Search

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. Objective: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. Methods: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. Discussion: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. Public Contribution: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Constrained optimization methods are already widely used in health care to solve problems that represent traditional applications of operations research methods, such as choosing the optimal location for new facilities or making the most efficient use of operating room capacity.Objectives: In this paper we illustrate the potential utility of these methods for finding optimal solutions to problems in health care delivery and policy. To do so, we selected three award-winning papers in health care delivery or policy development, reflecting a range of optimization algorithms. Two of the three papers are reviewed using the ISPOR Constrained Optimization Good Practice Checklist, adapted from the framework presented in the initial Optimization Task Force Report. The first case study illustrates application of linear programming to determine the optimal mix of screening and vaccination strategies for the prevention of cervical cancer. The second case illustrates application of the Markov Decision Process to find the optimal strategy for treating type 2 diabetes patients for hypercholesterolemia using statins. The third paper (described in Appendix 1) is used as an educational tool. The goal is to describe the characteristics of a radiation therapy optimization problem and then invite the reader to formulate the mathematical model for solving it. This example is particularly interesting because it lends itself to a range of possible models, including linear, nonlinear, and mixed-integer programming formulations. From the case studies presented, we hope the reader will develop an appreciation for the wide range of problem types that can be addressed with constrained optimization methods, as well as the variety of methods available.Conclusions: Constrained optimization methods are informative in providing insights to decision makers about optimal target solutions and the magnitude of the loss of benefit or increased costs associated with the ultimate clinical decision or policy choice. Failing to identify a mathematically superior or optimal solution represents a missed opportunity to improve economic efficiency in the delivery of care and clinical outcomes for patients. The ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force's first report provided an introduction to constrained optimization methods to solve important clinical and health policy problems. This report also outlined the relationship of constrained optimization methods relative to traditional health economic modeling, graphically illustrated a simple formulation, and identified some of the major variants of constrained optimization models, such as linear programming, dynamic programming, integer programming, and stochastic programming. The second report illustrates the application of constrained optimization methods in health care decision making using three case studies. The studies focus on determining optimal screening and vaccination strategies for cervical cancer, optimal statin start times for diabetes, and an educational case to invite the reader to formulate radiation therapy optimization problems. These illustrate a wide range of problem types that can be addressed with constrained optimization methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The vision of transforming health systems into learning health systems (LHSs) that rapidly and continuously transform knowledge into improved health outcomes at lower cost is generating increased interest in government agencies, health organizations, and health research communities. While existing initiatives demonstrate that different approaches can succeed in making the LHS vision a reality, they are too varied in their goals, focus, and scale to be reproduced without undue effort. Indeed, the structures necessary to effectively design and implement LHSs on a larger scale are lacking. In this paper, we propose the use of architectural frameworks to develop LHSs that adhere to a recognized vision while being adapted to their specific organizational context. Architectural frameworks are high-level descriptions of an organization as a system; they capture the structure of its main components at varied levels, the interrelationships among these components, and the principles that guide their evolution. Because these frameworks support the analysis of LHSs and allow their outcomes to be simulated, they act as pre-implementation decision-support tools that identify potential barriers and enablers of system development. They thus increase the chances of successful LHS deployment.Discussion: We present an architectural framework for LHSs that incorporates five dimensions-goals, scientific, social, technical, and ethical-commonly found in the LHS literature. The proposed architectural framework is comprised of six decision layers that model these dimensions. The performance layer models goals, the scientific layer models the scientific dimension, the organizational layer models the social dimension, the data layer and information technology layer model the technical dimension, and the ethics and security layer models the ethical dimension. We describe the types of decisions that must be made within each layer and identify methods to support decision-making.Conclusion: In this paper, we outline a high-level architectural framework grounded in conceptual and empirical LHS literature. Applying this architectural framework can guide the development and implementation of new LHSs and the evolution of existing ones, as it allows for clear and critical understanding of the types of decisions that underlie LHS operations. Further research is required to assess and refine its generalizability and methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to support decision making in health systems is limited in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). This is partly due to the lack of effective initiatives to strengthen regional HPSR capacities and promote its use in decision making. This paper offers a structured reflection on the establishment and core functioning of a HPSR Nodal Institute for the EMR with specific focus on the approach used to support the conduct and use of HPSR. It seeks to gain better understanding of the activities conducted by the Nodal Institute, the methods by which the Nodal Institute implemented these activities, and the outcomes of these activities.Methods: A multi-faceted approach was implemented by the Nodal Institute in collaboration with regional academic/research institutions, Sub-Nodes. The overall approach was a phased one that included the selection of Sub-Nodes, mapping of academic/research institutions in the EMR, stakeholders' meetings, and HPSR capacity building workshops, and culminated with a regional meeting.Results: The mapping of academic/research institutions in the EMR resulted in the identification of 50 institutions, of which only 32 were engaged in HPSR. These institutions have the highest HPSR involvement in information/evidence (84%) and the lowest in human resources for health (34%). Their main HPSR focus areas included quality of healthcare services, patient safety, management of non-communicable diseases, and human resources for health. Regional HPSR challenges among these institutions were identified. The validation and ranking questionnaires resulted in the identification of country-specific HPSR priorities according to stakeholders in three countries. From these results, cross-cutting HPSR priorities among the countries related to primary healthcare, non-communicable diseases, human resources for health, as well as cross-cutting HPSR priorities among stakeholders and according to stakeholders of the countries, were extracted.Conclusion: The Nodal Institute in the EMR is a promising initiative to support the conduct and use of HPSR in health policies. The approach and findings reported in this paper allow for the development of opportunities towards the building of capacity for HPSR in the region and other countries and provide a roadmap for academic/research institutions interested in HPSR in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While there have been efforts to develop frameworks to guide healthcare priority setting; there has been limited focus on evaluation frameworks. Moreover, while the few frameworks identify quality indicators for successful priority setting, they do not provide the users with strategies to verify these indicators. Kapiriri and Martin (Health Care Anal 18:129-147, 2010) developed a framework for evaluating priority setting in low and middle income countries. This framework provides BOTH parameters for successful priority setting and proposes means of their verification. Before its use in real life contexts, this paper presents results from a validation process of the framework.Methods: The framework validation involved 53 policy makers and priority setting researchers at the global, national and sub-national levels (in Uganda). They were requested to indicate the relative importance of the proposed parameters as well as the feasibility of obtaining the related information. We also pilot tested the proposed means of verification.Results: Almost all the respondents evaluated all the parameters, including the contextual factors, as 'very important'. However, some respondents at the global level thought 'presence of incentives to comply', 'reduced disagreements', 'increased public understanding,' 'improved institutional accountability' and 'meeting the ministry of health objectives', which could be a reflection of their levels of decision making. All the proposed means of verification were assessed as feasible with the exception of meeting observations which would require an insider. These findings results were consistent with those obtained from the pilot testing.Conclusions: These findings are relevant to policy makers and researchers involved in priority setting in low and middle income countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few initiatives that has involved potential users of a framework (at the global and in a Low Income Country) in its validation. The favorable validation of all the parameters at the national and sub-national levels implies that the framework has potential usefulness at those levels, as is. The parameters that were disputed at the global level necessitate further discussion when using the framework at that level. The next step is to use the validated framework in evaluating actual priority setting at the different levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. Methods: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. Results: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers “(strongly) agreed” that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% “(strongly) agreed” that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, “(strongly) agreed” that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. Conclusions: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThe HIV/AIDS field is addressing how legal and policy restrictions affect access to health promotion and care, e.g., in relation to criminalization of HIV transmission, drug use and sex work. Work to address the reproductive rights of women living with HIV, particularly regarding unwanted pregnancy and abortion, has nevertheless lagged behind, despite its potential to contribute to broader advocacy for access to comprehensive reproductive health information and services for all women. It is in that context that this paper examines abortion in relation to the rights of women and girls living with HIV. The paper first presents findings from recent research on HIV-positive women’s reasons for seeking abortions and experiences with abortion-related care. This is followed by a discussion of abortion in relation to human rights and how this has been both addressed and neglected in policy and guidance related to the reproductive health of women living with HIV. The concluding remarks offer recommendations for expanding efforts to provide comprehensive, human rights-based sexual and reproductive health care to women living with HIV by including abortion-related information and services. RésuméLe secteur du VIH/sida analyse l’influence des restrictions politiques et juridiques sur l’accès à la promotion de la santé et aux soins, par exemple en ce qui concerne la pénalisation de la transmission du VIH, de la toxicomanie et du commerce du sexe. Le travail pour aborder les droits génésiques des femmes vivant avec le VIH, en particulier du point de vue des grossesses non désirées et de l’avortement, est néanmoins en retard, en dépit de son potentiel pour contribuer à un plaidoyer élargi en faveur de l’accès de toutes les femmes à des informations et des services complets de santé génésique. C’est dans ce contexte que l’article examine l’avortement en rapport avec les droits des femmes et des filles vivant avec le VIH. L’article présente d’abord les conclusions de récentes recherches sur les raisons ayant incité des femmes séropositives à avorter et leur expérience des soins liés à l’avortement. S’ensuit une discussion sur l’avortement dans la perspective des droits humains et la manière dont cela a été abordé et omis dans les politiques et les conseils relatifs à la santé génésique des femmes vivant avec le VIH. Les remarques finales proposent des recommandations pour élargir les activités afin d’assurer aux femmes vivant avec le VIH des soins de santé génésique complets et basés sur les droits humains en incluant des informations et des services relatifs à l’avortement. ResumenEn el campo de VIH/SIDA se está investigando cómo las restricciones legislativas y políticas afectan el acceso a la promoción y los servicios de salud, por ejemplo, con relación a la penalización de la transmisión del VIH, el consumo de drogas y el trabajo sexual. No obstante, el trabajo para abordar los derechos reproductivos de las mujeres que viven con VIH, en particular referentes al embarazo no deseado y el aborto, aún está a la zaga, pese a su potencial de contribuir a que se abogue más a favor del acceso de todas las mujeres a información y servicios de atención integral a la salud reproductiva. En ese contexto, este artículo examina el tema de aborto en relación con los derechos de las mujeres y niñas que viven con VIH. Primero se presentan los hallazgos de recientes investigaciones sobre las razones por las cuales las mujeres VIH-positivas buscan servicios de aborto y sus experiencias con estos servicios. Después se trata el tema de aborto con relación a los derechos humanos y se analiza cómo esta relación ha sido abordada o ignorada en las políticas y orientaciones referentes a la salud reproductiva de las mujeres que viven con VIH. Las observaciones finales ofrecen recomendaciones para incrementar los esfuerzos por ofrecer servicios integrales de salud sexual y reproductiva, basados en los derechos humanos, a las mujeres que viven con VIH al incluir información y servicios relacionados con el aborto. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

AbstractDespite ample evidence documenting the positive impact of men on the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) and other sexual and reproductive health programs, men’s engagement remains very low. This paper examines the current level and nature of male involvement and identifies opportunities for the advancement of men’s constructive engagement in PMTCT and sexual and reproductive health. Conceptual and policy barriers have encouraged the inadvertent exclusion of men from PMTCT and other reproductive health services. The historic institutionalization of reproductive health as women’s health has generally resulted in health services that are not welcoming of men and has undermined efforts to engage couples. This paper argues that to maximize the health outcomes of PMTCT and sexual and reproductive health programs for women and men, we must move beyond seeing men as simply “facilitating factors” that enable women to access health-care services. Men need to instead be recognized as a constituent part of reproductive health policy and practice. The paper proposes strategies for policy makers and program leaders to engage men and couples to foster communication and shared decision-making. This approach can both help to achieve health goals and engender more equitable relationships between men and women. RésuméEn dépit de nombreuses données documentant l’impact positif qu’ont les hommes sur la prévention de la transmission mère-enfant (PTME) et d’autres programmes de santé sexuelle et génésique, leur engagement demeure très faible. Cet article examine le niveau actuel et la nature de la participation masculine, et identifie les possibilités de faire avancer l’engagement constructif des hommes dans la PTME et la santé génésique. Des obstacles conceptuels et politiques ont encouragé l’exclusion involontaire des hommes de la PTME et d’autres services de santé génésique. L’institutionnalisation historique de la santé génésique comme santé de la femme a généralement abouti à des services de santé peu accueillants pour les hommes et a miné les efforts pour y associer les couples. L’article avance que pour maximiser les résultats sanitaires de la PTME et des programmes de santé sexuelle et génésique pour les femmes et les hommes, nous ne devons plus voir les hommes comme de simples « facilitateurs » qui permettent aux femmes d’avoir accès aux services de santé. Les hommes doivent plutôt être reconnus comme partie prenante de la politique et la pratique de santé génésique. L’article propose des stratégies pour les décideurs et les directeurs de programmes afin d’inciter les hommes et les couples à favoriser la communication et la prise de décision partagée. Cette approche peut aider à atteindre les objectifs de santé et engendrer des relations plus équitables entre hommes et femmes. ResumenA pesar de existir abundancia evidencia que documenta el impacto positivo de los hombres en la prevención de la transmisión materno-infantil (PTMI) y en otros programas de salud sexual y reproductiva, la participación de los hombres continúa siendo muy baja. En este artículo se examina el nivel actual y la naturaleza de la participación de los hombres y se identifican oportunidades para promover su participación constructiva en los programas de PTMI y de salud sexual y reproductiva. Las barreras conceptuales y políticas han fomentado la exclusión involuntaria de los hombres de los servicios de PTMI y otros servicios de salud reproductiva. La histórica institucionalización de la salud reproductiva como salud de la mujer generalmente ha producido servicios de salud que no acogen a los hombres y ha socavado los esfuerzos por motivar la participación de parejas. Se argumenta que para maximizar los resultados de salud de los programas de PTMI y de salud sexual y reproductiva para mujeres y hombres, debemos ir más allá de ver a los hombres simplemente como “factores facilitadores” que les permiten a las mujeres obtener servicios de salud. Al contrario, debemos reconocer a los hombres como una parte constituyente de las políticas y prácticas de salud reproductiva. En este artículo se proponen estrategias para que formuladores de políticas y líderes de programas puedan motivar la participación de hombres y parejas para fomentar comunicación y compartir la responsabilidad de tomar decisiones. Este enfoque puede ayudar a lograr los objetivos de salud y a engendrar relaciones más equitativas entre hombres y mujeres. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: There is an increasing recognition that modelling and simulation can assist in the process of designing health care policies, strategies and operations. However, the current use is limited and answers to questions such as what methods to use and when remain somewhat underdeveloped. Aim: The aim of this study is to provide a mechanism for decision makers in health services planning and management to compare a broad range of modelling and simulation methods so that they can better select and use them or better commission relevant modelling and simulation work. Methods: This paper proposes a modelling and simulation method comparison and selection tool developed from a comprehensive literature review, the research team's extensive expertise and inputs from potential users. Twenty-eight different methods were identified, characterised by their relevance to different application areas, project life cycle stages, types of output and levels of insight, and four input resources required (time, money, knowledge and data). Results: The characterisation is presented in matrix forms to allow quick comparison and selection. This paper also highlights significant knowledge gaps in the existing literature when assessing the applicability of particular approaches to health services management, where modelling and simulation skills are scarce let alone money and time. Conclusions: A modelling and simulation method comparison and selection tool is developed to assist with the selection of methods appropriate to supporting specific decision making processes. In particular it addresses the issue of which method is most appropriate to which specific health services management problem, what the user might expect to be obtained from the method, and what is required to use the method. In summary, we believe the tool adds value to the scarce existing literature on methods comparison and selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The reduction of health inequalities is a focus of many national and international health organisations. The need for pragmatic evidence-based approaches has led to the development of a number of evidence-based equity initiatives. This paper describes a new program that focuses upon evidencebased tools, which are useful for policy initiatives that reduce inequities. Methods: This paper is based on a presentation that was given at the "Regional Consultation on Policy Tools: Equity in Population Health Reports," held in Toronto, Canada in June 2002. Results: Five assessment tools were presented. 1. A database of systematic reviews on the effects of educational, legal, social, and health interventions to reduce unfair inequalities is being established through the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. 2 Decision aids and shared decision making can be facilitated in disadvantaged groups by 'health coaches' to help people become better decision makers, negotiators, and navigators of the health system; a pilot study in Chile has provided proof of this concept. 3. The CIET Cycle: Combining adapted cluster survey techniques with qualitative methods, CIET's population based applications support evidence-based decision making at local and national levels. The CIET map generates maps directly from survey or routine institutional data, to be used as evidence-based decisions aids. Complex data can be displayed attractively, providing an important tool for studying and comparing health indicators among and between different populations. 4. The Ottawa Equity Gauge is applying the Global Equity Gauge Alliance framework to an industrialised country setting. 5 The Needs-Based Health Assessment Toolkit, established to assemble information on which clinical and health policy decisions can be based, is being expanded to ensure a focus on distribution and average health indicators. Conclusion: Evidence-based planning tools have much to offer the goal of equitable health development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Building research capacity in health services has been recognised internationally as important in order to produce a sound evidence base for decision making in policy and practice. Activities to increase research capacity for, within, and by practice include initiatives to support individuals and teams, organisations and networks. Little has been discussed or concluded about how to measure the effectiveness of research capacity building (RCB) Discussion: This article attempts to develop the debate on measuring RCB. It highlights that traditional outcomes of publications in peer reviewed journals and successful grant applications may be important outcomes to measure, but they may not address all the relevant issues to highlight progress, especially amongst novice researchers. They do not capture factors that contribute to developing an environment to support capacity development, or on measuring the usefulness or the 'social impact' of research, or on professional outcomes. The paper suggests a framework for planning change and measuring progress, based on six principles of RCB, which have been generated through the analysis of the literature, policy documents, empirical studies, and the experience of one Research and Development Support Unit in the UK. These principles are that RCB should: develop skills and confidence, support linkages and partnerships, ensure the research is 'close to practice', develop appropriate dissemination, invest in infrastructure, and build elements of sustainability and continuity. It is suggested that each principle operates at individual, team, organisation and supra organisational levels. Some criteria for measuring progress are also given. Summary: This paper highlights the need to identify ways of measuring RCB. It points out the limitations of current measurements that exist in the literature, and proposes a framework for measuring progress, which may form the basis of comparison of RCB activities. In this way it could contribute to establishing the effectiveness of these interventions, and establishing a knowledge base to inform the science of RCB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This paper examines staff views about legitimacy of different roles for community representatives sitting on health service committees as part of a formal Community Participation Program (CPP) in an Area Health Service (AHS) in Australia. Design A cross-sectional survey using a self-completed questionnaire by staff on committees with community representation in the AHS in 2008. Setting The study site has a population of approximately 1.4 million and covers 6000 km2. The population is ethnically and socio-economically diverse. Results There are generally positive staff attitudes at this AHS for community participation as part of the CPP with positive impacts identified, including on service delivery and the conduct of health service meetings. Most saw community representatives having legitimate roles in representing the community, improving communication between the health service and the community and providing constructive feedback. However, staff expectations about the community's role on committees do not match the reality they say they observe and less than half the staff thought the community and health service agree on the role of community representatives. Conclusions As well as reviewing and enhancing training and support for representatives and staff as part of the CPP, there is a need to question staff expectations about community members who sit on health service committees and whether these expectations are shared by other key stakeholders, most notably the community representatives themselves. These expectations have implications for the CPP and for similar programs designed to engage community members on committees and working groups with health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current healthcare systems have extended the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to health policy and delivery decisions, such as access-to-care, healthcare funding and health program continuance, through attempts to integrate valid and reliable evidence into the decision making process. These policy decisions have major impacts on society and have high personal and financial costs associated with those decisions. Decision models such as these function under a shared assumption of rational choice and utility maximization in the decision-making process.Discussion: We contend that health policy decision makers are generally unable to attain the basic goals of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) and evidence-based policy making (EBPM) because humans make decisions with their naturally limited, faulty, and biased decision-making processes. A cognitive information processing framework is presented to support this argument, and subtle cognitive processing mechanisms are introduced to support the focal thesis: health policy makers' decisions are influenced by the subjective manner in which they individually process decision-relevant information rather than on the objective merits of the evidence alone. As such, subsequent health policy decisions do not necessarily achieve the goals of evidence-based policy making, such as maximizing health outcomes for society based on valid and reliable research evidence.Summary: In this era of increasing adoption of evidence-based healthcare models, the rational choice, utility maximizing assumptions in EBDM and EBPM, must be critically evaluated to ensure effective and high-quality health policy decisions. The cognitive information processing framework presented here will aid health policy decision makers by identifying how their decisions might be subtly influenced by non-rational factors. In this paper, we identify some of the biases and potential intervention points and provide some initial suggestions about how the EBDM/EBPM process can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: Papyrus manuscripts nearly 2000 years old, can still be read, but documents composed on a Wang or other word processor just 30 years ago are gone forever. Standards and formats used for storing and accessing information are constantly changing, and the required hardware or software will likely be obsolete or no longer exist in the near future. Purpose: To understand how to urgently address the data preservation issue as we migrate to greater use of e-records, in particular ‘lifetime’ electronic health records (EHR''s), as our primary, perhaps sole, e-record. In principle, these dynamic and critical health data must be preserved and capable of real-time access on a 7/24/365 basis for perhaps 125 years. Without forethought, only a small fraction of the data currently stored within any healthcare jurisdiction will survive for more than a decade or so, or be exchangeable between jurisdictions. The situation will only be compounded as EHR''s become ubiquitous. Approach: The literature was reviewed to identify data preservation issues and potential solutions, and guide development of policy recommendations to minimise the impact of this potentially catastrophic system failure. These recommendations are directed at the practice, program, and decision-making levels, and in both the public and private sectors. Conclusion: Data preservation poses a critical barrier to e-health and future healthcare systems. At this time broad awareness of data preservation issues is poor. This paper offers policy recommendations to stimulate debate and development of suitable strategies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Public health decision makers, funders, practitioners, and the public are increasingly interested in the evidence that underpins public health decision making. Decisions in public health cover a vast range of activities. With the ever increasing global volume of primary research, knowledge and changes in thinking and approaches, quality systematic reviews of all the available research that is relevant to a particular practice or policy decision are an efficient way to synthesise and utilise research efforts. The Cochrane Collaboration includes an organised entity that aims to increase the quality and quantity of public health systematic reviews, through a range of activities. This paper aims to provide a glossary of the terms and activities related to public health and the Cochrane Collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The Kenya Partnership for Health (KPH) program began in 1999, and is currently one of the 12 field projects participating in the WHO's 'Towards Unity for Health initiative' implemented to develop partnership synergies in support of the Primary Health Care (PHC) approach [1]. Content: This paper illustrates how Program-linked Information Management by Integrative-participatory Research Approach (PIMIRA) as practised under KPH has been implemented within Trans-Nzoia District, Kenya to enhance community-based health initiatives. It shows how this model is strategically being scaled-up from one community to another in the management of political, social, cultural and economic determinants (barriers and enhancers) of health. Objective: Target rural communities in the development of a community-based health information management and feedback initiatives that can provide insights on the social, cultural, political and economic determinants of health for utilization in informed health service management. Key Findings and Achievements: 1. Cues for health seeking and health service utilization are determined by the social, cultural, political and economic factors as seen by the individual and as defined by the community but not due to the pathological nature of the illness. 2. Establishment of community-based health surveillance and health action initiatives as the best practices in transferring health as a resource that can be 'owned and guarded' by the community. 3. Establishment of Healthy Villages Initiative (HVI) through which health service delivery and scale-up can be sustained at the community level. 4. Provision of actionable health information necessary for health planning and evaluation of preventive health programs thorough PIMIRA. Conclusion: It has been realized that for every one person who visits a health facility for medication, there are nine others who had the same condition but sought health care from other sources including self-medication and five others who never sought health care. Innovative means of involving the community in health information management and utilization such as PIMIRA are hence the best ways of guaranteeing equitable delivery of health services that are accessible and sustainable by the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objectives The impact of economic evaluation studies on health-care decision makers has been shown to be rather limited. However, there is an increasing requirement for the cost-effectiveness of health-care interventions to be considered in formulating and implementing guidelines for clinical practice. This paper reports the findings of recent focus group research among UK health authorities, which examined the usefulness of published economic evaluations within the decision-making processes. The findings are presented and discussed in light of other studies that have addressed this issue. Methods Focus group research was conducted with decision makers from a sample of two UK health authorities using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) as a research vehicle to locate and report the findings of relevant economic studies. The study sample was initially invited to respond to questionnaires exploring the usefulness of published economic evaluations in the decision-making process and to outline particular topics that it felt would benefit from similar economic evidence. Following this, a detailed search was undertaken to retrieve structured NHS EED abstracts on these topics such that the usefulness and limitations of economic evaluations to decision making could be determined. Results Decision makers generally recognized the usefulness and necessity of published economic evaluations in informing their decision-making processes. However, the value of studies was often limited because of the poor generalizability of results, the narrowness of research questions, and the lack of methodological rigor common to many published studies. A total of 237 NHS EED full abstracts were retrieved in the specified areas of interest, which, within specified caveats, were generally found to be useful as decision-making tools. There was a general consensus among decision makers in favor of developing a quality-scoring system for studies, thereby... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resource allocation in health is universally challenging, but especially so in resource-constrained contexts in the Global South. Pursuing a strategy of evidence-based decision-making and using tools such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), can help address issues relating to both affordability and equity when allocating resources. Three BRICS and Global South countries, China, India and South Africa have committed to strengthening HTA capacity and developing their domestic HTA systems, with the goal of getting evidence translated into policy. Through assessing and comparing the HTA journey of each country it may be possible to identify common problems and shareable insights. Objectives: This collaborative paper aimed to share knowledge on strengthening HTA systems to enable enhanced evidence-based decision-making in the Global South by: Identifying common barriers and enablers in three BRICS countries in the Global South; and Exploring how South-South collaboration can strengthen HTA capacity and utilisation for better healthcare decision-making. Methods: A descriptive and explorative comparative analysis was conducted comprising a Within-Case analysis to produce a narrative of the HTA journey in each country and an Across-Case analysis to explore both knowledge that could be shared and any potential knowledge gaps. Results: Analyses revealed that China, India and South Africa share many barriers to strengthening and developing HTA systems such as: (1) Minimal HTA expertise; (2) Weak health data infrastructure; (3) Rising healthcare costs; (4) Fragmented healthcare systems; and (5) Significant growth in non-communicable diseases. Stakeholder engagement and institutionalisation of HTA were identified as two conducive factors for strengthening HTA systems. Conclusion: China, India and South Africa have all committed to establishing robust HTA systems to inform evidence-based priority setting and have experienced similar challenges. Engagement among countries of the Global South can provide a supportive platform to share knowledge that is more applicable and pragmatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]