Search

Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are a systems thinking method that can be used to visualize and unpack complex health system behaviour. They can be employed prospectively or retrospectively to identify the mechanisms and consequences of policies or interventions designed to strengthen health systems and inform discussion with policymakers and stakeholders on actions that may alleviate sub-optimal outcomes. Whilst the use of CLDs in health systems research has generally increased, there is still limited use in low- and middle-income settings. In addition to their suitability for evaluating complex systems, CLDs can be developed where opportunities for primary data collection may be limited (such as in humanitarian or conflict settings) and instead be formulated using secondary data, published or grey literature, health surveys/reports and policy documents. The purpose of this paper is to provide a step-by-step guide for designing a health system research study that uses CLDs as their chosen research method, with particular attention to issues of relevance to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The guidance draws on examples from the LMIC literature and authors' own experience of using CLDs in this research area. This paper guides researchers in addressing the following four questions in the study design process; (1) What is the scope of this research? (2) What data do I need to collect or source? (3) What is my chosen method for CLD development? (4) How will I validate the CLD? In providing supporting information to readers on avenues for addressing these key design questions, authors hope to promote CLDs for wider use by health system researchers working in LMICs., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Background: Cash transfers, payments provided by formal or informal institutions to recipients, are increasingly used in emergencies. While increasing autonomy and being supportive of local economies, cash transfers are a cost-effective method in some settings to cover basic needs and extend benefits of limited humanitarian aid budgets. Yet, the extent to which cash transfers impact health in humanitarian settings remains largely unexplored. This systematic review evaluates the evidence on the effect of cash transfers on health outcomes and health service utilisation in humanitarian contexts., Methods: Studies eligible for inclusion were peer reviewed (quantitative,qualitative and mixed-methods). Nine databases (PubMed, EMBAS, Medline, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, SciELO and LiLACS) were searched without language and without a lower bound time restriction through 24 February 2021. The search was updated to include articles published through 8 December 2021. Data were extracted using a piloted extraction tool and quality was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tool. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, results were synthesised narratively and no meta-analysis was performed., Results: 30 673 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 17 715 were double screened by abstract and title, and 201 in full text. Twenty-three articles from 16 countries were included reporting on nutrition outcomes, psychosocial and mental health, general/subjective health and well-being, acute illness (eg, diarrhoea, respiratory infection), diabetes control (eg, blood glucose self-monitoring, haemoglobin A1C levels) and gender-based violence. Nineteen studies reported some positive impacts on various health outcomes and use of health services, 11 reported no statistically significant impact on outcomes assessed and 4 reported potential negative impacts on health outcomes., Discussion: Although there is evidence to suggest a positive relationship between cash transfers and health outcomes in humanitarian settings, high-quality empirical evidence, that is methodologically robust, investigates a range of humanitarian settings and is conducted over longer time periods is needed. This should consider factors influencing programme implementation and the differential impact of cash transfers designed to improve health versus multipurpose cash transfers., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021237275., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the prevalence is inequitably distributed between and within countries. Interventions have been undertaken to improve cataract surgical services, however, the effectiveness of these interventions on promoting equity is not known., Objectives: To assess the effects on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services for populations with cataract blindness (and visual impairment) in LMICs., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 12 April 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 12 April 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 12 April 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 12 April 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials., Selection Criteria: We included studies that reported on strategies to improve access to cataract services in LMICs using the following study designs: randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. Included studies were conducted in LMICs, and were targeted at disadvantaged populations, or disaggregated outcome data by 'PROGRESS-Plus' factors (Place of residence; Race/ethnicity/ culture/ language; Occupation; Gender/sex; Religion; Education; Socio-economic status; Social capital/networks. The 'Plus' component includes disability, sexual orientation and age)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors (JR and JP) independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible, so included studies were synthesised in table and text., Main Results: From a total of 2865 studies identified in the search, two met our eligibility criteria, both of which were cluster-RCTs conducted in rural China. The way in which the trials were conducted means that the risk of bias is unclear. In both studies, villages were randomised to be either an intervention or control group. Adults identified with vision-impairing cataract, following village-based vision and eye health assessment, either received an intervention to increase uptake of cataract surgery (if their village was an intervention group), or to receive 'standard care' (if their village was a control group).One study (n = 434), randomly allocated 26 villages or townships to the intervention, which involved watching an informational video and receiving counselling about cataract and cataract surgery, while the control group were advised that they had decreased vision due to cataract and it could be treated, without being shown the video or receiving counselling. There was low-certainty evidence that providing information and counselling had no effect on uptake of referral to the hospital (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.67, 1 RCT, 434 participants) and little or no effect on the uptake of surgery (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 434 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty for both outcomes, due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.The other study (n = 355, 24 towns randomised) included three intervention arms: free surgery; free surgery plus reimbursement of transport costs; and free surgery plus free transport to and from the hospital. These were compared to the control group, which was reminded to use the "low-cost" (˜USD 38) surgical service. There was low-certainty evidence that surgical fee waiver with/without transport provision or reimbursement increased uptake of surgery (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.31, 1 RCT, 355 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.Neither of the studies reported our primary outcome of change in prevalence of cataract blindness, or other outcomes such as cataract surgical coverage, surgical outcome, or adverse effects. Neither study disaggregated outcomes by social subgroups to enable further assessment of equity effects. We sought data from both studies and obtained data from one; the information video and counselling intervention did not have a differential effect across the PROGRESS-Plus categories with available data (place of residence, gender, education level, socioeconomic status and social capital)., Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence on the effect on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services in LMICs is limited. We identified only two studies, both conducted in rural China. Assessment of equity effects will be improved if future studies disaggregate outcomes by relevant social subgroups. To assist with assessing generalisability of findings to other settings, robust data on contextual factors are also needed.

Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) interventions delivered in humanitarian crises., Setting: Crisis affected low-income or middle-income countries., Participants: Crisis-affected populations in low-income or middle-income countries., Method: Peer-reviewed and grey literature sources were systematically searched for relevant papers detailing interventions from 1 January 1980 until the search date on 30 April 2013. Data from included studies were then extracted, and the papers' quality evaluated using criteria based on modified STROBE and CONSORT checklists., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes include, but are not limited to, changes in morbidity, mortality, sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnosis or gender-based violence. Secondary outcomes include, but are not limited to, reported condom use or skilled attendance at birth. Primary outputs include, but are not limited to, condoms distributed or education courses taught., Results: Of 7149 returned citations, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Only one randomised controlled trial was identified. The remaining observational studies were of moderate quality, demonstrating limited use of controls and inadequate attempts to address bias. Evidence of effectiveness was available for the following interventions: impregnated bed nets for pregnant women, subsidised refugee healthcare, female community health workers, and tiered community reproductive health services., Conclusions: The limited evidence base for SRH interventions highlights the need for improved research on the effectiveness of public health interventions in humanitarian crises. While interventions proven efficacious in stable settings are being used in humanitarian efforts, more evidence is required to demonstrate the effectiveness of delivering and scaling-up such interventions in humanitarian crises., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Health systems strengthening is becoming a key component of development agendas for low-income countries worldwide. Systems thinking emphasizes the role of diverse stakeholders in designing solutions to system problems, including sustainability. The objective of this paper is to compare the definition and use of sustainability indicators developed through the Sustainability Analysis Process in two rehabilitation sectors, one in Nepal and one in Somaliland, and analyse the contextual factors (including the characteristics of system stakeholder networks) influencing the use of sustainability data., Methods: Using the Sustainability Analysis Process, participants collectively clarified the boundaries of their respective systems, defined sustainability, and identified sustainability indicators. Baseline indicator data was gathered, where possible, and then researched again 2 years later. As part of the exercise, system stakeholder networks were mapped at baseline and at the 2-year follow-up. We compared stakeholder networks and interrelationships with baseline and 2-year progress toward self-defined sustainability goals. Using in-depth interviews and observations, additional contextual factors affecting the use of sustainability data were identified., Results: Differences in the selection of sustainability indicators selected by local stakeholders from Nepal and Somaliland reflected differences in the governance and structure of the present rehabilitation system. At 2 years, differences in the structure of social networks were more marked. In Nepal, the system stakeholder network had become more dense and decentralized. Financial support by an international organization facilitated advancement toward self-identified sustainability goals. In Somaliland, the small, centralised stakeholder network suffered a critical rupture between the system's two main information brokers due to competing priorities and withdrawal of international support to one of these. Progress toward self-defined sustainability was nil., Conclusions: The structure of the rehabilitation system stakeholder network characteristics in Nepal and Somaliland evolved over time and helped understand the changing nature of relationships between actors and their capacity to work as a system rather than a sum of actors. Creating consensus on a common vision of sustainability requires additional system-level interventions such as identification of and support to stakeholders who promote systems thinking above individual interests.

Sustainability evaluation has become a key component of international health. However, evaluators have faced a number of challenges linked to the lack of consensus on the meaning of the concept of "sustainability". This paper aims to describe a methodology, the Sustainability Analysis Process, based on several conceptual frameworks and tested in five different countries in the physical rehabilitation sector. The methodology consists of five successive steps: (i) overview of the context; (ii) system boundary; (iii) consensus vision of sustainability, and derivation of stakeholder perspectives; (iv) selection of sustainability indicators and characterization and analysis of local system sustainability; and (v) verification and modification. The paper also discusses the place of the evaluator and researcher in the process: the methodology aims to help evaluators objectively measure the level of sustainability of a health system with the challenge of dealing with a subjective notion, the concept of sustainability, and a diversity of actors. The Sustainability Analysis Process also aims to capture the dynamics of systems by repeating the process on a regular basis. The methodology highlights the need for evaluators build consensus amongst stakeholders on a common vision of the future of a health system., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Since the Declaration of Alma Ata, universal coverage has been at the heart of international health. The purpose of this study was to review the evidence on factors and interventions which are effective in promoting coverage and access to cataract and other health services, focusing on developing countries., Methods: A thorough literature search for systematic reviews was conducted. Information resources searched were Medline, The Cochrane Library and the Health System Evidence database. Medline was searched from January 1950 to June 2010. The Cochrane Library search consisted of identifying all systematic reviews produced by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care. These reviews were assessed for potential inclusion in the review. The Health Systems Evidence database hosted by MacMaster University was searched to identify overviews of systematic reviews., Results: No reviews met the inclusion criteria for cataract surgery. The literature search on other health sectors identified 23 systematic reviews providing robust evidence on the main factors facilitating universal coverage. The main enabling factors influencing access to services in developing countries were peer education, the deployment of staff to rural areas, task shifting, integration of services, supervision of health staff, eliminating user fees and scaling up of health insurance schemes., Conclusion: There are significant research gaps in eye care. There is a pressing need for further high quality primary research on health systems-related factors to understand how the delivery of eye care services and health systems' capacities are interrelated.

Understanding health systems have now become the priority focus of researchers and policy makers, who have progressively moved away from a project-centred perspectives. The new tendency is to facilitate a convergence between health system developers and disease-specific programme managers in terms of both thinking and action, and to reconcile both approaches: one focusing on integrated health systems and improving the health status of the population and the other aiming at improving access to health care. Eye care interventions particularly in developing countries have generally been vertically implemented (e.g. trachoma, cataract surgeries) often with parallel organizational structures or specialised disease specific services. With the emergence of health system strengthening in health strategies and in the service delivery of interventions there is a need to clarify and examine inputs in terms governance, financing and management. This present paper aims to clarify key concepts in health system strengthening and describe the various components of the framework as applied in eye care interventions.

Background: Little is known about the contributions of faith-based organisations (FBOs) to health systems in Africa. In the specialist area of eye health, international and domestic Christian FBOs have been important contributors as service providers and donors, but they are also commonly critiqued as having developed eye health systems parallel to government structures which are unsustainable.Methods: In this study, we use a health systems approach (quarterly interviews, a participatory sustainability analysis exercise and a social network analysis) to describe the strategies used by eye care practitioners in four hospitals of north-west Tanzania to navigate the government, church mission and donor rules that govern eye services delivery there.Results: Practitioners in this region felt eye care was systemically neglected by government and therefore was 'all under the NGOs', but support from international donors was also precarious. Practitioners therefore adopted four main strategies to improve the sustainability of their services: (1) maintain 'sustainability funds' to retain financial autonomy over income; (2) avoid granting government user fee exemptions to elderly patients who are the majority of service users; (3) expand or contract outreach services as financial circumstances change; and (4) access peer support for problem-solving and advocacy. Mission-based eye teams had greater freedom to increase their income from user fees by not implementing government policies for 'free care'. Teams in all hospitals, however, found similar strategies to manage their programmes even when their management structures were unique, suggesting the importance of informal rules shared through a peer network in governing eye care in this pluralistic health system.Conclusions: Health systems research can generate new evidence on the social dynamics that cross public and private sectors within a local health system. In this area of Tanzania, Christian FBOs' investments are important, not only in terms of the population health outcomes achieved by teams they support, but also in the diversity of organisational models they contribute to in the wider eye health system, which facilitates innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation (CBR) for people with physical and mental disabilities in low- and middle-income countries, and/or their family/carers and community. We identified 15 eligible studies, 10 of which were randomised controlled studies. Overall, the studies suggested that CBR may be effective in improving the clinical outcomes and enhancing functioning and quality of life of the person with disabilities and his/her carer. However, this conclusion must be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies, concerns about study quality and lack of information on cost-effectiveness of the interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Burkina Faso introduced the Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses (IMCI) strategy in 2003. However, an evaluation conducted in 2013 found that only 28 % of children were assessed for three danger signs as recommended by IMCI, and only 15 % of children were correctly classified. About 30 % of children were correctly prescribed with an antibiotic for suspected pneumonia or oral rehydration salts (ORS) for diarrhoea, and 40 % were correctly referred. Recent advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) and use of electronic clinical protocols hold the potential to transform healthcare delivery in low-income countries. However, no evidence is available on the effect of ICT on adherence to IMCI. This paper describes the research protocol of a mixed methods study that aims to measure the effect of the Integrated electronic Diagnosis Approach innovation (an electronic IMCI protocol provided to nurses) in two regions of Burkina Faso.Methods/design: The study combines a stepped-wedge trial, a realistic evaluation and an economic study in order to capture the effect of the innovation after its introduction on the level of adherence, cost and acceptability.Discussion: The main challenge is to interconnect the three substudies. In integrating outcome, process and cost data, we focus on three key questions: (i) How does the effectiveness and the cost of the intervention vary by type of health worker and type of health centre? (ii) What is the impact of changes in the content, coverage and quality of the IeDA intervention on adherence and cost-effectiveness? (iii) What mechanisms of change (including costs) might explain the relationship between the IeDA intervention and adherence?Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02341469 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]