Search

Introduction Methods Results Conclusions Learning sites have supported intervention development and testing in health care, but studies reflecting on lessons relating to their deployment for health policy and system research (HPSR) in low‐ and middle‐income settings are limited.This experience report draws from learning over three continents and five research and community engagement programs—the oldest starting in 2010—to reflect on the challenges and benefits of doing embedded HPSR in learning sites, and how those have been managed. Its objective is to generate better understanding of their potential and constraints. The report draws from team members' experiential insights and program publications.Challenges relating to initial engagement in the sites included building and maintaining trust, managing partner expectations, and negotiating priority topics and stakeholders. Once the embedded research was underway, sustaining engagement, and managing power dynamics within the group, supporting all participants in developing new skills and managing rapidly changing settings were important. Finally, the complexity of reflecting on action and assessing impact are outlined, along with potential approaches to managing all of these challenges and the variety of gains that have been noted across the programs.We highlight the potential of learning sites to develop relationships, capacities, and local innovations which can strengthen health systems in the long term and some lessons in relation to how to do that, including the importance of stable, long‐term funding as well as developing and recognizing facilitation skills among researchers. Supporting spaces for learning is particularly important when health systems face resource constraints and everyday or acute stressors and shocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract Background The freelance economy has seen rapid growth worldwide in recent years and the Philippines is not an exception. Freelance workers are becoming increasingly common in healthcare and research. Early career researchers carry out most of scientific research and can play a critical role in advancing public health by bringing new perspectives and diversity to the field. Existing literature has mostly focused on the experiences of early career researchers in an institutional academic setting. This study aimed to understand the experiences of freelance early career researchers in the health policy and systems space in the Philippines. Methods This qualitative study collected data from 18 to 22 March 2022 through virtual interview and focus group discussions. Themes and codes were created based on the topic guide developed. New themes and codes were generated as they emerged. Two researchers coded the data using both a priori and emergent codes. Any coding conflicts were resolved through discussions until intercoder agreement was reached. Interpretation and conclusions from the data were developed by 2 researchers with consideration for its context and relationship between themes. Results Fifteen current and former freelance researchers participated in the study. Most are female, under 35 years old, and with an undergraduate degree as the highest educational attainment. The findings highlight insights and challenges faced by early career researchers in aspects of: (1) work arrangement, (2) tasks, (3) expectations from senior researchers, (4) development in the health policy and systems field, (5) relationship with peers, and (6) motivations for continuing to work as a freelance health policy and systems researcher. Conclusion This study reveals the challenges freelance early career researchers face, highlighting the need for enhanced support and recognition amidst rapidly evolving workforce demands and complex health dilemmas. Recommendations include structured mentorship, professional development, innovative funding models, and the establishment of a supportive network. Advocacy for policies ensuring freelancer inclusion in the economy and policy-making is crucial. Future research should investigate their experiences further, including their roles, transitions, and the impacts of funding trends, to foster their development and integration into public health research and policy.

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

Background: The freelance economy has seen rapid growth worldwide in recent years and the Philippines is not an exception. Freelance workers are becoming increasingly common in healthcare and research. Early career researchers carry out most of scientific research and can play a critical role in advancing public health by bringing new perspectives and diversity to the field. Existing literature has mostly focused on the experiences of early career researchers in an institutional academic setting. This study aimed to understand the experiences of freelance early career researchers in the health policy and systems space in the Philippines. Methods: This qualitative study collected data from 18 to 22 March 2022 through virtual interview and focus group discussions. Themes and codes were created based on the topic guide developed. New themes and codes were generated as they emerged. Two researchers coded the data using both a priori and emergent codes. Any coding conflicts were resolved through discussions until intercoder agreement was reached. Interpretation and conclusions from the data were developed by 2 researchers with consideration for its context and relationship between themes. Results: Fifteen current and former freelance researchers participated in the study. Most are female, under 35 years old, and with an undergraduate degree as the highest educational attainment. The findings highlight insights and challenges faced by early career researchers in aspects of: (1) work arrangement, (2) tasks, (3) expectations from senior researchers, (4) development in the health policy and systems field, (5) relationship with peers, and (6) motivations for continuing to work as a freelance health policy and systems researcher. Conclusion: This study reveals the challenges freelance early career researchers face, highlighting the need for enhanced support and recognition amidst rapidly evolving workforce demands and complex health dilemmas. Recommendations include structured mentorship, professional development, innovative funding models, and the establishment of a supportive network. Advocacy for policies ensuring freelancer inclusion in the economy and policy-making is crucial. Future research should investigate their experiences further, including their roles, transitions, and the impacts of funding trends, to foster their development and integration into public health research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Abstract Background The HEARTS technical package was developed by the World Health Organization to address the implementation gap in cardiovascular disease prevention in low- and middle-income countries. Guatemala is a middle-income country that is currently implementing HEARTS. National authorities in Guatemala are interested in exploring how hypertension and diabetes management can be integrated in HEARTS implementation. The objective of this study is to conduct a feasibility and acceptability pilot trial of integrated hypertension and diabetes management based on HEARTS in the publicly funded primary care system in Guatemala. Methods A single-arm pilot trial for 6 months will be carried out in 11 Ministry of Health primary care facilities starting in September 2023. A planned sample of 100 adult patients diagnosed with diabetes (n = 45), hypertension (n = 45), or both (n = 10) will be enrolled. The intervention will consist of HEARTS-aligned components: Training health workers on healthy-lifestyle counseling and evidence-based treatment protocols, strengthening access to medications and diagnostics, training on risk-based cardiovascular disease management, team-based care and task sharing, and systems monitoring and feedback, including implementation of a facility-based electronic monitoring tool at the individual level. Co-primary outcomes of feasibility and acceptability will be assessed using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Secondary outcomes include clinical effectiveness (treatment with medication, glycemic control, and blood pressure control), key implementation outcomes (adoption, fidelity, usability, and sustainability), and patient-reported outcome measures (diabetes distress, disability, and treatment burden). Using an implementation mapping approach, a Technical Advisory Committee will develop implementation strategies for subsequent scale-up planning. Discussion This trial will produce evidence on implementing HEARTS-aligned hypertension and diabetes care in the MOH primary care system in Guatemala. Results also will inform future HEARTS projects in Guatemala and other low- and middle-income countries. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT06080451. The trial was prospectively registered on October 12, 2023.

Abstract Background Participatory policy analysis (PPA) as a method in health policy and system research remains underexplored. Using our experiences of conducting PPA workshops in Nepal to explore the impact of the country’s move to federalism on its health system, we reflect on the method’s strengths and challenges. We provide an account of the study context, the design and implementation of the workshops, and our reflections on the approach’s strengths and challenges. Findings on the impact of federalism on the health system are beyond the scope of this manuscript. Main body We conducted PPA workshops with a wide range of health system stakeholders (political, administrative and service-level workforce) at the local and provincial levels in Nepal. The workshops consisted of three activities: river of life, brainstorming and prioritization, and problem-tree analysis. Our experiences show that PPA workshops can be a valuable approach to explore health policy and system issues – especially in a context of widespread systemic change which impacts all stakeholders within the health system. Effective engagement of stakeholders and activities that encourage both individual- and system-level reflections and discussions not only help in generating rich qualitative data, but can also address gaps in participants’ understanding of practical, technical and political aspects of the health system, aid policy dissemination of research findings, and assist in identifying short- and long-term practice and policy issues that need to be addressed for better health system performance and outcomes. Conducting PPA workshops is, however, challenging for a number of reasons, including the influence of gatekeepers and power dynamics between stakeholders/participants. The role and skills of researchers/facilitators in navigating such challenges are vital for success. Although the long-term impact of such workshops needs further research, our study shows the usefulness of PPA workshops for researchers, for participants and for the wider health system. Conclusions PPA workshops can effectively generate and synthesize health policy and system evidence through collaborative engagement of health system stakeholders with varied roles. When designed with careful consideration for context and stakeholders’ needs, it has great potential as a method in health policy and systems research.

Abstract Background Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has influenced Philippine policies, including tobacco control, mental health, and COVID-19. The Department of Health (DOH) Philippines and Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD) launched the Advancing Health through Evidence-Assisted Decisions (AHEAD) with HPSR program in 2017, aiming to build a community of researchers and decision-makers committed to evidence production and utilization. Research systems employ grant management processes for transparency and accountability in research funding, preventing waste, fraud, and misuse of funds. Methods This study evaluated AHEAD-HPSR's grant management using surveys, interviews, and focus groups to document (1) grant administration processes implemented by DOH and PCHRD, and (2) experiences of grantees, program managers, staff, and policymakers. Data were initially analyzed through the USA Grant Accountability Office’s Federal Grant Life Cycle, with new themes created as they emerged. The study identified processes and gaps in the research grant life cycle stages: design/redesign, pre-award, award, implementation, closeout, and research dissemination and utilization. Results Identification of research areas for the grant are identified using national and departmental research priorities. While Calls for Proposals are posted publicly, researchers that have previously worked with policymakers are contacted directly to submit proposals. The evaluation found that research is delayed by bureaucracies in grant administration, particularly in financial reporting and ethics review processes. Complying with the terminal financial report was identified as the most challenging part of the grant process due to immense auditing requirements. Grantees recommend the simplification of bureaucracy for fund release to enable them to focus on research work. Conclusion This study contributes to the limited literature on health research grant management in developing countries. Valuable information and recommendations were contributed by stakeholders in this evaluation. These are manifestations of a continuing interest and desire to make health policy and systems research in the Philippines more robust and relevant. It is imperative for the program to continually evolve and build systems most applicable to its multidisciplinary context.

Background: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has influenced Philippine policies, including tobacco control, mental health, and COVID-19. The Department of Health (DOH) Philippines and Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD) launched the Advancing Health through Evidence-Assisted Decisions (AHEAD) with HPSR program in 2017, aiming to build a community of researchers and decision-makers committed to evidence production and utilization. Research systems employ grant management processes for transparency and accountability in research funding, preventing waste, fraud, and misuse of funds. Methods: This study evaluated AHEAD-HPSR's grant management using surveys, interviews, and focus groups to document (1) grant administration processes implemented by DOH and PCHRD, and (2) experiences of grantees, program managers, staff, and policymakers. Data were initially analyzed through the USA Grant Accountability Office's Federal Grant Life Cycle, with new themes created as they emerged. The study identified processes and gaps in the research grant life cycle stages: design/redesign, pre-award, award, implementation, closeout, and research dissemination and utilization. Results: Identification of research areas for the grant are identified using national and departmental research priorities. While Calls for Proposals are posted publicly, researchers that have previously worked with policymakers are contacted directly to submit proposals. The evaluation found that research is delayed by bureaucracies in grant administration, particularly in financial reporting and ethics review processes. Complying with the terminal financial report was identified as the most challenging part of the grant process due to immense auditing requirements. Grantees recommend the simplification of bureaucracy for fund release to enable them to focus on research work. Conclusion: This study contributes to the limited literature on health research grant management in developing countries. Valuable information and recommendations were contributed by stakeholders in this evaluation. These are manifestations of a continuing interest and desire to make health policy and systems research in the Philippines more robust and relevant. It is imperative for the program to continually evolve and build systems most applicable to its multidisciplinary context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hospital congestion, delayed discharge, and bypassing primary care facilities are challenges facing the Iranian health‐care sector. We conducted a case study at the Sheikh al‐Rais Specialty Clinic, Tabriz, Iran, to find plausible, practical policy options for designing and implementing a referral system to reduce and regulate referral volumes to this clinic. We first reviewed the evidence on existing options of hospital congestion and unnecessary referral reduction by conducting a scoping literature review and then supplemented the findings with 18 semistructured interviews. We examined the perspectives of service users and experts in the field. Six practical policy options were identified: institutionalization of the referral system and family physician program, reinforcing gatekeeping system, use of telemedicine, utilization of educational algorithms, implementation of electronic health records, and establishing specialized clinics in different city areas. Local context adaptation, ensuring the availability of resources, political support, and feasibility are critical factors for successful policy implementation. Key points: Improving documentation using electronic health records, integrating electronic ‎health records with referral systems, controlling and reducing the demand for unnecessary ‎referrals through screening mechanisms, and the ability to refer patients to the most appropriate ‎level of referral are crucial.The workload in (sub‐) specialized university clinics can be reduced by ‎implementing the proposed policy options.Establishing an electronic health record system is pivotal in providing advanced and qualified health‐care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Rapid reviews have emerged as an approach to provide contextualized evidence in a timely and efficient manner. Three rapid review centers were established in Ethiopia, Lebanon, and South Africa through the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, to stimulate demand, engage policymakers, and produce rapid reviews to support health policy and systems decision-making. This study aimed to assess the experiences of researchers and policymakers engaged in producing and using rapid reviews for health systems strengthening and decisions towards universal health coverage (UHC). Methods Using a case study approach with qualitative research methods, experienced researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with respondents from each center (n = 16). The topics covered included the process and experience of establishing the centers, stimulating demand for rapid reviews, collaborating between researchers and policymakers, and disseminating and using rapid reviews for health policies and interventions and the potential for sustaining and institutionalizing the services. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Major themes interacted and contributed to shape the experiences of stakeholders of the rapid review centers, including the following: organizational structural arrangements of the centers, management of their processes as input factors, and the rapid reviews as the immediate policy-relevant outputs. The engagement process and the rapid review products contributed to a final theme of impact of the rapid review centers in relation to the uptake of evidence for policy and systems decision-making. Conclusions The experiences of policymakers and researchers of the rapid review centers determined the uptake of evidence. The findings of this study can inform policymakers, health system managers, and researchers on best practices for demanding, developing and using rapid reviews to support decision- and policymaking, and implementing the universal healthcare coverage agenda.

Introduction: The primary health care (PHC) approach is widely acknowledged as a fundamental element in achieving universal health coverage (UHC) goals. Consequently, numerous countries have undertaken efforts to restructure their health systems based on PHC principles. This study aims to evaluate geographic disparities in essential maternal and child indicators provided at the PHC level, focusing on both crude and effective coverage. Additionally, it seeks to explore the association between effective coverage and health expenditures within the national and sub-national contexts of Iran. Methods: This research employed a secondary analysis approach to investigate the spatial distribution of maternal and child health (MCH) indicators in Iran's provinces, utilizing the latest available data from the 2010 Demographic Health Survey (DHS). To provide a comprehensive understanding of MCH indicators, the study calculated composite indicators, crude, and effective coverage. The provinces' situations were compared using the median cut-off method. Additionally, the study examined the association between coverage indicators and total health expenditure per-capita. Results: At the national level, the crude and the effective composite coverage were 89.56% and 77.22%, respectively. Also, the medians of composite crude and effective service coverage in the provinces were 90.25% and 77.62%, respectively. There was no significant difference between urban and rural areas. Conclusion: This study has revealed a notable difference between the crude and effective service coverage of the selected MCH indicators. While the coverage of maternal services was generally higher than that of child services, there were significant geographic disparities in the coverage of key indicators of MCH services across provinces. Despite the provision of free services in rural areas, their coverage was not higher than that of urban areas. These findings suggest that PHC services in Iran are still far from achieving the desired coverage and UHC goals. Policymakers and stakeholders need to focus on addressing the gaps in effective coverage and geographic disparities to improve access to essential maternal and child health services and achieve UHC in Iran.

Health system reforms across Africa, Asia and Latin America in recent decades demonstrate the value of health policy and systems research (HPSR) in moving towards the goals of universal health coverage in different circumstances and by various means. The role of evidence in policy making is widely accepted; less well understood is the influence of the concrete conditions under which HPSR is carried out within the national context and which often determine policy outcomes. We investigated the varied experiences of HPSR in Mexico, Cambodia and Ghana (each selected purposively as a strong example reflecting important lessons under varying conditions) to illustrate the ways in which HPSR is used to influence health policy. We reviewed the academic and grey literature and policy documents, constructed three country case studies and interviewed two leading experts from each of Mexico and Cambodia and three from Ghana (using semi-structured interviews, anonymized to ensure objectivity). For the design of the study, design of the semi-structured topic guide and the analysis of results, we used a modified version of the context-based analytical framework developed by Dobrow et al. (Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Social Science & Medicine 2004; 58 :207–17). The results demonstrate that HPSR plays a varied but essential role in effective health policy making and that the use, implementation and outcomes of research and research-based evidence occurs inevitably within a national context that is characterized by political circumstances, the infrastructure and capacity for research and the longer-term experience with HPSR processes. This analysis of national experiences demonstrates that embedding HPSR in the policy process is both possible and productive under varying economic and political circumstances. Supporting research structures with social development legislation, establishing relationships based on trust between researchers and policy makers and building a strong domestic capacity for health systems research all demonstrate means by which the value of HPSR can be materialized in strengthening health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background To achieve efficiency and high quality in health systems, the appropriate use of hospital services is essential. We identified the initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population. Methods We systematically reviewed studies published in English using five databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE via Ovid). We only included studies that evaluated interventions aiming to reduce the use of hospital services or emergency department, frequency of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, or the use of diagnostic tests in a general adult population. Studies reporting no relevant outcomes or focusing on a specific patient population or children were excluded. Results In total, 64 articles were included in the systematic review. Nine utilisation management methods were identified: care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. Primary case management was shown to effectively reduce emergency department use. Care coordination reduced 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. The pre-admission review program decreased elective admissions. The physician profiling, concurrent review, and discharge planning effectively reduced the length of hospital stay. Twenty three studies that evaluated costs, reported cost savings in the hospitals. Conclusions Utilisation management interventions can decrease hospital use by improving the use of community-based health services and improving the quality of care by providing appropriate care at the right time and at the right level of care.

Abstract Background To achieve global health targets, innovative approaches are needed to strengthen the implementation of efficacious interventions. New approaches in implementation research that bring together health system decision-makers alongside researchers to collaboratively design, produce and apply research evidence are gaining traction. Embedded implementation research (EIR) approaches led by decision-maker principal investigators (DM PIs) appear promising in this regard. Our aim is to describe the strategies study teams employ in the post-research phase of EIR to promote evidence-informed programme or policy improvement. Methods We conducted a prospective, comparative case study of an EIR initiative in Bolivia, Colombia and Dominican Republic. Guided by a conceptual framework on EIR, we used semi-structured key informant interviews (n = 51) and document reviews (n = 20) to examine three decision-maker-led study teams (“cases”). Focusing on three processes (communication/dissemination, stakeholder engagement with evidence, integrating evidence in decision-making) and the main outcome (enacting improvements), we used thematic analysis to identify associated strategies and enabling or hindering factors. Results Across cases, we observed diverse strategies, shaped substantially by whether the DM PI was positioned to lead the response to study findings within their sphere of work. We found two primary change pathways: (1) DM PIs implement remedial measures directly, and (2) DM PIs seek to influence other stakeholders to respond to study findings. Throughout the post-research phase, EIR teams adapted research use strategies based on the evolving context. Conclusions EIR led by well-positioned DM PIs can facilitate impactful research translation efforts. We draw lessons around the importance of (1) understanding DM PI positionality, (2) ongoing assessment of the evolving context and stakeholders and (3) iterative adaptation to dynamic, uncertain circumstances. Findings may guide EIR practitioners in planning and conducting fit-for-purpose and context-sensitive strategies to advance the use of evidence for programme improvement.

The current global economic and biomedical perspectives contribute content, strategy, and values to global health systems, like objectification and competition, which encourage the medicalisation of the system. Medicalisation overlooks our interdependence with other beings, the environment and biosphere. In contrast, ancient health traditions like Ayurveda, derived from Asian cultures, provide knowledge of the human being's composition of five basic states of nature that need to remain in constant equilibrium to ensure health (Svasthya). Asian health traditions encourage values like vulnerability and respect to facilitate an inherent relationship with the internal and external environment. The recent pandemic has revealed the fragile vulnerability in this nexus and the consequences to human health and well-being when that equilibrium is disturbed. Serious deliberations and discussions are needed between the modern economic and the Asian frameworks for healthcare which result in two different approaches to health and to health systems. This debate may encourage the creation of a philosophy and structure for a new global pluralistic health system more aligned to nature. These deliberations need to encourage the discussion of Svasthya (health), Soukhya (sustainable happiness), and the inner and outer ecological landscapes experienced by human beings that can be understood through mindful self-awareness. Global health systems need to evolve in the direction of a different, pluralistic philosophy of health that encourages a ‘population's self-reliance in health’ through an intimate and integrated connection with nature.

Bringing evidence into policy and practice discussions is political; more so when evidence from health studies or programme data are deemed controversial or unexpected, or when results are manipulated and misrepresented. Furthermore, opinion and misinformation in recent years has challenged our notions about how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM). Health policy and systems (HPS) researchers and practitioners are battling misrepresentation that only serves to detract from important health issues or, worse, benefit powerful interests. This paper describes cases of politically and socially controversial evidence presented by researchers, practitioners and journalists during the Health Systems Research Symposium 2020. These cases cut across global contexts and range from public debates on vaccination, comprehensive sexual education, and tobacco to more inward debates around performance-based financing and EIDM in refugee policy. The consequences of engaging in controversial research include threats to commercial profit, perceived assaults on moral beliefs, censorship, fear of reprisal, and infodemics. Consequences for public health include research(er) hesitancy, contribution to corruption and leakage, researcher reflexivity, and ethical concerns within the HPS research and EIDM fields. Recommendations for supporting researchers, practitioners and advocates include better training and support structures for responding to controversy, safe spaces for sharing experiences, and modifying incentive structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organization HEARTS Technical Package is a widely implemented global initiative to improve the primary care management of cardiovascular disease risk factors. The study's objective is to report outcomes from a pilot implementation trial of integrated hypertension and diabetes management based on the HEARTS model in Guatemala., Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot implementation trial over 6 months from October 2023 to May 2024 in 11 Guatemalan Ministry of Health primary care facilities in two districts. The pilot evaluated a package of five HEARTS-aligned implementation strategies to improve the pharmacological treatment of hypertension and diabetes. The primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability, measured through 20 structured interviews with Ministry of Health employees and by examining enrollment and retention. Secondary outcomes included a suite of implementation and clinical outcomes, including treatment rate., Results: The study enrolled 964 patients, of whom 58.8% had hypertension only, 30.4% had diabetes only, and 10.8% had both conditions. Surveys on feasibility and acceptability among Ministry of Health staff had a median score of 5.0 (IQR: 5.0 to 5.0) and 5.0 (IQR range: 4.8 to 5.0), respectively, exceeding the prespecified benchmark of ≥3.5. Both districts achieved the prespecified benchmark of enrolling ≥25 hypertension patients and ≥25 diabetes patients. Only 36% of patients attended a follow-up visit within three months, lower than the prespecified benchmark of ≥75%. M treatment rates during the pilot increased by 22.3 (95% CI: 16.2 to 28.4; P<0.001) and 3.5 (95% CI: -1.6 to 8.7; P=0.17) patients per month for hypertension and diabetes, respectively., Conclusions: Implementation of an integrated hypertension and diabetes model based on HEARTS was generally feasible and acceptable in the Ministry of Health in Guatemala. Findings can refine national scale-up in Guatemala and inform HEARTS implementation projects in other settings., Competing Interests: DF and IAW have received consultant fees from the World Health Organization. IAW and LFA have received consultant fees from the Pan American Health Organization. MDH has pending patents for heart failure polypills, has received travel support from the World Heart Federation and has consulted for PwC Switzerland. George Health Enterprises Pty Ltd (GH) and its subsidiary, George Medicines Pty Ltd, have received investment funds to develop fixed-dose combination products, including combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs. GH is the social enterprise arm of The George Institute for Global Health.

Abstract Background Developing essential health services through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is an important strategy for progressing towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), especially in low- and middle-income countries. It is crucial to understand NGOs’ role in reaching UHC and the best way to engage them. Objective This study reviewed the role of NGOs and their engagement strategies in progress toward UHC. Method We systematically reviewed studies from five databases (PubMed, Web of Science (ISI), ProQuest, EMBASE and Scopus) that investigated NGOs interventions in public health-related activities. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Findings Seventy-eight studies met the eligibility criteria. NGOs main activities related to service and population coverage and used different strategies to progress towards UHC. To ensure services coverage, NGOs provided adequate and competent human resources, necessary health equipment and facilities, and provided public health and health care services strategies. To achieve population coverage, they provided services to vulnerable groups through community participation. Most studies were conducted in middle-income countries. Overall, the quality of the reported evidence was good. The main funding sources of NGOs were self-financing and grants from the government, international organisations, and donors. Conclusion NGOs can play a significant role in the country’s progress towards UHC along with the government and other key health players. The government should use strategies and interventions in supporting NGOs, accelerating their movement toward UHC.

Background: Rapid reviews have emerged as an approach to provide contextualized evidence in a timely and efficient manner. Three rapid review centers were established in Ethiopia, Lebanon, and South Africa through the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, to stimulate demand, engage policymakers, and produce rapid reviews to support health policy and systems decision-making. This study aimed to assess the experiences of researchers and policymakers engaged in producing and using rapid reviews for health systems strengthening and decisions towards universal health coverage (UHC). Methods: Using a case study approach with qualitative research methods, experienced researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with respondents from each center (n = 16). The topics covered included the process and experience of establishing the centers, stimulating demand for rapid reviews, collaborating between researchers and policymakers, and disseminating and using rapid reviews for health policies and interventions and the potential for sustaining and institutionalizing the services. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Major themes interacted and contributed to shape the experiences of stakeholders of the rapid review centers, including the following: organizational structural arrangements of the centers, management of their processes as input factors, and the rapid reviews as the immediate policy-relevant outputs. The engagement process and the rapid review products contributed to a final theme of impact of the rapid review centers in relation to the uptake of evidence for policy and systems decision-making. Conclusions: The experiences of policymakers and researchers of the rapid review centers determined the uptake of evidence. The findings of this study can inform policymakers, health system managers, and researchers on best practices for demanding, developing and using rapid reviews to support decision- and policymaking, and implementing the universal healthcare coverage agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Recommendations are in place for mental health (MH) care to be developed into a comprehensive, people-centred perspective and organised primarily through community services. In recent decades, Brazil has promoted psychiatric reform aimed at transforming the hospital-centred model into a psychosocial model of MH. However, current political and economic changes threaten this reform. This article analyses the comprehensive MH care offered by a Psychosocial Care Network (Rede de Atenção Psicossocial – RAPS) in Brazil. Methods The study involved semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 stakeholders (policymakers, health professionals, and MH service users) and direct observation of MH services members of the RAPS. Data were analysed using framework analysis with the following dimensions: mental health services access, long-term mental health care, comprehensive mental health care, and crisis patient care. Results Results indicated progression towards comprehensive MH care provision. We identified MH care provided primarily by community services, featuring an ‘open door’ policy, development of localised actions and a search for autonomy. Deinstitutionalisation principles and the psychosocial model support a comprehensive view of MH by policy makers, MH professionals, and users. However, difficulties in providing comprehensive care remain, with the main challenges being insufficient services offered and difficulties in user access at all levels of care, fragile integration between services, lack of clear definitions of the responsibilities of each service, discontinuity of care, limitations in family support, and fragility in crisis patient care. Conclusion We highlight the need to increase funding and services of RAPS, qualification of staff professional, family support, and development of strategies for integrating services. Support and expansion of MH care depend on strengthening the Brazilian health system, which is in danger of being dismantled.

Background: To achieve efficiency and high quality in health systems, the appropriate use of hospital services is essential. We identified the initiatives intended to manage adult hospital services and reduce unnecessary hospital use among the general adult population.Methods: We systematically reviewed studies published in English using five databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, and MEDLINE via Ovid). We only included studies that evaluated interventions aiming to reduce the use of hospital services or emergency department, frequency of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, or the use of diagnostic tests in a general adult population. Studies reporting no relevant outcomes or focusing on a specific patient population or children were excluded.Results: In total, 64 articles were included in the systematic review. Nine utilisation management methods were identified: care plan, case management, care coordination, utilisation review, clinical information system, physician profiling, consultation, education, and discharge planning. Primary case management was shown to effectively reduce emergency department use. Care coordination reduced 30-day post-discharge hospital readmission or emergency department visit rates. The pre-admission review program decreased elective admissions. The physician profiling, concurrent review, and discharge planning effectively reduced the length of hospital stay. Twenty three studies that evaluated costs, reported cost savings in the hospitals.Conclusions: Utilisation management interventions can decrease hospital use by improving the use of community-based health services and improving the quality of care by providing appropriate care at the right time and at the right level of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To achieve global health targets, innovative approaches are needed to strengthen the implementation of efficacious interventions. New approaches in implementation research that bring together health system decision-makers alongside researchers to collaboratively design, produce and apply research evidence are gaining traction. Embedded implementation research (EIR) approaches led by decision-maker principal investigators (DM PIs) appear promising in this regard. Our aim is to describe the strategies study teams employ in the post-research phase of EIR to promote evidence-informed programme or policy improvement.Methods: We conducted a prospective, comparative case study of an EIR initiative in Bolivia, Colombia and Dominican Republic. Guided by a conceptual framework on EIR, we used semi-structured key informant interviews (n = 51) and document reviews (n = 20) to examine three decision-maker-led study teams ("cases"). Focusing on three processes (communication/dissemination, stakeholder engagement with evidence, integrating evidence in decision-making) and the main outcome (enacting improvements), we used thematic analysis to identify associated strategies and enabling or hindering factors.Results: Across cases, we observed diverse strategies, shaped substantially by whether the DM PI was positioned to lead the response to study findings within their sphere of work. We found two primary change pathways: (1) DM PIs implement remedial measures directly, and (2) DM PIs seek to influence other stakeholders to respond to study findings. Throughout the post-research phase, EIR teams adapted research use strategies based on the evolving context.Conclusions: EIR led by well-positioned DM PIs can facilitate impactful research translation efforts. We draw lessons around the importance of (1) understanding DM PI positionality, (2) ongoing assessment of the evolving context and stakeholders and (3) iterative adaptation to dynamic, uncertain circumstances. Findings may guide EIR practitioners in planning and conducting fit-for-purpose and context-sensitive strategies to advance the use of evidence for programme improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Equity, efficiency, sustainability, acceptability to clients and providers, and quality are the cornerstones of universal health coverage (UHC). No country has a single way to achieve efficient UHC. In this study, we documented the Iranian health insurance reforms, focusing on how and why certain policies were introduced and implemented, and which challenges remain to keep a sustainable UHC. Methods This retrospective policy analysis used three sources of data: a comprehensive and chronological scoping review of literature, interviews with Iran health insurance policy actors and stakeholders, and a review of published and unpublished official documents and local media. All data were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results Health insurance reforms, especially health transformation plan (HTP) in 2014, helped to progress towards UHC and health equity by expanding population coverage, a benefits package, and enhancing financial protection. However, several challenges can jeopardize sustaining this progress. There is a lack of suitable mechanisms to collect contributions from those without a regular income. The compulsory health insurance coverage law is not implemented in full. A substantial gap between private and public medical tariffs leads to high out-of-pocket health expenditure. Moreover, controlling the total health care expenditures is not the main priority to make keeping UHC more sustainable. Conclusion To achieve UHC in Iran, the Ministry of Health and Medical Education and health insurance schemes should devise and follow the policies to control health care expenditures. Working mechanisms should be implemented to extend free health insurance coverage for those in need. More studies are needed to evaluate the impact of health insurance reforms in terms of health equity, sustainability, coverage, and access.

A comprehensive and collaborative knowledge translation and decision-making approach can help reduce the longstanding barriers to using research in policy and practice. Regular interaction between researchers and decision-makers increases the likelihood of using research knowledge. This interaction continuing over the entire research cycle is critical for developing research directions and potential use of the research outputs that benefit the health system. The India Health Systems Collaborative and ACCESS Health International have conducted a rigorous exercise to arrive at the priority research topics. A consensus-based method customised to the existing need was created, adapting from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method for research priority setting. In this method, conducting literature reviews, key informant interviews and survey-based stakeholder consultations are critical steps for identifying policy-relevant research topics that demand utmost attention in the Indian setting. This article documents the processes followed to develop a preliminary list of core research priorities requiring urgent attention to facilitate policy development. Additionally, the article is about the essential and immediate next steps and the critical actions taken to undertake collaborative research on the identified research topics. The special issue of the Journal for Health Management dedicated to strengthening the Indian health system sets the foundation for promoting collaborative research, its dissemination for broader use by researchers and ensuing policy dialogues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is an inherently cross-disciplinary field of investigation. However, conflicting conceptualisations about inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary research have contributed to confusion about the characteristics of cross-disciplinary approaches in HPSR. This review was conducted to (1) define the characteristic features of context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations in cross-disciplinary HPSR, (2) develop criteria for evaluating cross-disciplinarity and (3) synthesise emerging challenges of the approach. Method The paper is a critical realist synthesis conducted in three phases, as follows: (1) scoping the literature, (2) searching for and screening the evidence, and (3) extracting and synthesising the evidence. Five databases, namely the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and Web of Science, PubMed central, Embase and CINHAL, and reference lists of studies that qualified for inclusion in the review were searched. The search covered peer-reviewed original research, reviews, commentary papers, and institutional or government reports published in English between January 1998 and January 2020. Results A total of 7792 titles were identified in the online search and 137 publications, comprising pilot studies as well as anecdotal and empirical literature were selected for the final review. The review draws attention to the fact that cross-disciplinary HPSR is not defined by individual characteristics but by the combination of a particular type of research question and setting (context), a specific way of researchers working together (mechanism), and research output (outcome) that is superior to what could be achieved under a monodisciplinary approach. This CMO framework also informs the criteria for assessing whether a given HPSR is truly cross-disciplinary. The challenges of cross-disciplinary HPSR and their accompanying coping mechanisms were also found to be context driven, originating mainly from conceptual disagreements, institutional restrictions, communication and information management challenges, coordination problems, and resource limitations. Conclusion These findings have important implications. First, the CMO framework of cross-disciplinary HPSR can provide guidance for researchers engaging in new projects and for policy-makers using their findings. Second, the proposed criteria for evaluating theory and practice of cross-disciplinary HPSR may inform the systematic development of new research projects and the structured assessment of existing ones. Third, a better understanding of the challenges of cross-disciplinary HPSR and potential response mechanisms may help researchers to avoid these problems in the future.

Abstract Background Evidence-based decision-making is crucial to leadership in the health sector to identify country-level priorities and generate solutions supported by rigorous research. Barriers and enablers have been explored, but limited evidence about what works to strengthening capacity at individual and institutional levels within countries has been reported, and inconsistent use of evidence to inform policy-making is a persistent challenge and concern. Methods We conducted a framework analysis comparing experiences of nine purposively selected countries (Chile, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa and Sri Lanka). We utilised qualitative case studies developed by in-country teams to explore enablers and barriers described across components of a predefined theory of change and then identified six cross-cutting themes and recommendations for relevant stakeholders associated with each theme. Results The cross-cutting themes included (1) leadership and political will, (2) incentives and resources, (3) infrastructure and access to health data, (4) designated structures and processes, (5) interaction and relationships, and (6) capacity strengthening and engagement. While each case country’s context and experience was different, common enablers and barriers surfaced across each of these themes, with Ministries of Health and other government agencies having strong roles to play, but also recognising the need for other stakeholders, including researchers, donors and civil society, to serve as essential collaborators in order to strengthen evidence uptake. Substantial and sustained investment in research capacities, able leaders and stronger engagement of civil servants are needed to further this progress and strengthen processes of health decision-making. Conclusions All countries represented in this study have made commendable progress in increasing evidence uptake and strengthening supportive systems. Establishing and strengthening necessary structures and the relationships that underpin them takes time as well as resources. Going forward, the findings from this study can help guide and support advocacy to increase domestic funding for health research, especially health policy and systems research, and ensure that civil servants as well as researchers have the capacity and support to collaborate and continue to bolster evidence uptake.

Abstract Background Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) collect and generate vast amounts of potentially rich data, most of which are not used for research purposes. Secondary analysis of NGO data (their use and analysis in a study for which they were not originally collected) presents an important but largely unrealised opportunity to provide new research insights in critical areas, including the evaluation of health policy and programmes. Methods A scoping review of the published literature was performed to identify the extent to which secondary analysis of NGO data has been used in health policy and systems research (HPSR). A tiered analytical approach provided a comprehensive overview and descriptive analyses of the studies that (1) used data produced or collected by or about NGOs; (2) performed secondary analysis of the NGO data (beyond the use of an NGO report as a supporting reference); and (3) analysed NGO-collected clinical data. Results Of the 156 studies that performed secondary analysis of NGO-produced or collected data, 64% (n = 100) used NGO-produced reports (mostly to a limited extent, as a contextual reference or to critique NGO activities) and 8% (n = 13) analysed NGO-collected clinical data. Of these studies, 55% (n = 86) investigated service delivery research topics and 48% (n = 51) were undertaken in developing countries and 17% (n = 27) in both developing and developed countries. NGOs were authors or co-authors of 26% of the studies. NGO-collected clinical data enabled HPSR within marginalised groups (e.g. migrants, people in conflict-affected areas), albeit with some limitations such as inconsistent and missing data. Conclusion We found evidence that NGO-collected and produced data are most commonly perceived as a source of supporting evidence for HPSR and not as primary source data. However, these data can facilitate research in under-researched marginalised groups and in contexts that are hard to reach by academics such as conflict-affected areas. NGO–academic collaboration could help address issues of NGO data quality to facilitate their more widespread use in research. The use of NGO data use could enable relevant and timely research in the areas of programme evaluation and health policy and advocacy to improve health and reduce health inequalities, especially in marginalised groups and developing countries.

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

Abstract Background The need to build capacity for health policy and systems research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries has been underscored as this encompasses the processes of decision-making at all levels of the health system. This implementation research project was undertaken in Southeast Nigeria to evaluate whether the capacity-building intervention improves the capacity to produce and use research evidence for decision making in endemic disease control. Methods Three training workshops were organized for purposively selected participants comprising “producers of evidence” such as health research scientists in three universities and “users of evidence” such as policy makers, program managers, and implementers in the public health sector. Participants also held step-down workshops in their organizations. The last workshop was used to facilitate the formation of knowledge networks comprising of both producers and users, which is a critical step for getting research into policy and practice (GRIPP). Three months after the workshops, a subset, 40, of workshop participants was selected for in-depth interviews. Information was collected on (i) perceptions of usefulness of capacity-building workshops, (ii) progress with proposed research and research uptake activities, (iii) effects of these activities on evidence-informed decision making, and (iv) constraints and enablers to implementation of proposed activities. Results Most participants felt the workshops provided them with new competencies and skills in one or more of research priority setting, evidence generation, communication, and use for the control of endemic diseases. Participants were at different stages of planning and implementing their proposed research and research uptake activities, and were engaging across professional and disciplinary boundaries to ensure relevance and usefulness of outputs for decision making. Key enablers of successful implementation of activities were positive team dynamics, good balance of competencies, effective communication and engagement within teams, team leader’s capacity to innovate, and personal interests such as career progress. Lack of funding, limited decision space, organizational bureaucracies, and poor infrastructure were the key constraints to the implementation of proposed activities. Lack of mentorship and continuous support from trainers delayed progress with implementing proposed activities. Conclusions The capacity-building interventions contributed to the development of a critical mass of research scientists, policy makers, and practitioners who have varying levels of competencies in HPSR for endemic disease control and would require further support in carrying out their medium and long-term goals.

Abstract Background In 2014, a revision of the national medical tariffs for inpatient health care services took place in Iran, and a new hotline was set up to report informal payments. It was expected that such measures would eliminate or decrease informal payments prevalence. This study estimates the prevalence of informal payments for inpatient health care services in the post-reform period, explores factors associated with informal payments and examines patients’ and healthcare providers’ views regarding the causes of informal payments and possible practical solutions for their reduction. Methods We surveyed by phone patients who used inpatient health care services in seven Iranian hospitals in 2016. Descriptive and regression analyses were used to estimate the prevalence and determine factors associated with informal payments. We conducted a qualitative analysis through thematic analyses based on focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. Results Of 2696 respondents, 14% reported paying informally for inpatient services. Informal payments were reported more frequently among private hospital users, given more frequently to physicians in public teaching hospitals and ‘other staff’ in private hospitals, in the form of cash and voluntary. Being an adult, hospital or treatment type, being insured, and household head’s education influenced the probability of paying informally. The amount paid informally was associated with being insured, the educational status of the household’s head, household size, service, and hospital types. Based on qualitative findings, the leading causes of informal payments reported by patients and healthcare providers can be categorized into four groups - financing challenges; governance challenges; service delivery challenges; and actors and stakeholders. Modifying, adjusting and applying policy interventions; supervision, monitoring and evaluation; and actors and stakeholders were identified as possible solutions for tackling informal payment in the inpatient health care services. Conclusion The prevalence of informal patient payments for inpatient services in the post-reform period seems to have reduced; however, they remain to be common. Regular monitoring, reviewing of payment policies to the physicians, informing patients, changing the behaviour of healthcare providers and patients, and developing ethical guidelines to prevent informal payments were suggested for reduction and elimination of informal payments in the Iranian healthcare sector.

Abstract Background Given the paradigmatic shift represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as compared to the Millennium Development Goals - in particular their broad and interconnected nature - a new set of health policy and systems research (HPSR) priorities are needed to inform strategies to address these interconnected goals. Objectives To identify high priority HPSR questions linked to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Methods We focused on three themes that we considered to be central to achieving the health related SDGs: (i) Protecting and promoting access to health services through systems of social protection (ii) Strengthening multisectoral collaborations for health and (iii) Developing more participatory and accountable institutions. We conducted 54 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions to investigate policy-maker perspectives on evidence needs. We also conducted an overview of literature reviews in each theme. Information from these sub-studies was extracted into a matrix of possible research questions and developed into three domain-specific lists of 30–36 potential priority questions. Topic experts from the global research community then refined and ranked the proposed questions through an online platform. A final webinar on each theme sought feedback on findings. Results Policy-makers continue to demand HPSR for many well-established issues such as health financing, human resources for health, and service delivery. In terms of service delivery, policy-makers wanted to know how best to strengthen primary health care and community-based systems. In the themes of social protection and multisectoral collaboration, prioritized questions had a strong emphasis on issues of practical implementation. For participatory and accountable institutions, the two priority questions focused on political factors affecting the adoption of accountability measures, as well as health worker reactions to such measures. Conclusions To achieve the SDGs, there is a continuing need for research in some already well established areas of HPSR as well as key areas highlighted by decision-makers. Identifying appropriate conceptual frameworks as well as typologies of examples may be a prerequisite for answering some of the substantive policymaker questions. In addition, implementation research engaging non-traditional stakeholders outside of the health sector will be critical.

Background: Developing essential health services through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is an important strategy for progressing towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC), especially in low- and middle-income countries. It is crucial to understand NGOs' role in reaching UHC and the best way to engage them.Objective: This study reviewed the role of NGOs and their engagement strategies in progress toward UHC.Method: We systematically reviewed studies from five databases (PubMed, Web of Science (ISI), ProQuest, EMBASE and Scopus) that investigated NGOs interventions in public health-related activities. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed.Findings: Seventy-eight studies met the eligibility criteria. NGOs main activities related to service and population coverage and used different strategies to progress towards UHC. To ensure services coverage, NGOs provided adequate and competent human resources, necessary health equipment and facilities, and provided public health and health care services strategies. To achieve population coverage, they provided services to vulnerable groups through community participation. Most studies were conducted in middle-income countries. Overall, the quality of the reported evidence was good. The main funding sources of NGOs were self-financing and grants from the government, international organisations, and donors.Conclusion: NGOs can play a significant role in the country's progress towards UHC along with the government and other key health players. The government should use strategies and interventions in supporting NGOs, accelerating their movement toward UHC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives and importance of study: The need for sufficient and reliable funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) has attracted varying responses globally. Countries assisted by the South East Asian Regional Office (SEARO) of the World Health Organization (WHO) together make up one-quarter of the world’s population. HPSR is not given a high priority in several SEARO countries, so there is a need to understand the barriers and facilitators that influence national HPSR funding. Our study aimed to fill this gap in the literature by studying the barriers to HPSR in five SEARO countries – Republic of Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India – and the key political factors influencing HPSR funding. Study type: Mixed methods. Methods: We conducted an in-depth desk review to obtain a general overview of HPSR in the five SEARO member countries. The review findings were used to frame a discussion guide for semi-structured interviews with key policy makers, health system experts and academics in the intervention countries. During the interviews, we validated the data from the desk review and explored the following key themes: a) the existing health system landscape of the country; b) organisations involved with HPSR; c) the nature of HPSR funding in the country (demand/supply led); d) budgetary allocations for HPSR; e) barriers to HPSR funding; f) measures to strengthen HPSR funding; and g) suggestions for the right mix for future HPSR funding. The study was conducted from October to December 2020. Results: Thailand is the only country among those studied with a well-established institution dedicated to HPSR. India, Sri Lanka, Republic of Maldives and Nepal are still lagging in providing a solid foundation for HPSR. Most of the countries lack a common definition of HPSR and a dedicated stream for HPSR funding. There is also a lack of local capacity to independently lead and conduct HPSR in most of the study countries. Conclusion: We have provided a profile of the existing landscape of health systems in the SEARO member countries and highlighted the determinants of HPSR funding. A common definition and interpretation of HPSR is required, which extends beyond geographical and disciplinary boundaries. There is a need for enhanced core domestic funding along with increased recruitment and availability of HPSR researchers in the study countries.

Are we repeating the mistakes of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic in our approach to combating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Is the world’s emphasis on developing vaccines overshadowing investment in the health systems that can deliver them? We analyse a report on the politics of investing in health policy and systems research (HPSR) and conclude by outlining three critical actions, using the Stuckler–McKee model of social change in health. These are: exploiting a political window of opportunity; changing the conversation; and mobilising a campaign to drive the agenda. When implemented together, these actions could help accelerate investment in health systems to combat the immediate COVID-19 pandemic and prepare health systems for the next crisis.

Objectives: We examine how health policy and systems research (HPSR) is produced and funded in 14 post-Soviet states to inform possible strategies to improve the supply and quality of research and advance evidence-based health policy making in these states. Study type: Mixed methods. Methods: Using mixed methods – secondary data analysis, desk review and in-depth interviews – this qualitative study is exploratory and explanatory.The secondary data analysis involved a comparative analysis of available data from: a) the ‘fiscal space’ (national economic resources) – using gross domestic expenditure on research and development for the years 2013–2018; and b) capacity for HPSR – using the number of published papers and average citation per paper (as a quality proxy) in the years 2015–2019. To explain the secondary data analysis findings, we used the approach proposed by Hallerberg et al., highlighting the importance of institutional context, actors, and their incentives and influence in budget allocation decisions. The desk review of available documents and 32 in-depth interviews were conducted remotely to obtain insights on the context and actors. The interview transcripts were analysed using Nvivo 12 software with an inductive approach. Results: In all studied countries, except the Baltic states, funding levels for HPSR remain inadequate. Most research and development funding is allocated to fundamental sciences and biomedical research – fields with more influential long-standing institutional legacies. The low volume and poor quality of published HPSR research appears to be adversely affecting the credibility of researchers in this field in the eyes of critical beneficiaries – policy makers, who do not prioritise and advocate for funding of HPSR. Conclusions: HPSR funding in most post-Soviet countries is caught in a vicious cycle of inadequate funding and poor quality. International collaborative projects focused on post-Soviet states and involving science funders, academic institutions and researchers from those countries may help strengthen HPSR capacity, improve research quality and help boost priority funding and the credibility of researchers in this field.

Objectives and importance of study: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) informs stronger health systems but it remains chronically underfunded, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Domestic funding for HPSR helps to ensure research is aligned with local priorities. As LMICs transition from international donor assistance for health research, HPSR will increasingly need to rely on domestic funding. However, domestic funding flows remain poorly understood. This study aims to understand how, and how much, HPSR is funded domestically in LMICs. It explores challenges associated with estimating HPSR funding and suggests strategies to improve domestic support for HPSR. Study type: Mixed methods. Methods: We reviewed regional technical reports commissioned by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, which studied domestic HPSR funding through desk reviews and key informant interviews. Data were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed and findings were triangulated. We also conducted a separate bibliometric analysis to understand HPSR capacity. Results: Despite many efforts from different angles, we were unable to reliably estimate HPSR funding in most of the countries studied. The reasons for this included a lack of a common understanding of HPSR, difficulty disentangling HPSR funding from other research funding, and bureaucratic and data transparency hurdles. We also describe which domestic bodies fund HPSR and examine the interrelatedness of HPSR capacity and funding. Conclusion: Domestic funding flows for HPSR remain almost invisible. This finding informs concrete recommendations to improve HPSR funding transparency, and for national research funders and ministries of health and finance to invest in HPSR for stronger health systems.

Objectives: Globally, adequate funding is a strong underpinning to advance health policy and systems research (HPSR) and ensure its impact on strengthening health systems. This study examined the perceived prioritisation, and resource allocation for HPSR in West Africa. Methods: A desk review was conducted of literature related to HPSR funding published between January 2010 and December 2019, sourced from various databases and government websites. This was followed by in-depth interviews with senior decision makers and HPSR and non-HPSR research leaders (n = 33) across nine West African countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal and Sierra Leone. Results: The majority of the study participants were from ministries of health in their countries (66.7%). All countries except Sierra Leone had a program dedicated to health policy research and/or health planning/program research. There was no specific funding for health research nor HPSR in most countries and a mixed model (demand and supply led) was employed in most instances. HPSR was only considered a priority in two of the nine countries and specific funding for it was non-existent in all nine countries. In all countries, donor agencies played predominant roles in setting health research priorities and resource allocation decisions. Infectious disease and maternal/child health research were the research categories with the highest level of funding. There was limited capacity for HPSR, with a pronounced gap between researchers and policy makers. Stakeholder advocacy, basket funding for health research, multi-stakeholder institutional and individual HPSR capacity building were the major recommendations for improving the status and funding of HPSR. Conclusions: This study showed that both health research and HPSR were considered low priorities, with no designated funding (budget line) and inadequacy of funding disbursement in the surveyed countries in West Africa. Health research was largely conducted as prioritised and funded by the donor agencies. Given donor fatigue and the transitioning of donor funding, and the pivotal role of HPSR in strengthening health systems, there is an urgent need for West African states to commit to prioritising and funding HPSR and HPSR capacity development.

Objectives: To provide an overview of the current state of funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) on a national level across the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), and to examine the key factors influencing funding for HPSR in the region. Methods: A multistep approach was employed, involving a documentation review, secondary data analysis and key informant interviews with 30 stakeholders from five countries in the EMR. Findings are presented narratively (and where applicable as percentages). Results: National funding for research and development (R&D) in general, and for health research in particular, has been low in comparative terms and lagging behind at the global scale, while funding for HPSR has been lacking on a national level. None of the 22 EMR countries studied had explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR. Analysis of funding sources of 1821 published HPSR articles in the EMR (2010–2019) showed that the most notable source was external/international grants (45.6%), followed by university/academia (35.1%), and government (9.5%). Although HPSR publications have been increasing over time, this still falls short of the scale needed for strengthening health systems and informing current transformations in the region. Findings from the interviews identified several factors influencing investment in or funding for HPSR in the EMR. Conclusions: Many of the EMR’s policy priorities are related to health systems, however our research finds that overall investment in health research and HPSR is still low, with limited recognition of the importance of HPSR in the EMR.

Objectives and importance of study: This study examines how health policy and systems research (HPSR) is funded in eight countries and areas in the World Health Organization Western Pacific Region (WPRO). The aim of the research is to provide a guide for HPSR practitioners and organisations to understand the landscape of research funding priorities across the WPRO and to inform demand generation and advocacy activities for HPSR funding and output. Study type: Mixed methods. Methods: A desk review was conducted relating to HPSR funding, followed by in-depth interviews. Eight countries and areas were selected to represent characteristics of different health systems. Literature reviews included an analysis of available data relating to HPSR funding and national research and development (R&D) budgets, between 2010 and 2019 (inclusive). In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 stakeholders using an approved interview guide, to assess the attitudes of HPSR funding decision makers towards HPSR, determinants for HPSR and health research funding decisions, and proposals to strengthen HPSR funding and output. Results: There are four main characteristics of HPSR funding in the WPRO: 1) a general absence of studies on HPSR funding and its determinants; 2) no universally accepted understanding of HPSR; 3) an absence of granular health research funding data in general and for HPSR in particular; and 4) HPSR funding is generally perceived to be minimal. In-depth interviews show that HPSR has different interpretations and emphases across WPRO countries, leading to a fragmented landscape where decision makers generally favour biomedical or clinical research. Participants indicate that political involvement increases overall research funding, especially if there is a clear connection between funders, producers and HPSR users. Suggestions from participants to strengthen HPSR include: appropriately using central agencies to generate demand and raise HPSR as a national priority; adopting interdisciplinary HPSR; and building HPSR capacity and organisational structures. Conclusions: HPSR in the Western Pacific region is generally not well funded, with biomedical and public health research often perceived as a higher priority. Although funding is a crucial component of the quality, quantity and relevance of HPSR outputs, HPSR practitioners and organisations must also generate demand for HPSR, build capacity for increasing the quantity and quality of HPSR outputs, and build pathways to translate HPSR outputs into real-world policies.