Search

Despite recognized need and reasonable demand, health systems and rehabilitation communities keep working in silos, independently with minimal recognition to the issues of those who require rehabilitation services. Consolidated effort by health systems and rehabilitation parties, recognizing the value, power and promise of each other, is a need of the hour to address this growing issue of public health importance. In this paper, the importance and the need for integration of rehabilitation into health system is emphasized. The efforts being made to integrate rehabilitation into health systems and the potential challenges in integration of these efforts were discussed. Finally, the strategies and benefits of integrating rehabilitation in health systems worldwide is proposed. Health policy and systems research (HPSR) brings a number of assets that may assist in addressing the obstacles discussed above to universal coverage of rehabilitation. It seeks to understand and improve how societies organize themselves to achieve collective health goals; considers links between health systems and social determinants of health; and how different actors interact in policy and implementation processes. This multidisciplinary lens is essential for evidence and learning that might overcome the obstacles to the provision of rehabilitation services, including integration into health systems. Health systems around the world can no longer afford to ignore rehabilitation needs of their populations and the World Health Assembly (WHA) resolution marked a global call to this effect. Therefore, national governments and global health community must invest in setting a priority research agenda and promote the integration of rehabilitation into health systems. The context-specific, need-based and policy-relevant knowledge about this must be made available globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This could help integrate and implement rehabilitation in health systems of countries worldwide and also help achieve the targets of Rehabilitation 2030, universal health coverage and Sustainable Development Goals., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Much of health services and policy research is applied. We offer four provocations to stimulate thinking about the relationship between research and the "systems" it aims to influence. We conclude that a focus on partnership implies that researchers need to be empathetic to the timelines and needs of policy makers, while true relationships are bidirectional. Focusing on the priorities of "systems" will emphasize short-term issues. This leads to researchers often conducting post-implementation evaluation, where they have had little involvement in policy or intervention design. Finally, a focus on single-project return of investment will tend to undervalue riskier - but also potentially more rewarding - research., (Copyright © 2022 Longwoods Publishing.)

This paper reflects concerns that funding and attention should be expanded from the important focus on those suffering and dying from COVID-19, and the safety and resources of healthcare professionals, to address wider questions on the (unequal) health and well-being impacts of COVID-19 and associated response measures. While immediate priorities such as those outlined in the WHO research agenda are undoubtedly important, additional urgent questions must be addressed. These include questions focused on (1) the non-virus impacts of preparing health and social care systems to cope with COVID-19 and (2) the health effects mediated by the educational, economic and social injuries sustained during the pandemic. Long-term, sustained and co-ordinated interdisciplinary research funding will be needed to address the long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 and its response measures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. SS is part funded by NIHR ARC West Midlands, the NIHR HPRU Gastrointestinal Infections, and the NIHR HPRU Genomics and Enabling Data, and SD is a member of the Allies Group of the Co-Production Collective.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. The Kilifi and Sedibeng learning site work was supported by the Resilient and Responsive Health Systems (RESYST) research programme, a project funded by UK Aid from the Department for International Development for the benefit of developing countries. However, the views expressed and information contained in it are not necessarily those of, or endorsed by, the Department for International Development, which can accept no responsibility for such views or information or for any reliance placed on them. The clinical information network has been supported by funds from a senior research fellowship awarded to Mike English by Wellcome Trust (#097170) with additional funds from a Wellcome Trust core grant awarded to the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (#092654). Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This article is part of a series produced in conjunction with WHO and the Alliance for Health Policy Systems and Research with funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The BMJ peer reviewed, edited, and made the decision to publish.

The use of evidence in decision-making and practice can be improved through diverse interventions, including policy dialogue. The Department of Family Health, Federal Ministry of Health of Nigeria initiated and organized the Nigeria Research Days (NRD), to serve as a platform for exchange between researchers and policymakers for improving maternal, new-born and child health. The study reports on the conceptualization, organization and lessons learned from the first edition. A cross-sectional study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a policy dialogue during the NRDs. Data were collected from the feasibility and workshop evaluation surveys. A descriptive analysis of data was performed. As a result, the Nigeria Research Days meets all the criteria for a successful policy dialogue. The participants positively rated the content and format of the meeting and made suggestions for improvement. They were willing to implement the recommendations of the final communiqué. The lessons learned from this first edition will be used to improve future editions.

The COVID-19 pandemic required policy makers to make urgent decisions to limit the spread of the disease. International and regional health bodies and research institutions have a role in supporting decision makers and health actors in providing accurate and timely research evidence and guidance in decision making and practice. In ECOWAS region, the West African Health Organisation (WAHO) has experience in promoting evidence use decision making and practice as part of its role as Health Policy and Research Organisation. Promoting the use of evidence to influence policy and practice is possible through various approaches including training, the development of guides and policy briefs, the synthesis and sharing of evidence, and the organisation of meetings to share experiences. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, WAHO has deployed several approaches to bring the use of evidence to decision-makers and stakeholders to influence policy and practice. To improve practices, WAHO has organized regional training workshops on laboratory diagnostic, surveillance and simulation exercises of outbreak response for key actors, as well as webinars on different aspects of COVID-19 pandemic surveillance, coordination and management. In addition, a synthesis of the most recent evidence and epidemiologic models were developed to enlighten decision makers in selecting and implementation response interventions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright: Issiaka Sombié et al.)

This paper offers the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) viewpoint with Qatar as a case for lasting transformation of health systems. The Qatar case study illustrates the importance of research in the development of health policy. It provides description of a series of projects that have been undertaken in relevant national areas such as autism, dementia, genomics, palliative care and patient safety. The paper discourse draws attention to investment requirement in health research systems to respond to country national health priorities and to strengthen public health policies for improving health and social outcomes by narrowing the gap between research and politics. In short, the discussion highlights the following: i) health is a human right marching towards universal health care, with research underpinning every advance in health care and quality medical services; ii) evidence-based research is emerging as a critical tool to aid policy- and decision-makers; iii) investment necessity in healthcare research/systems to enable responding to a country's national health priorities and to strengthen public health policies; and iv) need for multi-sectoral involvement of stakeholders to bridge the gap between research and politics. Finally, atypical stakeholders' engagement and bond to politics is a prerequisite to achieve healthcare objectives and policy success so as to reap the benefits of public health results.

Background: Access to qualitative and equitable healthcare is a major challenge in Mauritania. In order to support the country's efforts, a health sector strengthening programme was set up with participatory action research at its core. Reinforcing a health system requires a customised and comprehensive approach to face the complexity inherent to health systems. Yet, limited knowledge is available on how policies could enhance the performance of the system and how multi-stakeholder efforts could give rise to changes in health policy. We aimed to analyse the ongoing participatory action research and, more specifically, see in how far action research as an embedded research approach could contribute to strengthening health systems., Methods: We adopted a single-case study design, based on two subunits of analysis, i.e., two selected districts. Qualitative data were collected by analysing country and programme documents, conducting 12 semi-structured interviews and performing participatory observations. Interviewees were selected based on their current position and participation in the programme. The data analysis was designed to address the objectives of the study, but evolved according to emerging insights and through triangulation and identification of emergent and/or recurrent themes along the process., Results: An evaluation of the progress made in the two districts indicates that continuous capacity-building and empowerment efforts through a participative approach have been key elements to enhance dialogue between, and ownership of, the actors at the local health system level. However, the strong hierarchical structure of the Mauritanian health system and its low level of decentralisation constituted substantial barriers to innovation. Other constraints were sociocultural and organisational in nature. Poor work ethics due to a weak environmental support system played an important role. While aiming for an alignment between the flexible iterative approach of action research and the prevailing national linear planning process is quite challenging, effects on policy formulation and implementation were not observed. An adequate time frame, the engagement of proactive leaders, maintenance of a sustained dialogue and a pragmatic, flexible approach could further facilitate the process of change., Conclusion: Our study showcases that the action research approach used in Mauritania can usher local and national actors towards change within the health system strengthening programme when certain conditions are met. An inclusive, participatory approach generates dynamics of engagement that can facilitate ownership and strengthen capacity. Continuous evaluation is needed to measure how these processes can further develop and presume a possible effect at policy level.

In 2013, the Living with HIV (LHIV) Innovation team established clinical cohorts of people living with HIV in Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador, and they linked the data to provincial health administrative databases. Access to these data enabled researchers to conduct studies across provincial borders; contribute to a national dialogue on HIV health system performance; and give recommendations for evidence-based healthcare, health policy and public health. However, research funding is episodic; maintaining cohorts requires stable funding. We support the establishment of a cross-jurisdictional approach to facilitate streamlined data collection and linkage without interruption and to allow for meaningful analysis in order to inform national policies., (Copyright © 2019 Longwoods Publishing.)

Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe the research environment of scientists in health services and policy research in China., Study Design: Study was conducted during the 2016 Westlake Youth Forum with grantees of China Medical Board and key informants. Mixed methods used anonymous, survey of grantees, semistructured open-ended interviews with randomly selected awardees, convenience samples of extramural reviewers, and senior scientists with research experience in China., Results: Among 51 awardees, 34 responded fully. Fifty percent were women, averaged 42 years; 88% had PhD/MD and 10 years from their advanced degree. Most had overseas research training (94%); 32% held overseas degrees. Their mean salary, $24,000, barely qualifying as middle class in China. Their confidence using analytical techniques were variable. Their interaction with those using their work seemed nascent. Interviewees echo young researchers elsewhere: lack of mentors, statistical consultation, collaborators, and help to run the gauntlet of requirements in doing research., Conclusion: China's health has improved dramatically since 1949. As the ecology of disease change, expectations increase, and services grow, the expertise to evaluate and improve health care needs to expand. This requires recognition of their importance and a concerted effort to recruit, nurture, and sustain this cadre., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

An influential policy network emerged from two overlapping developments of the 1970s and 1980s: new research programs focusing on tropical diseases and debates about how to implement the concept of primary health care at the World Health Organization. Participating actors came together in an informal network that, by the late 1980s, expanded advocacy to include the promotion and reorganization of all forms of research that might improve health in the Global South. This goal became associated with a search for new research methods for determining priorities, a quest that reached a peak in the early 1990s when the World Bank entered the picture. The bank brought money, economic analyses, and neoliberal ideology to the research advocacy movement and helped stimulate an upsurge of cost-effective forms of economic thinking in global health (GH) circles. This expanded research network provided some of the conceptual foundations and leadership for several of the most emblematic institutions of the new GH. These included new organizations to bring together and coordinate public and private actors in pursuit of common aims and new forms of economic rationality. The network's advocacy work contributed as well to a massive expansion of GH research at the turn of the century.

This essay considers some limitations of programme theory evaluation in relation to healthcare policies. This approach, which seeks to surface 'programme theories' or construct 'logic models', is often unable to account for empirical observations of policy implementation in real-world contexts. I argue that this failure stems from insufficient theoretical elaboration of the social, cultural and political dimensions of healthcare policies. Drawing from institutional theory, critical theory and discourse theory, I set out an alternative agenda for policy research. I illustrate the issues with respect to programme theory evaluation with examples from my experience of research on large-scale strategic change in the English NHS.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Evidence-informed policies can produce social and economic impacts and equity and health benefits. Interaction between researchers in politics depends on the interests of social stakeholders and favorable political environments. This paper seeks to understand the meanings and researchers' perspectives of interaction processes between scientists and decision-makers that would influence the research impact on the health policy. This is a qualitative content analysis study conducted in 2014 to identify the core meanings and relationships between research and politics. The paper builds on the RAPID program approach of the Overseas Development Institute. Fourteen researchers who conducted maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality studies sponsored by the Health Ministry were interviewed. Researchers focused on the production of knowledge, strengthening of research capacities and dissemination of results. On some occasions, researchers also participated in the definition of clinical care policies and performance of health services. They pointed to barriers to interact and produce an impact on politics due to tensions in the political, economic and social context, as well as to institutional and organizational changes in the health sector and to the academic evaluation system.

The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research was established in 1999 and is hosted as an international partnership by the World Health Organization (WHO). The Alliance emerged from recommendations of the 1996 WHO Ad Hoc Committee on Health Research, which recognised the role of research in strengthening health policies and the overall development of health systems. Work towards the Alliance's mission - to promote the generation and use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) as a means to strengthen health systems in low- and middle-income countries - historically focused on three areas: generation of policy and systems knowledge, promotion of its use in decision making to improve the performance of health systems, and strengthening researchers' and decision makers' capacity to engage in these efforts. Now, after nearly 20 years of learning and accomplishments, the Alliance is launching new strategic objectives to reflect a changed context, and new challenges and opportunities. Over the coming years, the Alliance plans to provide a unique forum for the HPSR community; support institutional capacity to conduct and use HPSR; stimulate the generation of knowledge and innovations to nurture learning and resilience in health systems; and increase demand for, and use of, knowledge for strengthening health systems.

Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and other laws have promoted the use of shared decision making (SDM) in recent years, few specific policies have addressed the opportunities and challenges of utilizing SDM in the emergency department (ED). Policies relating to physician payment, quality measurement, and medical-legal risks each present unique challenges to adoption of SDM in the ED. This article summarizes findings from a health policy breakout session of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant, Patient-centered Research Agenda." The objectives were to 1) describe federal and state policies that influence utilization or assessment of SDM; 2) identify policies and policy-focused knowledge gaps that serve as barriers to adoption of ED SDM; and 3) to define a consensus-based, policy-focused research agenda to support adoption of SDM in emergency care., (© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Operations research (OR)-based analyses have the potential to improve decision making for many important, real-world health care problems. However, junior scholars often avoid working on practical applications in health because promotion and tenure processes tend to value theoretical studies more highly than applied studies. This paper discusses the author's experiences in using OR to inform and influence decisions in health and provides a blueprint for junior researchers who wish to find success by taking a similar path. This involves selecting good problems to study, forming productive collaborations with domain experts, developing appropriate models, identifying the most salient results from an analysis, and effectively disseminating findings to decision makers. The paper then suggests how journals, funding agencies, and senior academics can encourage such work by taking a broader and more informed view of the potential role and contributions of OR to solving health care problems. Making room in academia for the application of OR in health follows in the tradition begun by the founders of operations research: to work on important real-world problems where operations research can contribute to better decision making.

Background: The Global Forum 2015 panel session dialogue entitled "From evidence to policy - thinking outside the box" was held on 26 August 2015 in the Philippines to debate why evidence was not fully translated into policy and practice and what could be done to increase its uptake. This paper reports the reasons and possible actions for increasing the uptake of evidence, and highlights the actions partners could take to increase the use of evidence in the African Region., Discussion: The Global Forum 2015 debate attributed African Region's low uptake of evidence to the big gap in incentives and interests between research for health researchers and public health policy-makers; limited appreciation on the side of researchers that public health decisions are based on multiple and complex considerations; perception among users that research evidence is not relevant to local contexts; absence of knowledge translation platforms; sub-optimal collaboration and engagement between industry and research institutions; lack of involvement of civil society organizations; lack of engagement of communities in the research process; failure to engage the media; limited awareness and debate in national and local parliaments on the importance of investing in research and innovation; and dearth of research and innovation parks in the African Region., Conclusion: The actions needed in the Region to increase the uptake of evidence in policy and practice include strengthening NHRS governance; bridging the motivation gap between researchers and health policy-makers; restoring trust between researchers and decision-makers; ensuring close and continuous intellectual intercourse among researchers, ministry of health policy-makers and technocrats during the life course of research projects or programmes; proactive collaboration between academia and industry; regular briefings of civil society, media, relevant parliamentary committees and development partners; development of vibrant knowledge translation platforms; development of action plans for implementing research recommendations, preferably in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals; and encouragement of competition on NHRS strengthening and research output and uptake among the countries using a barometer or scorecard to review their performance at various regional ministerial forums and taking into account the lessons learned from the MDG period.

This essay presents some elements of analysis for thinking about health research in Colombia as a public policy, something which was formed starting in 1990 with the establishment of Science and Technology regulations. A set of institutional adjustments was carried out which led to the creation of the National Program of Health Science and Technology and the National Council of Health Science and Technology. In addition, it led to the institutionalization of calls for research proposals as a mechanism for selecting research projects and assigning resources in accordance with the needs and priorities of the National System of Science and Technology. Since then, there have been no major changes in the public management of health research, with the exception of the Health Research Fund, created in 2001. However, some efforts have been made to develop some capacities and -so far unsuccessfully- to formulate a national policy on health research. The Statutory Health Act approved in 2015 could be an important opportunity to realize and implement this policy decision.

Background: There is an increasing interest worldwide to ensure evidence-informed health policymaking as a means to improve health systems performance. There is a need to engage policymakers in collaborative approaches to generate and use knowledge in real world settings. To address this gap, we implemented two interventions based on iterative exchanges between researchers and policymakers/implementers. This article aims to reflect on the implementation and impact of these multi-site evidence-to-policy approaches implemented in low-resource settings., Methods: The first approach was implemented in Mexico and Nicaragua and focused on implementation research facilitated by communities of practice (CoP) among maternal health stakeholders. We conducted a process evaluation of the CoPs and assessed the professionals' abilities to acquire, analyse, adapt and apply research. The second approach, called the Policy BUilding Demand for evidence in Decision making through Interaction and Enhancing Skills (Policy BUDDIES), was implemented in South Africa and Cameroon. The intervention put forth a 'buddying' process to enhance demand and use of systematic reviews by sub-national policymakers. The Policy BUDDIES initiative was assessed using a mixed-methods realist evaluation design., Results: In Mexico, the implementation research supported by CoPs triggered monitoring by local health organizations of the quality of maternal healthcare programs. Health programme personnel involved in CoPs in Mexico and Nicaragua reported improved capacities to identify and use evidence in solving implementation problems. In South Africa, Policy BUDDIES informed a policy framework for medication adherence for chronic diseases, including both HIV and non-communicable diseases. Policymakers engaged in the buddying process reported an enhanced recognition of the value of research, and greater demand for policy-relevant knowledge., Conclusions: The collaborative evidence-to-policy approaches underline the importance of iterations and continuity in the engagement of researchers and policymakers/programme managers, in order to account for swift evolutions in health policy planning and implementation. In developing and supporting evidence-to-policy interventions, due consideration should be given to fit-for-purpose approaches, as different needs in policymaking cycles require adapted processes and knowledge. Greater consideration should be provided to approaches embedding the use of research in real-world policymaking, better suited to the complex adaptive nature of health systems.

Background: Evidence-based policy (EBP), a concept modelled on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), is widely used in different areas of policymaking. Systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses gradually became the methods of choice for synthesizing research evidence about interventions and judgements about quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Critics have argued that the relation between research evidence and service policies is weak, and that the notion of EBP rests on a misunderstanding of policy processes. Having explored EBM standards and knowledge requirements for health policy decision-making, we present an empirical point of departure for discussing the relationship between EBM and EBP., Methods: In a case study exploring the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC), an independent government unit, we first searched for information about the background and development of the NOKC to establish a research context. We then identified, selected and organized official NOKC publications as an empirical sample of typical top-of-the-line knowledge delivery adhering to EBM standards. Finally, we explored conclusions in this type of publication, specifically addressing their potential as policy decision tools., Results: From a total sample of 151 SRs published by the NOKC in the period 2004-2013, a purposive subsample from 2012 (14 publications) advised major caution about their conclusions because of the quality or relevance of the underlying documentation. Although the case study did not include a systematic investigation of uptake and policy consequences, SRs were found to be inappropriate as universal tools for health policy decision-making., Conclusions: The case study demonstrates that EBM is not necessarily suited to knowledge provision for every kind of policy decision-making. Our analysis raises the question of whether the evidence-based movement, represented here by an independent government organization, undertakes too broad a range of commissions using strategies that seem too confined. Policymaking in healthcare should be based on relevant and transparent knowledge, taking due account of the context of the intervention. However, we do not share the belief that the complex and messy nature of policy processes in general is compatible with the standards of EBM.

Background: Health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR+A) has been noted as central to health systems strengthening, yet the capacity for HPSR+A is limited in low- and middle-income countries. Building the capacity of African institutions, rather than relying on training provided in northern countries, is a more sustainable way of building the field in the continent. Recognising that there is insufficient information on African capacity to produce and use HPSR+A to inform interventions in capacity development, the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (2011-2015) conducted a study with the aim to assess the capacity needs of its African partner institutions, including Nigeria, for HPSR+A. This paper provides new knowledge on health policy and systems research assets and needs of different stakeholders, and their perspectives on HPSR+A in Nigeria., Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in the Enugu state, south-east Nigeria. It involved reviews and content analysis of relevant documents and interviews with organizations' academic staff, policymakers and HPSR+A practitioners. The College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu campus (COMUNEC), was used as the case study and the HPSR+A capacity needs were assessed at the individual, unit and organizational levels. The HPSR+A capacity needs of the policy and research networks were also assessed., Results: For academicians, lack of awareness of the HPSR+A field and funding were identified as barriers to strengthening HPSR+A in Nigeria. Policymakers were not aware of the availability of research findings that could inform the policies they make nor where they could find them; they also appeared unwilling to go through the rigors of reading extensive research reports., Conclusion: There is a growing interest in HPSR+A as well as a demand for its teaching and, indeed, opportunities for building the field through research and teaching abound. However, there is a need to incorporate HPSR+A teaching and research at an early stage in student training. The need for capacity building for HPSR+A and teaching includes capacity building for human resources, provision and availability of academic materials and skills development on HPSR+A as well as for teaching. Suggested development concerns course accreditation, development of short courses, development and inclusion of HPSR+A teaching and research-specific training modules in school curricula for young researchers, training of young researchers and improving competence of existing researchers. Finally, we could leverage on existing administrative and financial governance mechanisms when establishing HPSR+A field building initiatives, including staff and organizational capacity developments and course development in HPSR+A.

Aim: Rare diseases are a serious public health concern and are a priority in the EU. This study aims to develop policy recommendations for rare disease centres of expertise (CoEs) in order to improve standards and quality of care., Subject and Methods: A modified 3-round Delphi technique was used. Participants included rare diseases patients, carers, patient representatives and healthcare professionals (HCPs) from CoEs in two countries-Denmark and the UK., Results: The results suggest the need to make improvements within current CoE environments, access to CoEs and the need for coordination and cooperation of services within and outside CoEs. It is recommended that CoEs are not overly 'medicalised', while at the same time they should be established as research facilities. The importance of including patient representatives in CoE performance management was also highlighted. Raising awareness and provision of appropriate training amongst non-specialist HCPs is seen as a priority for early and correct diagnosis and ensuring high quality care. Similarly, provision of targeted information about patients' illness and care was considered essential along with access to social assistance within CoEs., Conclusions: Policy recommendations were developed in areas previously recognised as having gaps. Their implementation is expected to strengthen and improve current care provision for rare disease patients. In member states where national plans and strategies are being developed, it is recommended to replicate the methodological approach used in this study as it has proven to be a helpful tool in rare disease centres of expertise policy development., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In June 2015 the scientific academies "Leopoldina" and "acatech" and the union of the German academies of sciences and humanities published a statement on public and global health in Germany. The statement contains many valuable albeit generic and well-known recommendations. The few specific recommendations focus on centralizing research while weakening the role of universities and on the relative increase of research on public health genomics. These recommendations are not based on empirical or theoretical analyses and risk subverting successful developments of the recent past. To actually strengthen public and global health in Germany the existing institutions need to be backed up while designated funding of public and global health needs to be extended., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Health policy experts have proposed a framework defining value as outcomes achieved per dollar spent on health care. However, few institutions quantify their delivery of care along these dimensions. Our objective was to measure the value of our surgical services over time., Study Design: We reviewed the data of patients undergoing general and vascular surgery from 2002 through 2012 at a tertiary care university hospital as abstracted by the American College of Surgeons NSQIP. Morbidity and mortality data from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database were risk adjusted to calculate observed-to-expected ratios, which were then inverted into a numerator as a surrogate for quality. Costs, the denominator of the value equation, were determined for each patient's hospitalization. The ratio was then transformed by a constant and analyzed with linear regression to analyze and compare values from 2002 through 2012., Results: A total of 25,453 patients met criteria for inclusion. Overall, the value of surgical services increased from 2002 through 2012. The observed increase in value was greater in general surgery than in vascular surgery, and value actually decreased in vascular procedures. Although there was a similar increase in outcomes in vascular surgery compared with general surgery, costs rose significantly higher ($474/year vs -$302/year; p < 0.001). These increased costs were mostly observed from 2006 through 2010 with the adoption of endovascular technology., Conclusions: Despite the challenges posed by current information systems, calculating risk-adjusted value in surgical services represents a critical first step for providers seeking to improve outcomes, avoid ill-advised cost containment, and determine the costs of innovation., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite a wealth of research and policy initiatives, progress in tackling the UK's health inequalities has been limited. This article explores whether there appears to be consensus among researchers about the kinds of policies likely to reduce health inequalities., Methods: Ninety-nine proposals for addressing health inequalities were identified from multiple sources. Forty-one researchers participated in a survey assessing the extent to which they believed each proposal would reduce health inequalities, based on three criteria. The 20 proposals generating most support were employed in a second stage, in which 92 researchers indicated which proposals they felt would have the greatest impact on reducing health inequalities., Results: Some consensus exists among researchers about the policy approaches likely to reduce UK health inequalities: a more progressive distribution of income/wealth, greater investment in services for deprived communities, plus regulatory policies to limit the impact of lifestyle-behavioural risks. However, researchers' support for proposals varies depending whether they are asked to express their expert opinion or to comment on the strength of the available evidence., Conclusions: When consulting researchers about health inequalities, policymakers need to consider whether they are seeking research-informed expertise or assessments of the available evidence; these questions are likely to yield different responses., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.)

Background: Evidence-informed health policymaking is a goal of equitable and effective health systems but occurs infrequently in reality. Past research points to the facilitating role of interpersonal relationships between policy-makers and researchers, imploring the adoption of a social network lens. This study aims to identify network-level factors associated with the exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking., Methods: Data on social networks and research use were collected from seventy policy actors across three health policy cases in Burkina Faso (child health, malaria, and HIV). Networks were graphed for actors' interactions, their provision of, and request for research evidence. Exponential random graph models estimated the probability of evidence provision and request between actors, controlling for network- and individual-level covariates. Logistic regression models estimated actors' use of research evidence to inform policy., Results: Network structure explained more than half of the evidence exchanges (ties) observed in these networks. Across all cases, a pair of actors was more likely to form a provision tie if they already had a request tie between them and visa versa (θ=6.16, p<0.05; θ=2.87, p<0.05; θ=2.31, p<0.05). The child health network displayed clustering tendencies, meaning that actors were more likely to form ties if they shared an acquaintance (θ=2.36, p<0.05). Actors' use of research evidence was positively associated with their centrality (i.e., connectedness)., Conclusions: The exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking can be partly explained by the structure of actors' networks of relationships. Efforts to support knowledge translation and evidence-informed policymaking should consider network factors.

Background: Formal knowledge networks are considered among the solutions for strengthening knowledge translation and one of the elements of innovative systems in developing and developed countries. In the year 2000, knowledge networks were established in Iran's health system to organize, lead, empower, and coordinate efforts made by health-related research centers in the country. Since the assessment of a knowledge network is one of the main requirements for its success, the current study was designed in two qualitative and quantitative sections to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the established knowledge networks and to assess their efficiency., Methods: In the qualitative section, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were held with network directors and secretaries. The interviews were analyzed through the framework approach. To analyze effectiveness, social network analysis approach was used. That is, by considering the networks' research council members as 'nodes', and the numbers of their joint articles--before and after the network establishments--as 'relations or ties', indices of density, clique, and centrality were calculated for each network. In the qualitative section, non-transparency of management, lack of goals, administrative problems were among the most prevalent issues observed., Results: Currently, the most important challenges are the policies related to them and their management. In the quantitative section, we observed that density and clique indices had risen for some networks; however, the centrality index for the same networks was not as high. Consequently the attribution of density and clique indices to these networks was not possible., Conclusion: Therefore, consolidating and revising policies relevant to the networks and preparing a guide for establishing managing networks could prove helpful. To develop knowledge and technology in a country, networks need to solve the problems they face in management and governance. That is, the first step towards the realization of true knowledge networks in health system.

Background: For decades Indigenous peoples have argued for health research reform claiming methods used and results obtained often reflect the exploitative history of colonisation. In 2006 the Kimberley Aboriginal Health Planning Forum (KAHPF) Research Subcommittee (hereafter, the Subcommittee) was formed to improve research processes in the remote Kimberley region of north Western Australia. This paper explores the major perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders in the Subcommittee., Methods: Qualitative analysis was carried out on data retrospectively collected from multiple evidentiary sources linked to the Subcommittee i.e. database, documents, interviews, review forms and emails from 1 January 2007 to 31 October 2013., Results: From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2013 the Subcommittee received 95 proposals, 57 (60%) driven by researchers based outside the region. Local stakeholders (22 from 12 different Kimberley organisations) raised concerns about 36 (38%) projects, 30 (83%) of which were driven by external researchers. Major concerns of local stakeholders were inadequate community consultation and engagement; burden of research on the region; negative impact of research practices; lack of demonstrable community benefit; and power and control of research. Major themes identified by external stakeholders (25 external researchers who completed the review form) were unanticipated difficulties with consultation processes; barriers to travel; perceiving research as a competing priority for health services and time-consuming ethics processes. External stakeholders also identified strategies for improving research practices in the Kimberley: importance of community support in building good relationships; employing local people; flexibility in research approaches; and importance of allocating sufficient time for consultation and data collection., Conclusions: Health research in the Kimberley has improved in recent years, however significant problems remain. Prioritising research addressing genuine local needs is essential in closing the gap in Indigenous life expectancy. The long-term aim is for local health service connected researchers to identify priorities, lead, conduct and participate in the majority of local health research. For this to occur, a more radical move involving reconceptualising the research process is needed. Changes to institutional timeframes and funding processes could improve Indigenous and community-based research.

The importance of health policy and systems research and analysis (HPSR+A) is widely recognized. Universities are central to strengthening and sustaining the HPSR+A capacity as they teach the next generation of decision-makers and health professionals. However, little is known about the capacity of universities, specifically, to develop the field. In this article, we report results of capacity self- assessments by seven universities within five African countries, conducted through the Consortium for Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa (CHEPSAA). The capacity assessments focused on both capacity 'assets' and 'needs', and covered the wider context, as well as organizational and individual capacity levels. Six thematic areas of capacity were examined: leadership and governance, organizations' resources, scope of HPSR+A teaching and research, communication, networking and getting research into policy and practice (GRIPP), demand for HPRS+A and resource environment. The self-assessments by each university used combinations of document reviews, semi-structured interviews and staff surveys, followed by comparative analysis. A framework approach, guided by the six thematic areas, was used to analyse data. We found that HPSR+A is an international priority, and an existing activity in Africa, though still neglected field with challenges including its reliance on unpredictable international funding. All universities have capacity assets, such as ongoing HPSR+A teaching and research. There are, however, varying levels of assets (such as differences in staff numbers, group sizes and amount of HPSR+A teaching and research), which, combined with different capacity needs at all three levels (such as individual training, improvement in systems for quality assurance and fostering demand for HPSR+A work), can shape a future agenda for HPSR+A capacity strengthening. Capacity assets and needs at different levels appear related. Possible integrated strategies for strengthening universities' capacity include: refining HPSR+A vision, mainstreaming the subject into under- and post-graduate teaching, developing emerging leaders and aligning HPSR+A capacity strengthening within the wider organizational development., (Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine © The Author 2013; all rights reserved.)

Objectives: Despite the recognition of the importance of evidence-informed health policy and practice, there are still barriers to translating research findings into policy and practice. The present study aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid response mechanism, a knowledge translation strategy designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for evidence about health systems in a low income country, Uganda. Rapid response mechanisms aim to address the barriers of timeliness and relevance of evidence at the time it is needed., Methods: A rapid response mechanism (service) designed a priori was offered to policymakers in the health sector in Uganda. In the form of a case study, data were collected about the profile of users of the service, the kinds of requests for evidence, changes in answers, and courses of action influenced by the mechanism and their satisfaction with responses and the mechanism in general., Results: We found that in the first 28 months, the service received 65 requests for evidence from 30 policymakers and stakeholders, the majority of whom were from the Ministry of Health. The most common requests for evidence were about governance and organization of health systems. It was noted that regular contact between the policymakers and the researchers at the response service was an important factor in response to, and uptake of the service. The service seemed to increase confidence for policymakers involved in the policymaking process., Conclusion: Rapid response mechanisms designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems are feasible and acceptable to policymakers in low income countries.

Background: Over the past decade, substantial global investment has been made to support health systems and policy research (HSPR), with considerable resources allocated to training. In Canada, signs point to a larger and more highly skilled HSPR workforce, but little is known about whether growth in HSPR human resource capacity is aligned with investments in other research infrastructure, or what happens to HSPR graduates following training., Methods: We collected data from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada's national health research funding agency, and the Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research on recent graduates in the HSPR workforce. We also surveyed 45 Canadian HSPR training programs to determine what information they collect on the career experiences of graduates., Results: No university programs are currently engaged in systematic follow-up. Collaborative training programs funded by the national health research funding agency report performing short-term mandated tracking activities, but whether and how data are used is unclear. No programs collected information about whether graduates were using skills obtained in training, though information collected by the national funding agency suggests a minority (<30%) of doctoral-level trainees moving on to academic careers., Conclusions: Significant investments have been made to increase HSPR capacity in Canada and around the world but no systematic attempts to evaluate the impact of these investments have been made. As a research community, we have the expertise and responsibility to evaluate our health research human resources and should strive to build a stronger knowledge base to inform future investment in HSPR research capacity.

Small-area analyses are increasingly valuable for health-policy planning given the observed regional variation in health care. The combination of data from different sources enables researchers to describe and analyze structural, procedural, and outcome-related variation in health care. For variation that cannot be explained by these data, the attitudes, behaviors, and preferences of important stakeholders in health care-physicians and patients-might play an explanatory role. In this paper, we outline why stakeholder preference elicitation appears to be an important addition to small-area health-care analyses. Its inclusion in various decision-making contexts may help to explain and decrease unwarranted variation in health care. At the individual level, this could happen within any decision on health service use that is taken by physicians, patients, or-within a shared decision-making context-by both. At an aggregate level, the elicitation of preferences in guideline or health program development may increase stakeholder acceptance and consistent implementation. Different approaches to the elicitation of stakeholder preferences and potential areas for application within small-area research are outlined. The role of attitudes and preferences in explaining regional variation should be acknowledged by health-care policy makers and initiatives to include these in health-care decision-making at various levels should be supported.

The World Health Report 2013 provides a major boost to the health research community and, in particular, to those who believe that health research will make its greatest impact on improving health when it is organised through a systems approach. The World Health Report 2013, Research for Universal Health Coverage, starts with three key messages. Firstly, that universal health coverage, with full access to high-quality services, needs research evidence if it is to be achieved; second, all nations should conduct and use research; and finally, the report states that systems are needed to develop national research agendas, to raise funds, to strengthen research capacity, and to make effective use of research findings. Each of these themes is elaborated in the report and supported by extensive references.In this editorial, we first outline the key messages from the World Health Report 2013 and highlight the contributions made by papers from our journal, Health Research Policy and Systems. In addition, we discuss very recent papers that advance some issues even further. In particular, we consider new evidence both on how to achieve financial protection for those who use health services, and on whether healthcare professionals and organisations who engage in research provide an improved healthcare performance. Finally, we propose additional perspectives that add to the impressive body of evidence and analyses presented in the report. Specifically, we suggest that considering the needs of various stakeholders, as attempted in the UK, in parallel with analysing how to fulfil essential functions, should boost the prospects of successfully building and strengthening health research systems. This is important because research is vital for achieving universal health coverage, and consequently for improving the health of millions of people.

A frustration often expressed by researchers and policy-makers in public health is an apparent mismatch between respective priorities and expectations for research. Academics bemoan an oversimplification of their work, a reticence for independent critique and the constant pressure to pursue evaluation funding. Meanwhile, policy-makers look for research reports written in plain language with clear application, which are attuned to current policy settings and produced quickly. In a context where there are calls in western nations for evidence based policy with stronger links to academic research, such a mismatch can present significant challenges to policy program evaluation. The purpose of this paper is to present one attempt to overcome these challenges. Specifically, the paper describes the development of a conceptual framework for a large-scale, multifaceted evaluation of an Australian Government health initiative to expand Nurse Practitioner models of practice in aged care service delivery. In doing so, the paper provides a brief review of key points for the facilitation of a strong research-policy nexus in public health evaluations, as well as describes how this particular evaluation embodies these key points. As such, the paper presents an evaluation approach which may be adopted and adapted by others undertaking public health policy program evaluations., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Attention is increasingly directed to bridging the gap between the production of knowledge and its use for health decision-making in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). An important and underdeveloped area of health policy and systems research (HPSR) is the organization of this process. Drawing from an interdisciplinary conception of embeddedness, a literature review was conducted to identify examples of embedded HPSR used to inform decision-making in LMICs. The results of the literature review were organized according to the World Health Organization's Building Blocks Framework. Next, a conceptual model was created to illustrate the arrangement of organizations that produce embedded HPSR and the characteristics that facilitate its uptake into the arena of decision-making. We found that multiple forces converge to create context-specific pathways through which evidence enters into decision-making. Depending on the decision under consideration, the literature indicates that decision-makers may call upon an intricate combination of actors for sourcing HPSR. While proximity to decision-making does have advantages, it is not the position of the organization within the network, but rather the qualities the organization possesses, that enable it to be embedded. Our findings suggest that four qualities influence embeddedness: reputation, capacity, quality of connections to decision-makers, and quantity of connections to decision-makers and others. In addition to this, the policy environment (e.g. the presence of legislation governing the use of HPSR, presence of strong civil society, etc.) strongly influences uptake. Through this conceptual model, we can understand which conditions are likely to enhance uptake of HPSR in LMIC health systems. This raises several important considerations for decision-makers and researchers about the arrangement and interaction of evidence-generating organizations in health systems.

Canada shares many similarities with other industrialized countries around the world, including a rapidly aging population. What sets Canada uniquely apart is the collaborative approach that has been enacted in the health care system and the aging research initiatives. Canada has tremendous pride in its publicly funded health care system that guarantees universal coverage for health care services on the basis of need, rather than ability to pay. It is also distinguished as a multicultural society that is officially bilingual. Aging research has developed rapidly over the past decade. In particular, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging is one of the most comprehensive research platforms of its kind and is expected to change the landscape of aging research.

Background: European Union strategies and programmes identify research and innovation as a critical dimension for future economic and social development. While European research policy emphasizes support for industry, the health field includes not-for-profit civil society organisations (CSOs) providing social innovation. Yet, the perspectives of CSOs towards health research in Europe are not well understood., Methods: STEPS (Strengthening Engagement in Public Health Research) was funded by the European Commission's Science in Society research programme. Within the study, we interviewed by telephone respondents of 13 European health CSOs, which represented collectively local and national organizations., Results: Research was valued positively by the respondents. Health CSOs did not seek to do research themselves, but recognized the opportunity of funds in this field and welcomed the possibility of collaborating in research, of using the results from research and of providing input to research agendas. Links between research and users provides knowledge for the public and improves impacts on policy. Research and evaluation can help in demonstrating the benefit of innovative activities, and give support and legitimacy. However, the cultures of, and incentives for, researchers and health CSOs are different, and collaboration requires building trust, a shared language and for the power relations and objectives to match., Conclusions: Health CSOs contribute social innovation in organising services and activities such as advocacy that cannot be satisfactorily met by industry. Engaging CSOs in research and innovation will strengthen the European Research Area.