Search

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether adding a training intervention for clinic staff to the usual DOTS strategy (the internationally recommended control strategy for tuberculosis (TB)) would affect the outcomes of TB treatment in primary care clinics with treatment success rates below 70%. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted from July 1996 to July 2000 in nurse-managed ambulatory primary care clinics in Cape Town, South Africa. Clinics with successful TB treatment completion rates of less than 70% and annual adult pulmonary TB loads of more than 40 patients per year were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n = 12) or control (n = 12) groups. All clinics completed follow-up. Treatment outcomes were measured in cohorts of adult, pulmonary TB patients before the intervention (n = 1200) and 9 months following the training (n = 1177). The intervention comprised an 18-hour experiential, participatory in-service training programme for clinic staff delivered by nurse facilitators and focusing on patient centredness, critical reflection on practice, and quality improvement. The main outcome measure was successful treatment, defined as patients who were cured and those who had completed tuberculosis treatment. FINDINGS: The estimated effect of the intervention was an increase in successful treatment rates of 4.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): -5.5% to 15.2%) and in bacteriological cure rates of 10.4% (CI: -1.2% to 22%). A treatment effect of 10% was envisaged, based on the views of policy-makers on the minimum effect size for large-scale implementation. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence from a randomized controlled trial on the effects of experiential, participatory training on TB outcomes in primary care facilities in a developing country. Such training did not appear to improve TB outcomes. However, the results were inconclusive and further studies are required.

A considerable proportion of quantitative research remains unpublished once completed. Little research has documented non‐dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. This study aimed to generate evidence on the extent of non‐dissemination in qualitative research. We followed a cohort of qualitative studies presented as conference abstracts to ascertain their subsequent publication status. We searched for subsequent full publication in MEDLINE, in the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature and in Google Scholar. We matched abstracts to subsequent publications according to authors, method of data collection and phenomenon of interest. Fisher's exact test was calculated to examine associations between study characteristics and publication. Factors potentially associated with time to publication were evaluated with Cox regression analysis. For 91 of 270 included abstracts (33.70%; 95% CI 28.09%–39.68%), no full publication was identified. Factors that were found to be associated with subsequent full publication were oral presentation (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.43–8.94) and university affiliation (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.05–3.66). Compared to oral presentations, studies presented as posters took longer time to reach full publication (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.21–0.58). This study shows that it was not possible to retrieve a full publication for over one‐third of abstracts. Our findings suggest that where this non‐dissemination is systematic, it may lead to distortions of the qualitative evidence‐base for decision‐making through dissemination bias. Our findings are congruent with those of other studies. Further research might investigate non‐dissemination of qualitative studies in other disciplines to consolidate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background Tuberculosis (T13) is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and has received considerable attention in recent years, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where it [...]

South Africa is experiencing one of the largest HIV/AIDS epidemics in the world. A national, publicly funded anti-retroviral therapy (ART) programme has recently been launched. This paper describes the findings from a qualitative study of the views of health-care professionals, especially nurses, regarding the ART roll-out in the Free State province of South Africa, where nurses are responsible for most of the care delivered to AIDS patients. The study highlights the hope provided by the new programme and the motivation it has engendered among nurses. Apart from long waiting lists for ART, these professionals saw the main programme challenge as the integration of a holistic model of patient-centred care, inclusive of psycho-social support, into an under-resourced primary health-care system. By comparison, neither the increasing clinical responsibilities borne by nurses, nor the ability of patients to adhere to ART, were seen as key problems. This study suggests that the ART programme has mobilised health workers to assume responsibility for providing high-quality care in an under-resourced setting. Keywords: South Africa: Anti-retroviral therapy; HIV/AIDS: Patient-centred primary care; Nurses

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. The term monitoring is commonly used to describe the process of systematically collecting data to inform policymakers, managers and other stakeholders whether a new policy or programme is being implemented in accordance with their expectations. Indicators are used for monitoring purposes to judge, for example, if objectives are being achieved, or if allocated funds are being spent appropriately. Sometimes the term evaluation is used interchangeably with the term monitoring, but the former usually suggests a stronger focus on the achievement of results. When the term impact evaluation is used, this usually implies that there is a specific attempt to try to determine whether the observed changes in outcomes can be attributed to a particular policy or programme. In this article, we suggest four questions that can be used to guide the monitoring and evaluation of policy or programme options. These are: 1. Is monitoring necessary? 2. What should be measured? 3. Should an impact evaluation be conducted? 4. How should the impact evaluation be done?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy dialogues allow research evidence to be considered together with the views, experiences and tacit knowledge of those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions about a high-priority issue. Increasing interest in the use of policy dialogues has been fuelled by a number of factors: 1. The recognition of the need for locally contextualised 'decision support' for policymakers and other stakeholders 2. The recognition that research evidence is only one input into the decision-making processes of policymakers and other stakeholders 3. The recognition that many stakeholders can add significant value to these processes, and 4. The recognition that many stakeholders can take action to address high-priority issues, and not just policymakers. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the dialogue address a high-priority issue? 2. Does the dialogue provide opportunities to discuss the problem, options to address the problem, and key implementation considerations? 3. Is the dialogue informed by a pre-circulated policy brief and by a discussion about the full range of factors that can influence the policymaking process? 4. Does the dialogue ensure fair representation among those who will be involved in, or affected by, future decisions related to the issue? 5. Does the dialogue engage a facilitator, follow a rule about not attributing comments to individuals, and not aim for consensus? 6. Are outputs produced and follow-up activities undertaken to support action?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we address strategies to inform and engage the public in policy development and implementation. The importance of engaging the public (both patients and citizens) at all levels of health systems is widely recognised. They are the ultimate recipients of the desirable and undesirable impacts of public policies, and many governments and organisations have acknowledged the value of engaging them in evidence-informed policy development. The potential benefits of doing this include the establishment of policies that include their ideas and address their concerns, the improved implementation of policies, improved health services, and better health. Public engagement can also be viewed as a goal in itself by encouraging participative democracy, public accountability and transparency. We suggest three questions that can be considered with regard to public participation strategies. These are: 1. What strategies can be used when working with the mass media to inform the public about policy development and implementation? 2. What strategies can be used when working with civil society groups to inform and engage them in policy development and implementation? 3. What methods can be used to involve consumers in policy development and implementation?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers and those supporting them often find themselves in situations that spur them on to work out how best to define a problem. These situations may range from being asked an awkward or challenging question in the legislature, through to finding a problem highlighted on the front page of a newspaper. The motivations for policymakers wanting to clarify a problem are diverse. These may range from deciding whether to pay serious attention to a particular problem that others claim is important, through to wondering how to convince others to agree that a problem is important. Debates and struggles over how to define a problem are a critically important part of the policymaking process. The outcome of these debates and struggles will influence whether and, in part, how policymakers take action to address a problem. Efforts at problem clarification that are informed by an appreciation of concurrent developments are more likely to generate actions. These concurrent developments can relate to policy and programme options (e.g. the publication of a report demonstrating the effectiveness of a particular option) or to political events (e.g. the appointment of a new Minister of Health with a personal interest in a particular issue). In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying a problem and characterising its features. These are: 1. What is the problem? 2. How did the problem come to attention and has this process influenced the prospect of it being addressed? 3. What indicators can be used, or collected, to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 4. What comparisons can be made to establish the magnitude of the problem and to measure progress in addressing it? 5. How can the problem be framed (or described) in a way that will motivate different groups?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policymakers and those supporting them may find themselves in one or more of the following three situations that will require them to characterise the costs and consequences of options to address a problem. These are: 1. A decision has already been taken and their role is to maximise the benefits of an option, minimise its harms, optimise the impacts achieved for the money spent, and (if there is substantial uncertainty about the likely costs and consequences of the option) to design a monitoring and evaluation plan, 2. A policymaking process is already underway and their role is to assess the options presented to them, or 3. A policymaking process has not yet begun and their role is therefore to identify options, characterise the costs and consequences of these options, and look for windows of opportunity in which to act. In situations like these, research evidence, particularly about benefits, harms, and costs, can help to inform whether an option can be considered viable. In this article, we suggest six questions that can be used to guide those involved in identifying policy and programme options to address a high-priority problem, and to characterise the costs and consequences of these options. These are: 1. Has an appropriate set of options been identified to address a problem? 2. What benefits are important to those who will be affected and which benefits are likely to be achieved with each option? 3. What harms are important to those who will be affected and which harms are likely to arise with each option? 4. What are the local costs of each option and is there local evidence about their cost-effectiveness? 5. What adaptations might be made to any given option and could they alter its benefits, harms and costs? 6. Which stakeholder views and experiences might influence an option's acceptability and its benefits, harms, and costs?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we address considerations about resource use and costs. The consequences of a policy or programme option for resource use differ from other impacts (both in terms of benefits and harms) in several ways. However, considerations of the consequences of options for resource use are similar to considerations related to other impacts in that policymakers and their staff need to identify important impacts on resource use, acquire and appraise the best available evidence regarding those impacts, and ensure that appropriate monetary values have been applied. We suggest four questions that can be considered when assessing resource use and the cost consequences of an option. These are: 1. What are the most important impacts on resource use? 2. What evidence is there for important impacts on resource use? 3. How confident is it possible to be in the evidence for impacts on resource use? 4. Have the impacts on resource use been valued appropriately in terms of their true costs?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Differences between health systems may often result in a policy or programme option that is used in one setting not being feasible or acceptable in another. Or these differences may result in an option not working in the same way in another setting, or even achieving different impacts in another setting. A key challenge that policymakers and those supporting them must face is therefore the need to understand whether research evidence about an option can be applied to their setting. Systematic reviews make this task easier by summarising the evidence from studies conducted in a variety of different settings. Many systematic reviews, however, do not provide adequate descriptions of the features of the actual settings in which the original studies were conducted. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review to a specific setting. These are: 1. Were the studies included in a systematic review conducted in the same setting or were the findings consistent across settings or time periods? 2. Are there important differences in on-the-ground realities and constraints that might substantially alter the feasibility and acceptability of an option? 3. Are there important differences in health system arrangements that may mean an option could not work in the same way? 4. Are there important differences in the baseline conditions that might yield different absolute effects even if the relative effectiveness was the same? 5. What insights can be drawn about options, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? Even if there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the impacts of an option might differ in a specific setting, insights can almost always be drawn from a systematic review about possible options, as well as approaches to the implementation of options and to monitoring and evaluation.

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. After a policy decision has been made, the next key challenge is transforming this stated policy position into practical actions. What strategies, for instance, are available to facilitate effective implementation, and what is known about the effectiveness of such strategies? We suggest five questions that can be considered by policymakers when implementing a health policy or programme. These are: 1. What are the potential barriers to the successful implementation of a new policy? 2. What strategies should be considered in planning the implementation of a new policy in order to facilitate the necessary behavioural changes among healthcare recipients and citizens? 3. What strategies should be considered in planning the implementation of a new policy in order to facilitate the necessary behavioural changes in healthcare professionals? 4. What strategies should be considered in planning the implementation of a new policy in order to facilitate the necessary organisational changes? 5. What strategies should be considered in planning the implementation of a new policy in order to facilitate the necessary systems changes?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we address ways of organising efforts to support evidence-informed health policymaking. Efforts to link research to action may include a range of activities related to the production of research that is both highly relevant to – and appropriately synthesised for – policymakers. Such activities may include a mix of efforts used to link research to action, as well as the evaluation of such efforts. Little is known about how best to organise the range of activity options available and, until recently, there have been relatively few organisations responsible for supporting the use of research evidence in developing health policy. We suggest five questions that can help guide considerations of how to improve organisational arrangements to support the use of research evidence to inform health policy decision making. These are: 1. What is the capacity of your organisation to use research evidence to inform decision making? 2. What strategies should be used to ensure collaboration between policymakers, researchers and stakeholders? 3. What strategies should be used to ensure independence as well as the effective management of conflicts of interest? 4. What strategies should be used to ensure the use of systematic and transparent methods for accessing, appraising and using research evidence? 5. What strategies should be used to ensure adequate capacity to employ these methods?

Abstract This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found?