool in evidence syntheses. Finally, we used this feedback to iteratively refine the assessment criteria and to improve our guidance for undertaking the assessment. Results: The tool is made up of 11 criteria including the purpose and context of the source; the completeness of the information presented; and the extent to which evidence is provided to support the findings made. Users are asked to indicate whether each of the criteria have been addressed. On the basis of their judgements for each criterion, users then make an overall assessment of the limitations of the source, ranging from no or very minor concerns to serious concerns. These assessments can then facilitate appropriate use of the evidence in decision support products. Conclusions: Through focussing on unconventional source materials, the ACE tool fills an important gap in the range of tools for assessing the strengths and limitations of policy-relevant evidence and supporting evidence-informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Sub-optimal community health service delivery (CHSD) has been a challenge constraining community health systems (CHS) globally, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria. This paper examined the key factors that either enhance or constrain CHSD in Nigeria at the individual, community/facility and governmental levels while recommending evidence-based solutions for sustaining and improving CHSD within the framework of CHS. Methods: Data were collected through a qualitative study undertaken in three states (Anambra, Akwa-Ibom and Kano) in Nigeria. Respondents were formal/informal health providers, community leaders and representatives of civil society organizations all purposively sampled. There were 90 in-depth interviews and 12 focus group discussions, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using codes to identify key themes. Results: Factors constraining community health service delivery at the individual level were poor health-seeking behaviour, preference for quacks and male dominance of service delivery; at the community/facility level were superstitious/cultural beliefs and poor attitude of facility workers; at the governmental level were inadequate financial support, embezzlement of funds and inadequate social amenities. Conversely, the enabling factors at the individual level were community members' participation and the compassionate attitude of informal providers. At the community and facility levels, the factors that enhanced service delivery were synergy between formal and informal providers and support from community-based organizations and structures. At the governmental level, the enhancing factors were the government's support of community-based formal/informal providers and a clear line of communication. Conclusions: Community health service delivery through a functional community-health system can improve overall health systems strengthening and lead to improved community health. Policy-makers should integrate community health service delivery in all program implementation and ultimately work with the community health system as a veritable platform for effective community health service delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2016, large-scale 20 miles per hour speed limits were introduced in the United Kingdom cities of Edinburgh and Belfast. This paper investigates the role that scientific evidence played in the policy decisions to implement lower speed limits in the two cities. Methods: Using a qualitative case study design, we undertook content analysis of a range of documents to explore and describe the evolution of the two schemes and the ways in which evidence informed decision-making. In total, we identified 16 documents for Edinburgh, published between 2006 and 2016, and 19 documents for Belfast, published between 2002 and 2016. Findings: In both cities, evidence on speed, collisions and casualties was important for initiating discussions on large-scale 20 mph policies. However, the narrative shifted over time to the idea that 20 mph would contribute to a wider range of aspirations, none of which were firmly grounded in evidence, but may have helped to neutralize opposing discourses. Discussion and conclusions: The relationship between evidence and decision-making in Edinburgh and Belfast was neither simple nor linear. Widening of the narrative appears to have helped to frame the idea in such a way that it had broad acceptability, without which there would have been no implementation, and probably a lot more push back from vested interests and communities than there was. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizen science can be a powerful approach to foster the successful implementation of technological innovations in health, care or well-being. Involving experience experts as co-researchers or co-designers of technological innovations facilitates mutual learning, community building, and empowerment. By utilizing the expert knowledge of the intended users, innovations have a better chance to get adopted and solve complex health-related problems. As citizen science is still a relatively new practice for health and well-being, little is known about effective methods and guidelines for successful collaboration. This scoping review aims to provide insight in (1) the levels of citizen involvement in current research on technological innovations for health, care or well-being, (2) the used participatory methodologies, and (3) lesson's learned by the researchers. A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was performed in SCOPUS in January 2021 and included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers published between 2016 and 2020. The final selection (N = 83) was limited to empirical studies that had a clear focus on technological innovations for health, care or well-being and involved citizens at the level of collaboration or higher. Our results show a growing interest in citizens science as an inclusive research approach. Citizens are predominantly involved in the design phase of innovations and less in the preparation, data-analyses or reporting phase. Eight records had citizens in the lead in one of the research phases. Researcher use different terms to describe their methodological approach including participatory design, co-design, community based participatory research, co-creation, public and patient involvement, partcipatory action research, user-centred design and citizen science. Our selection of cases shows that succesful citizen science projects develop a structural and longitudinal partnership with their collaborators, use a situated and adaptive research approach, and have researchers that are willing to abandon traditional power dynamics and engage in a mutual learning experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary approach of generating health system and policy-level evidence. Setting HPSR agendas is considered as an efficient strategy to map and identify policy and cost-effective research topics, but its practice in developing countries is limited. This paper aimed to conduct a collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia. Method: The WHO's plan, implement, publish, and evaluate (PIPE) framework and the Delphi technique were used to conduct the priority-setting exercise. The PIPE model was used to lead the priority-setting process from planning to evaluation, while the Delphi technique was used to run the rating and ranking exercise with the aim of reaching a consensus. Two rounds of expert panel workshops supplemented with an online survey were used for the HPSR agenda setting, rating and ranking purposes. Groups were formed using the WHO health system building blocks as a base framework to identify and prioritize the HPSR topics. Result: Under 8 themes, 32 sub-themes and 182 HPSR topics were identified. The identified research themes include leadership management and governance, health policy, health information system, healthcare financing, human resource for health, medical products and supply, service delivery and cross-cutting issues. Conclusions: Priority HPSR topics focussing on national health priority issues were identified. The identified topics were shared with policymakers and academic and research institutions. Evidence generation on the identified priority topics will guide future research endeavours and improve evidence-informed decision-making practice, health system performance and national health goals and targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sex and gender are inadequately considered in health and medical research, policy and practice, leading to preventable disparities in health and wellbeing. Several global institutions, journals, and funding bodies have developed policies and guidelines to improve the inclusion of diverse participants and consideration of sex and gender in research design and reporting and the delivery of clinical care. However, according to recent evaluations, these policies have had limited impact on the inclusion of diverse research participants, adequate reporting of sex and gender data and reducing preventable inequities in access to, and quality provision of, healthcare. In Australia, the Sex and Gender Policies in Medical Research (SGPMR) project aims to address sex and gender bias in health and medical research by (i) examining how sex and gender are currently considered in Australian research policy and practice; (ii) working with stakeholders to develop policy interventions; and (iii) understanding the wider impacts, including economic, of improved sex and gender consideration in Australian health and medical research. In this paper we describe the development of a theory of change (ToC) for the SGPMR project. The ToC evolved from a two-stage process consisting of key stakeholder interviews and a consultation event. The ToC aims to identify the pathways to impact from improved consideration of sex and gender in health and medical research, policy and practice, and highlight how key activities and policy levers can lead to improvements in clinical practice and health outcomes. In describing the development of the ToC, we present an entirely novel framework for outlining how sex and gender can be appropriately considered within the confines of health and medical research, policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health conditions affect one in seven young people and research suggests that current mental health services are not meeting the needs of most children and youth. Learning health systems are an approach to enhancing services through rapid, routinized cycles of continuous learning and improvement. Patient-reported outcome measures provide a key data source for learning health systems. They have also been shown to improve outcomes for patients when integrated into routine clinical care. However, implementing these measures into health systems is a challenging process. This paper describes a protocol for a formative evaluation of the implementation of patient-reported measures in a newly operational child and adolescent mental health centre in Calgary, Canada. The purpose is to optimize the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures. Our specific objectives are to assess the implementation progress, identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, and explore patient, caregivers and clinician experiences of using these measures in routine clinical care. Methods: This study is a mixed-methods, formative evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants include patients and caregivers who have used the centre's services, as well as leadership, clinical and support staff at the centre. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation and sustainability of the use of patient-reported outcome measures, as well as individuals' experiences with using these measures within clinical care. The data generated by the patient-reported measures over the first five months of the centre's operation will be analyzed to understand implementation progress, as well as validity of the chosen measures for the centres' population. Discussion: The findings of this evaluation will help to identify and address the factors that are affecting the successful implementation of patient-reported measures at the centre. They will inform the co-design of strategies to improve implementation with key stakeholders, which include patients, clinical staff, and leadership at the centre. To our knowledge, this is the first study of the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services and our findings can be used to enhance future implementation efforts in similar settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Development of guidelines for public health, health system, and health policy interventions demands complex systems thinking to understand direct and indirect effects of interventions within dynamic systems. The WHO-INTEGRATE framework, an evidence-to-decision framework rooted in the norms and values of the World Health Organization (WHO), provides a structured method to assess complexities in guidelines systematically, such as the balance of an intervention's health benefits and harms and their human rights and socio-cultural acceptability. This paper provides a worked example of the application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework in developing the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions to prevent child maltreatment, and shares reflective insights regarding the value added, challenges encountered, and lessons learnt. Methods: The methodological approach comprised describing the intended step-by-step application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework and gaining reflective insights from introspective sessions within the core team guiding the development of the WHO guidelines on parenting interventions and a methodological workshop. Results: The WHO-INTEGRATE framework was used throughout the guideline development process. It facilitated reflective deliberation across a broad range of decision criteria and system-level aspects in the following steps: (1) scoping the guideline and defining stakeholder engagement, (2) prioritising WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria and guideline outcomes, (3) using research evidence to inform WHO-INTEGRATE criteria, and (4) developing and presenting recommendations informed by WHO-INTEGRATE criteria. Despite the value added, challenges, such as substantial time investment required, broad scope of prioritised sub-criteria, integration across diverse criteria, and sources of evidence and translation of insights into concise formats, were encountered. Conclusions: Application of the WHO-INTEGRATE framework was crucial in the integration of effectiveness evidence with insights into implementation and broader implications of parenting interventions, extending beyond health benefits and harms considerations and fostering a whole-of-society-perspective. The evidence reviews for prioritised WHO-INTEGRATE sub-criteria were instrumental in guiding guideline development group discussions, informing recommendations and clarifying uncertainties. This experience offers important lessons for future guideline panels and guideline methodologists using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is now rapidly growing global awareness of the potential of large-scale community health worker (CHW) programmes not only for improving population health but, even more importantly, for accelerating the achievement of universal health coverage and eliminating readily preventable child and maternal deaths. However, these programmes face many challenges that must be overcome in order for them to reach their full potential.Findings: This editorial introduces a series of 11 articles that provide an overview highlighting a broad range of issues facing large-scale CHW programmes. The series addresses many of them: planning, coordination and partnerships; governance, financing, roles and tasks, training, supervision, incentives and remuneration; relationships with the health system and communities; and programme performance and its assessment. Above all, CHW programmes need stronger political and financial support, and this can occur only if the potential of these programmes is more broadly recognized. The authors of the papers in this series believe that these challenges can and will be overcome-but not overnight. For this reason, the series bears the title "Community Health Workers at the Dawn of a New Era". The scientific evidence regarding the ability of CHWs to improve population health is incontrovertible, and the favourable experience with these programmes at scale when they are properly designed, implemented, and supported is compelling. CHW programmes were once seen as a second-class solution to a temporary problem, meaning that once the burden of disease from maternal and child conditions and from communicable diseases in low-income countries had been appropriately reduced, there would be no further need for CHWs. That perspective no longer holds. CHW programmes are now seen as an essential component of a high-performing healthcare system even in developed countries. Their use is growing rapidly in the United States, for instance. And CHWs are also now recognized as having a critically important role in the control of noncommunicable diseases as well as in the response to pandemics of today and tomorrow in all low-, middle-, and high-income countries throughout the world.Conclusion: The promise of CHW programmes is too great not to provide them with the support they need to achieve their full potential. This series helps to point the way for how this support can be provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: WHO 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.Methods: WHO 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.Results: QES 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.Conclusions: Rigorously 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Knowledge Network project was launched in 2010 to build evidence on the HIV epidemic by using the data generated by HIV programme implementing organisations in India. This paper describes the implementation of the programme and the strategies adopted to enhance the capacity of individuals to document and publish HIV prevention programme learnings. Further, it discusses the outcomes of the initiative.Methods: A multipronged approach was adopted, where a group of experts were brought together to collaborate with programme implementing organisations, review available data, develop research questions and guide peer-reviewed publications. Further, scientific writing courses were conducted to support individuals from HIV programme implementing organisations as well as educational and government organisations (mentees) to build the documentation capacity of individuals leading programme implementation and current and future researchers. The impact and quality of evidence generated was measured by examining the number of papers published, the number of citations, and the number of papers with at least 10 citations. Additionally, course participants' responses to open-ended questions in the anonymous course evaluation questionnaires are presented as verbatim quotes.Results: Overall, 99 papers on HIV programmatic learnings from India were finalised under the programme, of which 95 have been published. In all, 67 papers were co-authored by mentees. Most papers were published in high-impact factor (1 or more) journals and 72% were cited at least once in the literature. The main themes documented include key populations' HIV risk, HIV risk of general population groups, HIV/STI service delivery models and community mobilisation interventions.Conclusion: The study demonstrates that an integrated approach, involving partnership, capacity-building and mentorship, can maximise the use of available data and build the evidence base on HIV programmatic learnings. The capacity-building model adopted in the programme can be used to build scientific writing and documentation capacity in other public health programmes that are implemented at scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the years, the knowledge translation (KT) field has moved from promoting linearized models to embracing the importance of interaction and learning. Likewise, there is now increased attention on the transfer of KT approaches to new environments. Some scholars, however, have warned that ideas about transferability still hinge on linear thinking and doing. In the current study, we therefore sought to use a more reflexive approach to KT and to study how actors align KT approaches with their local environments. Methods: Our (auto) ethnographic study took place in a wider KT project. This project intended to combine three components: (1) co-organizing demand-driven, locally led and embedded KT cycles in Cameroon, Jordan, and Nigeria, (2) building upon established KT methods and (3) equipping and empowering local teams. We conducted 63 semi-structured interviews with key KT actors, observed 472 h of KT practices, and collected a paper trail of documents. At the same time, we also compiled project exchanges, such as project documents, plans, protocols, field notes, meeting notes and an archive of (email) correspondence between project members. We analysed all data abductively. Results: We show that there were numerous moments where the design of our project indeed enabled us to align with local practices and needs. Yet this often did not suffice, and the project design sometimes conflicted with other logics and values. By analysing these tensions, we want to show that doing KT work which acts upon different values and knowledges and is sensitive towards the different effects that it produces demands both structuring projects in a specific way and requires significant alignment work of KT actors in practice. Conclusions: We show that practising KT more reflexively relies on two important conditions. First, KT projects have to be structured with sufficient discretionary space. Second, even though the structure of a project is important, there will be continuous need for alignment work. It is important to facilitate such alignment work and to further support it. In the discussion of this paper, we therefore articulate three design principles and three sensitivities. These elements can be used to make future KT projects more reflexive and sensitive to (social) complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Governments and third-sector organizations (TSOs) require support to reduce suicide mortality through funding of suicide prevention services and innovative research. One way is for researchers to engage individuals and services in multisectoral collaborations, to collaboratively design, develop and test suicide prevention services and programmes. However, despite widespread support, to date, it remains unclear as to the extent to which stakeholders are being included in the research process, or if they are, how these partnerships occur in practice. To address this gap, the authors conducted a systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence of multisectoral collaborations within the field of suicide prevention, the types of stakeholders involved and their level of involvement.Methods: The authors conducted a strategic PRISMA-compliant search of five electronic databases to retrieve literature published between January 2008 and July 2021. Hand-searching of reference lists of key systematic reviews was also completed. Of the 7937 papers retrieved, 16 papers finally met the inclusion criteria. Because of data heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed; however, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed.Results: Only one paper included engagement of stakeholders across the research cycle (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation). Most stakeholders were represented by citizens or communities, with only a small number of TSOs involved in multisectoral collaborations. Stakeholder level of involvement focused on the co-design or co-evaluation stage.Conclusion: This review revealed a lack of evidence of multisectoral collaborations being established between researchers and stakeholders in the field of suicide prevention research, even while such practice is being espoused in government policies and funding guidelines. Of the evidence that is available, there is a lack of quality studies documenting the collaborative research process. Also, results showed that the inclusion of co-researchers from communities or organizations is defined as co-creation, but further analysis revealed that collaboration was not consistent across the duration of projects. Researchers and practitioners should consider issues of power and equity in multisectoral collaborations and encourage increased engagement with TSOs, to rigorously research and evaluate suicide prevention services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization.Methods: We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers.Results: We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes.Conclusions: This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nigeria commenced rollout of vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in March 2021 as part of the national public health response to the pandemic. Findings from appropriately contextualized cost–effectiveness analyses (CEA) as part of a wider process involving health technology assessment (HTA) approaches have been important in informing decision-making in this area. In this paper we outline the processes that were followed to identify COVID-19 vaccine stakeholders involved in the selection, approval, funding, procurement and rollout of vaccines in Nigeria, and describe the process routes we identified to support uptake of HTA-related information for evidence-informed policy in Nigeria. Methods: Our approach to engaging with policy-makers and other stakeholders as part of an HTA of COVID vaccination in Nigeria consisted of three steps, namely: (i) informal discussions with key stakeholders; (ii) stakeholder mapping, analysis and engagement; and (iii) communication and dissemination strategies for the HTA-relevant evidence produced. The analysis of the stakeholder mapping uses the power/interest grid framework. Results: The informal discussion with key stakeholders generated six initial policy questions. Further discussions with policy-makers yielded three suitable policy questions for analysis: which COVID-19 vaccines should be bought; what is the optimal mode of delivery of these vaccines; and what are the cost and cost–effectiveness of vaccinating people highlighted in Nigeria's phase 2 vaccine rollout prioritized by the government, especially the inclusion of those aged between 18 and 49 years. The stakeholder mapping exercise highlighted the range of organizations and groups within Nigeria that could use the information from this HTA to guide decision-making. These stakeholders included both public/government, private and international organizations The dissemination plan developed included disseminating the full HTA results to key stakeholders; production of policy briefs; and presentation at different national and international conferences and peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions: HTA processes that involve stakeholder engagement will help ensure important policy questions are taken into account when designing any HTA including any underpinning evidence generation. Further guidance about stakeholder engagement throughout HTA is required, especially for those with low interest in vaccine procurement and use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Collaboration is gaining prominence in the priority setting of Health Policy And System Research (HPSR). However, its practice and challenges are not well explored in Ethiopia. Understanding the practice and barriers of collaborative Health Policy and System Research will help design approaches and platforms for setting inclusive and participatory policy and system-level health research topics. This paper explores the practice and barriers of collaborative HPSR-priority setting exercise in Ethiopia. Methods: This study investigates the practice and barriers of collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercises in Ethiopia. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, we conducted Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and an online self-administered survey with open-ended questionnaires to capture diverse perspectives from stakeholders involved in the research priority-setting process. Through conventional content analysis, we identified key contents related to current practices, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing collaboration in health policy and system research prioritization. Results: Our findings reveal a complex landscape characterized by varying levels of stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity constraints, and competing priorities within the health research ecosystem. Despite notable efforts to foster collaboration, stakeholders identified persistent challenges such as limited resources, institutional fragmentation, and inadequate coordination mechanisms as barriers to effective priority-setting processes. The implications of our research extend beyond academic discourse, with direct relevance to health policy and system research practice in Ethiopia. By shedding light on the dynamics of collaborative priority-setting exercises, our findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners seeking to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of health research prioritization processes. Addressing the identified barriers and leveraging existing strengths in the research ecosystem can contribute to more evidence-informed health policies and programs, ultimately improving health outcomes for Ethiopian populations. Conclusions: Most institutions do not apply health policy and system research-priority setting to conduct informed decision-making. The barriers explored were weak integration, lack of knowledge, system, and platforms for the priority setting of Health Policy and System Resreach. So, it is recommended to build skills of different actors in the Health Policy and System Research-priority setting exercise and design a system and platform to integrate different stakeholders for collaborative research topics priority setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decentralization of a health system is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that demands thorough investigation of its process logistics, predisposing factors and implementation mechanisms, within the broader socio-political environment of each nation. Despite its wide adoption across both high-income countries (HICs) and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), empirical evidence of whether decentralization actually translates into improved health system performance remains inconclusive and controversial. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive description of the decentralization processes in three countries at different stages of their decentralization strategies – Pakistan, Brazil and Portugal. Main body: This study employed a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed academic journals, official government reports, policy documents and publications from international organizations related to health system decentralization. A comprehensive search was conducted using reputable databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, the WHO repository and other relevant databases, covering the period up to the knowledge cutoff date in June 2023. Information was systematically extracted and organized into the determinants, process mechanics and challenges encountered during the planning, implementation and post-decentralization phases. Although decentralization reforms have achieved some success, challenges persist in their implementation. Comparing all three countries, it was evident that all three have prioritized health in their decentralization reforms and aimed to enhance local decision-making power. Brazil has made significant progress in implementing decentralization reforms, while Portugal and Pakistan are still in the process. Pakistan has faced significant implementation challenges, including capacity-building, resource allocation, resistance to change and inequity in access to care. Brazil and Portugal have also faced challenges, but to a lesser extent. The extent, progress and challenges in the decentralization processes vary among the three countries, each requiring ongoing evaluation and improvement to achieve the desired outcomes. Conclusion: Notable differences exist in the extent of decentralization, the challenges faced during implementation and inequality in access to care between the three countries. It is important for Portugal, Brazil and Pakistan to address these through reinforcing implementation strategies, tackling inequalities in access to care and enhancing monitoring and evaluation mechanism. Additionally, fostering knowledge sharing among these different countries will be instrumental in facilitating mutual learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health is increasingly affected by multiple types of crises. Community engagement is recognised as being a critical element in successful crisis response, and a number of conceptual frameworks and global guideline documents have been produced. However, little is known about the usefulness of such documents and whether they contain sufficient information to guide effective community engagement in crisis response. We undertake a scoping review to examine the usefulness of conceptual literature and official guidelines on community engagement in crisis response using a realist-informed analysis [exploring contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes(CMOs)]. Specifically, we assess the extent to which sufficient detail is provided on specific health crisis contexts, the range of mechanisms (actions) that are developed and employed to engage communities in crisis response and the outcomes achieved. We also consider the extent of analysis of interactions between the mechanisms and contexts which can explain whether successful outcomes are achieved or not. Scope and findings: We retained 30 documents from a total of 10,780 initially identified. Our analysis found that available evidence on context, mechanism and outcomes on community engagement in crisis response, or some of their elements, was promising, but few documents provided details on all three and even fewer were able to show evidence of the interactions between these categories, thus leaving gaps in understanding how to successfully engage communities in crisis response to secure impactful outcomes. There is evidence that involving community members in all the steps of response increases community resilience and helps to build trust. Consistent communication with the communities in time of crisis is the key for effective responses and helps to improve health indicators by avoiding preventable deaths. Conclusions: Our analysis confirms the complexity of successful community engagement and the need for strategies that help to deal with this complexity to achieve good health outcomes. Further primary research is needed to answer questions of how and why specific mechanisms, in particular contexts, can lead to positive outcomes, including what works and what does not work and how to measure these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest under-five mortality rate globally. Child healthcare decisions should be based on rigorously developed evidence-informed guidelines. The Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project is enhancing capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant guidelines for newborn and child health in South Africa (SA), Malawi, and Nigeria. The first step in this process was to identify national priorities for newborn and child health guideline development, and this paper describes our approach. Methods: We followed a good practice method for priority setting, including stakeholder engagement, online priority setting surveys and consensus meetings, conducted separately in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria. We established national Steering Groups (SG), comprising 10–13 members representing government, academia, and other stakeholders, identified through existing contacts and references, who helped prioritise initial topics identified by research teams and oversaw the process. Various stakeholders were consulted via online surveys to rate the importance of topics, with results informing consensus meetings with SGs where final priority topics were agreed. Results: Based on survey results, nine, 10 and 11 topics were identified in SA, Malawi, and Nigeria respectively, which informed consensus meetings. Through voting and discussion within meetings, and further engagement after the meetings, the top three priority topics were identified in each country. In SA, the topics concerned anemia prevention in infants and young children and post-discharge support for caregivers of preterm and LBW babies. In Malawi, they focused on enteral nutrition in critically ill children, diagnosis of childhood cancers in the community, and caring for neonates. In Nigeria, the topics focused on identifying pre-eclampsia in the community, hand hygiene compliance to prevent infections, and enteral nutrition for LBW and preterm infants. Conclusions: Through dynamic and iterative stakeholder engagement, we identified three priority topics for guideline development on newborn and child health in SA, Malawi and Nigeria. Topics were specific to contexts, with no overlap, which highlights the importance of contextualised priority setting as well as of the relationships with key decisionmakers who help define the priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies. Methods: In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted. Results: In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies. Conclusions: Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: WHO 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.Methods: WHO 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.Results: We 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.Conclusions: This 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While the evidence supporting the effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) programmes is substantial, there is also considerable evidence that many of these programmes have notable weaknesses that need to be addressed in order for them to reach their full potential. Thus, considerations about CHW programme performance and its assessment must be taken into account as the importance of these programmes is becoming more widely appreciated. In this paper, the tenth in our 11-paper series, "Community health workers at the dawn of a new era", we address CHW programme performance and how it is assessed from a systems perspective.Methods: The paper builds on the 2014 CHW Reference Guide, a compendium of case studies of 29 national CHW programmes, the 2018 WHO guideline on health policy and system support to optimize CHW programmes, and scientific studies on CHW programme performance published in the past 5 years.Results: The paper provides an overview of existing frameworks that are useful for assessing the performance of CHW programmes, with a specific focus on how individual CHW performance and community-level outcomes can be measured. The paper also reviews approaches that have been taken to assess CHW programme performance, from programme monitoring using the routine health information system to national assessments using quantitative and/or qualitative study designs and assessment checklists. The paper also discusses contextual factors that influence CHW programme performance, and reflects upon gaps and needs for the future with regard to assessment of CHW programme performance.Conclusion: Assessments of CHW programme performance can have various approaches and foci according to the programme and its context. Given the fact that CHW programmes are complex entities and part of health systems, their assessment ideally needs to be based on data derived from a mix of reliable sources. Assessments should be focused not only on effectiveness (what works) but also on contextual factors and enablers (how, for whom, under what circumstances). Investment in performance assessment is instrumental for continually innovating, upgrading, and improving CHW programmes at scale. Now is the time for new efforts in implementation research for strengthening CHW programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community health worker (CHW) programmes are again receiving more attention in global health, as reflected in important recent WHO guidance. However, there is a risk that current CHW programme efforts may result in disappointing performance if those promoting and delivering them fail to learn from past efforts. This is the first of a series of 11 articles for a supplement entitled "Community Health Workers at the Dawn of a New Era".Methods: Drawing on lessons from case studies of large well-established CHW programmes, published literature, and the authors' experience, the paper highlights major issues that need to be acknowledged to design and deliver effective CHW programmes at large scale. The paper also serves as an introduction to a set of articles addressing these issues in detail.Results: The article highlights the diversity and complexity of CHW programmes, and offers insights to programme planners, policymakers, donors, and others to inform development of more effective programmes. The article proposes that be understood as actors within community health system(s) and examines five tensions confronting large-scale CHW programmes; the first two tensions concern the role of the CHW, and the remaining three, broader strategic issues: 1) What kind of an actor is the CHW? A lackey or a liberator? Provider of clinical services or health promoter? 2) Lay versus professional? 3) Government programme at scale or nongovernmental organization-led demonstration project? 4) Standardized versus tailored to context? 5) Vertical versus horizontal?Conclusion: CHWs can play a vital role in primary healthcare, but multiple conditions need to be met for them to reach their full potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening.Main Text: The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.Conclusions: The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Scientific journals play a critical role in research validation and dissemination and are increasingly vocal about the identification of research priorities and the targeting of research results to key audiences. No new journals specialising in health policy and systems research (HPSR) and focusing in the developing world or in a specific developing world region have been established since the early 1980s. This paper compares the growth of publications on HPSR across Latin America and the world and explores the potential, feasibility and challenges of innovative publication strategies.Methods: A bibliometric analysis was undertaken using HPSR MeSH terms with journals indexed in Medline. A survey was undertaken among 2500 authors publishing on HPSR in Latin America (LA) through an online survey, with a 13.1% response rate. Aggregate indicators were constructed and validated, and two-way ANOVA tests were performed on key variables.Results: HPSR publications on LA observed an average annual growth of 27.5% from the years 2000 to 2018, as against 11.4% worldwide and yet a lag on papers published per capita. A total of 48 journals with an Impact Factor publish HPSR on LA, of which 5 non-specialised journals are published in the region and are ranked in the bottom quintile of Impact Factor. While the majority of HPSR papers worldwide is published in specialised HPSR journals, in LA this is the minority. Very few researchers from LA sit in the Editorial Board of international journals. Researchers highly support strengthening quality HPSR publications through publishing in open access, on-line journals with a focus on the LA region and with peer reviewers specialized on the region. Researchers would support a new open access journal specializing in the LA region and in HPSR, publishing in English. Open access up-front costs and disincentives while waiting for an Impact Factor can be overcome.Conclusion: Researchers publishing on HPSR in LA widely support the launching of a new specialised journal for the region with a vigorous editorial policy focusing on regional and country priorities. Strategies should be in place to support English-language publishing and to develop a community of practice around the publication process. In the first years, special issues should be promoted through a priority-setting process to attract prominent authors, develop the audience and attain an Impact Factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This 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.Methods: WHO 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.Results: For 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.Conclusions: QES 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A learning health system (LHS) framework provides an opportunity for health system restructuring to provide value-based healthcare. However, there is little evidence showing how to effectively implement a LHS in practice.Objective: A mixed-methods review is proposed to identify and synthesize the existing evidence on effective implementation strategies and outcomes of LHS in an international context.Methods: A mixed-methods systematic review will be conducted following methodological guidance from Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA reporting guidelines. Six databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PAIS, Scopus and Nursing & Allied Health Database) will be searched for terms related to LHS, implementation and evaluation measures. Three reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved articles. Studies will be included if they report on the implementation of a LHS in any healthcare setting. Qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods study designs will be considered for inclusion. No restrictions will be placed on language or date of publication. Grey literature will be considered for inclusion but reviews and protocol papers will be excluded. Data will be extracted from included studies using a standardized extraction form. One reviewer will extract all data and a second will verify. Critical appraisal of all included studies will be conducted by two reviewers. A convergent integration approach to data synthesis will be used, where qualitative and quantitative data will be synthesized separately and then integrated to present overarching findings. Data will be presented in tables and narratively.Conclusion: This review will address a gap in the literature related to implementation of LHS. The findings from this review will provide researchers with a better understanding of how to design and implement LHS interventions. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022293348). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: By including the needs and perspectives of relevant stakeholders, co-creation is seen as a promising approach for tackling complex public health problems. However, recommendations and guidance on how to plan and implement co-creation are lacking. By identifying and analysing existing implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health, this study aims to offer key recommendations for professional stakeholders and researchers wanting to adopt a co-creation approach to public health interventions. Methods: Firstly, PubMed and CINAHL databases were screened for articles introducing original implementation and evaluation frameworks for public health interventions. Backwards snowballing techniques were applied to the included papers. Secondly, identified frameworks were classified and relevant data extracted, including steps and constructs present in the frameworks. Lastly, recommendations were derived by conducting thematic analysis on the included frameworks. Results: Thirty frameworks were identified and data related to their nature and scope extracted. The frameworks' prominent steps and constructs were also retrieved. Recommendations related to implementation and evaluation in the context of co-creation were included. Conclusion: When engaging in co-creation, we recommend including implementation considerations from an early stage and suggest adopting a systems thinking as a way to explore multiple levels of influence, contextual settings and systems from an early planning stage. We highlight the importance of partnering with stakeholders and suggest applying an evaluation design that is iterative and cyclical, which pays particular attention to the experience of the engaged co-creators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

System dynamics approaches are increasingly addressing the complexity of public health problems such as childhood overweight and obesity. These approaches often use system mapping methods, such as the construction of causal loop diagrams, to gain an understanding of the system of interest. However, there is limited practical guidance on how such a system understanding can inform the development of an action programme that can facilitate systems changes. The Lifestyle Innovations Based on Youth Knowledge and Experience (LIKE) programme combines system dynamics and participatory action research to improve obesity-related behaviours, including diet, physical activity, sleep and sedentary behaviour, in 10–14-year-old adolescents in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This paper illustrates how we used a previously obtained understanding of the system of obesity-related behaviours in adolescents to develop an action programme to facilitate systems changes. A team of evaluation researchers guided interdisciplinary action-groups throughout the process of identifying mechanisms, applying the Intervention Level Framework to identify leverage points and arriving at action ideas with aligning theories of change. The LIKE action programme consisted of 8 mechanisms, 9 leverage points and 14 action ideas which targeted the system's structure and function within multiple subsystems. This illustrates the feasibility of developing actions targeting higher system levels within the confines of a research project timeframe when sufficient and dedicated effort in this process is invested. Furthermore, the system dynamics action programme presented in this study contributes towards the development and implementation of public health programmes that aim to facilitate systems changes in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The uptake, adoption and integration of new medicines and treatment regimens within healthcare delivery can take a decade or more. Increasingly, implementation science (IS) research is being used to bridge this gap between the availability of new therapeutic evidence and its actual application in clinical practice. Little is known, however, about the quality of IS research in this area, including the degree to which theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are being used. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the use of TMFs in implementation research involving medicinal products. Methods: A search was conducted for English language abstracts and manuscripts describing the application of TMFs in IS studies for medicinal products. Eligible publications were those published between 1 January 1974 and 12 December 2022. All records were screened at the title and abstract stage; included full-text papers were abstracted using data extraction tables designed for the study. Study quality was appraised using the Implementation Research Development Tool. Results: The initial scoping search identified 2697 publications, of which 9 were ultimately eligible for inclusion in the review. Most studies were published after 2020 and varied in their objectives, design and therapeutic area. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 50 participants, and all focused on the post-marketing phase of drug development. The TMF most frequently used was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Although most studies applied all TMF domains, TMF use was limited to instrument development and/or qualitative analysis. Quality appraisals indicated the need for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the implementation research, reporting on the cost of implementation strategies, and evaluating the unintended consequences of implementation efforts. Conclusions: We found that few IS studies involving medicinal products reported using TMFs. Those that did encompassed a wide variety of therapeutic indications and medicinal products; all were in the post-marketing phase and involved limited application of the TMFs. Researchers should consider conducting IS in earlier phases of drug development and integrating the TMFs throughout the research process. More consistent and in-depth use of TMFs may help advance research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]