Search

BackgroundSocial innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings.Methods and findingsThe research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups.ConclusionsThe SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) and child marriage are prevalent in many countries in Asia and Africa. These practices are a violation of human rights and have significant impacts on the physical and mental well-being of those affected. COVID-19 restrictions such as lockdowns and closure of schools may have influenced the occurrence of FGM/C and child marriage. This analysis reported on the impact of these restrictions on FGM/C and child marriage. The International Sexual Health And REproductive Health (I-SHARE) research team organised a multi-country online survey. Sampling methods included convenience samples, online panels, and population-representative samples. Data collected included the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on the occurrence, intention to practice and change in plans to organise FGM/C and child marriage. Data were analysed from 14 countries that reported on FGM/C and child marriage using basic descriptive statistics. Given it was an online survey, we had more responses from urban areas. Among the 22,724 overall participants, 8,829 participants (38.9%) responded to the survey items on FGM/C and child marriage and were included in this analysis. 249 (3.4%) participants stated that FGM/C occurred in their community during COVID-19. Out of this, COVID-19 affected the plans of 26 (20%) participants intending to organise circumcision and 15% of participants planned to organise FGM/C earlier. People with a worry about finances during COVID-19 were more likely to have an earlier plan to organise FGM/C during COVID-19. In total, 1,429 (13%) participants reported that child marriage occurred in their community. The pandemic affected plans of 52 (13%) participants intending to arrange child marriage and 7.7% (29/384) participants expressed intent to arrange the marriage sooner than planned. People with financial insecurities during COVID-19 were more likely to arrange a child marriage earlier. Thus, our study found that the pandemic impacted plans related to FGM/C and child marriage practices, resulting in many carrying out the practices sooner or later than initially planned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crowdsourcing strategies are useful in the development of public health interventions. Crowdsourcing engages end users in a co-creation process through challenge contests, designathons or online collaborations. Drawing on our experience of crowdsourcing in four African countries, we provide guidance on designing crowdsourcing strategies across seven steps: deciding on the type of crowdsourcing strategy, convening a steering committee, developing the content of the call for ideas, promotion, evaluation, recognizing finalists and sharing back ideas or implementing the solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health., Author(s): Eneyi E. Kpokiri 1, Elizabeth Chen 2, Jingjing Li 3, Sarah Payne 4, Priyanka Shrestha 5, Kaosar Afsana 6, Uche Amazigo 7, Phyllis Awor 8, Jean-Francois de Lavison 9, [...]

Population health surveys are rarely comprehensive in addressing sexual health, and population-representative surveys often lack standardised measures for collecting comparable data across countries. We present a sexual health survey instrument and implementation considerations for population-level sexual health research. The brief, comprehensive sexual health survey and consensus statement was developed via a multi-step process (an open call, a hackathon, and a modified Delphi process). The survey items, domains, entire instruments, and implementation considerations to develop a sexual health survey were solicited via a global crowdsourcing open call. The open call received 175 contributions from 49 countries. Following review of submissions from the open call, 18 finalists and eight facilitators with expertise in sexual health research, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), were invited to a 3-day hackathon to harmonise a survey instrument. Consensus was achieved through an iterative, modified Delphi process that included three rounds of online surveys. The entire process resulted in a 19-item consensus statement and a brief sexual health survey instrument. This is the first global consensus on a sexual and reproductive health survey instrument that can be used to generate cross-national comparative data in both high-income and LMICs. The inclusive process identified priority domains for improvement and can inform the design of sexual and reproductive health programs and contextually relevant data for comparable research across countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many women with common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and bacterial vaginosis (BV) are asymptomatic. Asymptomatic STIs/BV are as inflammatory as symptomatic infections in women, and genital inflammation has been shown to increase HIV risk. A Genital InFlammation Test (GIFT) point-of-care device for detecting genital inflammation is being developed and evaluated through a multi-centre clinical study. We aimed to explore how GIFT could be further developed and used in current management algorithms, with a focus on low- and middle-income contexts. Methods: We employed a modified Delphi approach in two rounds to gather input from expert participants in the field of STI management, including service providers, health programmers, researchers and policy makers. Both rounds' questionnaires were designed with input from the study's Scientific Advisory Board and administered as online surveys. Round one included open ended indepth questions and generated qualitative data that were analysed thematically. Themes from round one were used to inform items presented in the round two survey in order to build consensus. In round two, responses were measured on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Consensus was reached if more than 70% of participants selected strongly agree or agree. Results: We had a total of 79 participants with 28 responses in round one and 70 in round two. Most participants were aged 25-54 years, and 58% of respondents were female. Consensus results showed that GIFT was more suitable for use as a screening tool rather than as a diagnostic tool. Attributes of GIFT prioritised for integration into STI management pathways include high sensitivity and specificity, affordability and ease of use. Potential barriers to its implementation and use include lack of provider awareness, high cost and stock-outs. Conclusion: While GIFT promises to be a valuable point--of-care screening tool for detecting genital inflammation in asymptomatic women, strong evidence of high specificity and sensitivity is needed for it to be incorporated into STI management guidelines. Costs and affordability are key for its use and there is need to sensitize and train healthcare providers and patients on its use. Stakeholder consultations will facilitate its roll-out and sustained use within healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant problem in global health today, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where antimicrobial stewardship programmes are yet to be successfully implemented. We established a partnership between AMR pharmacists from a UK NHS hospital and in Ho Teaching Hospital with the aim of enhancing antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and practice among healthcare providers through an educational intervention. We employed a mixed-method approach that included an initial survey on knowledge and awareness before and after training, followed by qualitative interviews with healthcare providers conducted six months after delivery of training. This study was carried out in two phases in Ho Teaching Hospital with healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, medical doctors, nurses and medical laboratory scientists. Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. In the first phase, we surveyed 50 healthcare providers, including nurses (33%), pharmacists (29%) and biomedical scientists (23%). Of these, 58% of participants had engaged in continuous professional development on AMR/AMS, and above 95% demonstrated good knowledge on the general use of antibiotics. A total of 18 participants, which included four medical doctors, five pharmacists, four nurses, two midwives and three biomedical scientists, were interviewed in the second phase and demonstrated greater awareness of AMS practices, particularly the role of education for patients, as well as healthcare professionals. We found that knowledge and practice with AMS was markedly improved six months after the training session. There is limited practice of AMS in LMICs; however, through AMR-focused training, we demonstrated improved AMS skills and practice among healthcare providers in Ho Teaching Hospital. There is a need for continuous AMR training sessions for healthcare professionals in resource-limited settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most people around the world do not have access to facility-based diagnostic testing, and the gap in availability of diagnostic tests is a major public health challenge. Self-testing, self-sampling, and institutional testing outside conventional clinical settings are transforming infectious disease diagnostic testing in a wide range of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We examined the delivery models of infectious disease diagnostic testing outside clinics to assess the impact on test uptake and linkage to care., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching 6 databases and including original research manuscripts comparing testing outside clinics with conventional testing. The main outcomes were test uptake and linkage to care, delivery models, and adverse outcomes. Data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes within thematic areas of interest were pooled, and the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019140828).We identified 10 386 de-duplicated citations, and 76 studies were included. Data from 18 studies were pooled in meta-analyses. Studies focused on HIV (48 studies), chlamydia (8 studies), and multiple diseases (20 studies). HIV self-testing increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (9 studies: pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.59; 95% CI, 1.06-6.29; moderate quality). Self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (7 studies: pooled OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.97-3.12; moderate quality). Conclusions.  Testing outside of clinics increased test uptake without significant adverse outcomes. These testing approaches provide an opportunity to expand access and empower patients. Further implementation research, scale-up of effective service delivery models, and policies in LMIC settings are needed., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)