Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bosch-Capblanch X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3295823 | biostudies-literature | 2012
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: rationale for and challenges of guidance development.
Bosch-Capblanch Xavier X Lavis John N JN Lewin Simon S Atun Rifat R Røttingen John-Arne JA Dröschel Daniel D Beck Lise L Abalos Edgardo E El-Jardali Fadi F Gilson Lucy L Oliver Sandy S Wyss Kaspar K Tugwell Peter P Kulier Regina R Pang Tikki T Haines Andy A
PLoS medicine 20120306 3
In the first paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Xavier Bosch-Capblanch and colleagues examine how guidance is currently formulated in low- and middle-income countries, and the challenges to developing such guidance. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In the third paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Simon Lewin and colleagues explore the challenge of assessing how much confidence to place in evidence on health systems interventions.
| S-EPMC3308931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) published recommendations on the use of optimization or "task-shifting" strategies for key, effective maternal and newborn interventions (the OptimizeMNH guidance). When making recommendations about complex health system interventions such as task-shifting, information about the feasibility and acceptability of interventions can be as important as information about their effectiveness. However, these issues are usually not addressed with the same rigour. This paper describes our use of several innovative strategies to broaden the range of evidence used to develop the OptimizeMNH guidance. In this guidance, we systematically included evidence regarding the acceptability and feasibility of relevant task-shifting interventions, primarily using qualitative evidence syntheses and multi-country case study syntheses; we used an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach); we used a structured evidence-to-decision framework for health systems (the DECIDE framework) to help the guidance panel members move from the different types of evidence to recommendations.The systematic inclusion of a broader range of evidence, and the use of new guideline development tools, had a number of impacts. Firstly, this broader range of evidence provided relevant information about the feasibility and acceptability of interventions considered in the guidance as well as information about key implementation considerations. However, inclusion of this evidence required more time, resources and skills. Secondly, the GRADE-CERQual approach provided a method for indicating to panel members how much confidence they should place in the findings from the qualitative evidence syntheses and so helped panel members to use this qualitative evidence appropriately. Thirdly, the DECIDE framework gave us a structured format in which we could present a large and complex body of evidence to panel members and end users. The framework also prompted the panel to justify their recommendations, giving end users a record of how these decisions were made.By expanding the range of evidence assessed in a guideline process, we increase the amount of time and resources required. Nevertheless, the WHO has assessed the outputs of this process to be valuable and is currently repeating the approach used in OptimizeMNH in other guidance processes.
| S-EPMC4950654 | biostudies-other
Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. The term monitoring is commonly used to describe the process of systematically collecting data to inform policymakers, managers and other stakeholders whether a new policy or programme is being implemented in accordance with their expectations. Indicators are used for monitoring purposes to judge, for example, if objectives are being achieved, or if allocated funds are being spent appropriately. Sometimes the term evaluation is used interchangeably with the term monitoring, but the former usually suggests a stronger focus on the achievement of results. When the term impact evaluation is used, this usually implies that there is a specific attempt to try to determine whether the observed changes in outcomes can be attributed to a particular policy or programme. In this article, we suggest four questions that can be used to guide the monitoring and evaluation of policy or programme options. These are: 1. Is monitoring necessary? 2. What should be measured? 3. Should an impact evaluation be conducted? 4. How should the impact evaluation be done?
| S-EPMC3271828 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAdapting interventions that have worked elsewhere can save resources associated with developing new interventions for each specific context. While a developing body of evidence shows benefits of adapted interventions compared with interventions transported without adaptation, there are also examples of interventions which have been extensively adapted, yet have not worked in the new context. Decisions on when, to what extent, and how to adapt interventions therefore are not straightforward, particularly when conceptualising intervention effects as contingent upon contextual interactions in complex systems. No guidance currently addresses these questions comprehensively. To inform development of an overarching guidance on adaptation of complex population health interventions, this systematic review synthesises the content of the existing guidance papers.MethodsWe searched for papers published between January 2000 and October 2018 in 7 bibliographic databases. We used citation tracking and contacted authors and experts to locate further papers. We double screened all the identified records. We extracted data into the following categories: descriptive information, key concepts and definitions, rationale for adaptation, aspects of adaptation, process of adaptation, evaluating and reporting adapted interventions. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers, and retrieved data were synthesised thematically within pre-specified and emergent categories.ResultsWe retrieved 6694 unique records. Thirty-eight papers were included in the review representing 35 sources of guidance. Most papers were developed in the USA in the context of implementing evidence-informed interventions among different population groups within the country, such as minority populations. We found much agreement on how the papers defined key concepts, aims, and procedures of adaptation, including involvement of key stakeholders, but also identified gaps in scope, conceptualisation, and operationalisation in several categories.ConclusionsOur review found limitations that should be addressed in future guidance on adaptation. Specifically, future guidance needs to be reflective of adaptations in the context of transferring interventions across countries, including macro- (e.g. national-) level interventions, better theorise the role of intervention mechanisms and contextual interactions in the replicability of effects and accordingly conceptualise key concepts, such as fidelity to intervention functions, and finally, suggest evidence-informed strategies for adaptation re-evaluation and reporting.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2018, CRD42018112714.
| S-EPMC6918624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we address the use of evidence to inform judgements about the balance between the pros and cons of policy and programme options. We suggest five questions that can be considered when making these judgements. These are: 1. What are the options that are being compared? 2. What are the most important potential outcomes of the options being compared? 3. What is the best estimate of the impact of the options being compared for each important outcome? 4. How confident can policymakers and others be in the estimated impacts? 5. Is a formal economic model likely to facilitate decision making?
| S-EPMC2809501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sub-Saharan Africa has fewer medical workers per capita than any region of the world, and that shortage has been highlighted consistently as a critical constraint to improving health outcomes in the region. This paper draws on newly available, systematic, comparable data from 10 countries in the region to explore the dimensions of this shortage. We find wide variation in human resources performance metrics, both within and across countries. Many facilities are barely staffed, and effective staffing levels fall further when adjusted for health worker absences. However, caseloads-while also varying widely within and across countries-are also low in many settings, suggesting that even within countries, deployment rather than shortages, together with barriers to demand, may be the principal challenges. Beyond raw numbers, we observe significant proportions of health workers with very low levels of clinical knowledge on standard maternal and child health conditions. This study highlights that countries may need to invest broadly in health workforce deployment, improvements in capacity and performance of the health workforce, and on addressing demand constraints, rather than focusing narrowly on increases in staffing numbers.
| S-EPMC11308604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations. METHODS:The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators. RESULTS:The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation. CONCLUSION:The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.
| S-EPMC5984390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public health is currently being weakened in several Canadian jurisdictions. Unprecedented and arbitrary cuts to the public health budget in Quebec in 2015 were a striking example of this. In order to support public health leaders and citizens in their capacity to advocate for evidence-informed public health reforms, we propose a knowledge synthesis of elements of public health systems that are significantly associated with improved performance. Research consistently and significantly associates four elements of public health systems with improved productivity: 1) increased financial resources, 2) increased staffing per capita, 3) population size between 50,000 and 500,000, and 4) specific evidence-based organizational and administrative features. Furthermore, increased financial resources and increased staffing per capita are significantly associated with improved population health outcomes. We contend that any effort at optimization of public health systems should at least be guided by these four evidence-informed factors. Canada already has existing capacity in carrying out public health systems and services research. Further advancement of our academic and professional expertise on public health systems will allow Canadian public health jurisdictions to be inspired by the best public health models and become stronger advocates for public health's resources, interventions and outcomes when they need to be celebrated or defended.
| S-EPMC6972346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trauma informed care (TIC) is a whole system organisational change process which emerged from the seminal Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, establishing a strong graded relationship between the number of childhood adversities experienced and a range of negative outcomes across multiple domains over the life course. To date, there has been no systematic review of organisation-wide implementation initiatives in the child welfare system. As part of a wider cross-system rapid evidence review of the trauma-informed implementation literature using systematic search, screening and review procedures, twenty-one papers reporting on trauma-informed implementation in the child welfare system at state/regional and organisational/agency levels were identified. This paper presents a narrative synthesis of the various implementation strategies and components used across child welfare initiatives, with associated evidence of effectiveness. Training was the TIC implementation component most frequently evaluated with all studies reporting positive impact on staff knowledge, skills and/or confidence. The development of trauma-informed screening processes, and evidence-based treatments/trauma focused services, where evaluated, all produced positive results. Whilst weaknesses in study design often limited generalisability, there was preliminary evidence for the efficacy of trauma-informed approaches in improving the mental and emotional well-being of children served by community-based child welfare services, as well as their potential for reducing caregiver stress and improving placement stability.
| S-EPMC6651663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article, we discuss the following three questions: What is evidence? What is the role of research evidence in informing health policy decisions? What is evidence-informed policymaking? Evidence-informed health policymaking is an approach to policy decisions that aims to ensure that decision making is well-informed by the best available research evidence. It is characterised by the systematic and transparent access to, and appraisal of, evidence as an input into the policymaking process. The overall process of policymaking is not assumed to be systematic and transparent. However, within the overall process of policymaking, systematic processes are used to ensure that relevant research is identified, appraised and used appropriately. These processes are transparent in order to ensure that others can examine what research evidence was used to inform policy decisions, as well as the judgements made about the evidence and its implications. Evidence-informed policymaking helps policymakers gain an understanding of these processes.
| S-EPMC3271820 | biostudies-other