Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: assessing how much confidence to place in the research evidence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lewin S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3308931 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3295823 | 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. The reliability of systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions is variable. Consequently, policymakers and others need to assess how much confidence can be placed in such evidence. The use of systematic and transparent processes to determine such decisions can help to prevent the introduction of errors and bias in these judgements. In this article, we suggest five questions that can be considered when deciding how much confidence to place in the findings of a systematic review of the effects of an intervention. These are: 1. Did the review explicitly address an appropriate policy or management question? 2. Were appropriate criteria used when considering studies for the review? 3. Was the search for relevant studies detailed and reasonably comprehensive? 4. Were assessments of the studies' relevance to the review topic and of their risk of bias reproducible? 5. Were the results similar from study to study?
| S-EPMC3271835 | 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: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:ObjectivesTo develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority.Study design and settingInterim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided.ResultsBased on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted.ConclusionThe Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.
| S-EPMC7557165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransport and its links to health and health inequalities suggest that it is important to assess both the direct and unintended indirect health and related impacts of transport initiatives and policies. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides a framework to assess the possible health impacts of interventions such as transport. Policymakers and practitioners need access to well conducted research syntheses if research evidence is to be used to inform these assessments. The predictive validity of HIA depends heavily on the use and careful interpretation of supporting empirical evidence. Reviewing and digesting the vast volume and diversity of evidence in a field such as transport is likely to be beyond the scope of most HIAs. Collaborations between HIA practitioners and specialist reviewers to develop syntheses of best available evidence applied specifically to HIA could promote the use of evidence in practice.MethodsBest available research evidence was synthesised using the principles of systematic review. The synthesis was developed to reflect the needs of HIA practitioners and policymakers.ResultsAside from injury reduction measures, there is very little empirical data on the impact of road transport interventions. The possibility of impacts on a diverse range of outcomes and differential impacts across groups, make it difficult to assess overall benefit and harm. In addition, multiple mediating factors in the pathways between transport and hypothesised health impacts further complicate prospective assessment of impacts. Informed by the synthesis, a framework of questions was developed to help HIA practitioners identify the key questions which need to be considered in transport HIA.ConclusionPrinciples of systematic review are valuable in producing syntheses of best available evidence for use in HIA practice. Assessment of the health impacts of transport interventions is characterised by much uncertainty, competing values, and differential or conflicting impacts for different population groups at a local or wider level. These are issues pertinent to the value of HIA generally. While uncertainty needs explicit acknowledgement in HIA, there is still scope for best available evidence to inform the development of healthy public policy.
| S-EPMC2567981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In addition to the direct health impacts of COVID-19, government and household mitigation measures have triggered negative indirect economic, educational, and food and health system impacts, hitting low-and middle-income countries the hardest and disproportionately affecting women and girls. We conducted a gender focused analysis on five critical and interwoven crises that have emerged because of the COVID-19 crisis and exacerbated malnutrition and food insecurity. These include restricted mobility and isolation; reduced income; food insecurity; reduced access to essential health and nutrition services; and school closures. Our approach included a theoretical gender analysis, targeted review of the literature, and a visual mapping of evidence-informed impact pathways. As data was identified to support the visualization of pathways, additions were made to codify the complex interrelations between the COVID-19 related crises and underlying gender relations. Our analysis and resultant evidence map illustrate how underlying inequitable norms such as gendered unprotected jobs, reduced access to economic resources, decreased decision-making power, and unequal gendered division of labor, were exacerbated by the pandemic's secondary containment efforts. Health and nutrition policies and interventions targeted to women and children fail to recognize and account for understanding and documentation of underlying gender norms, roles, and relations which may deter successful outcomes. Analyzing the indirect effects of COVID-19 on women and girls offers a useful illustration of how underlying gender inequities can exacerbate health and nutrition outcomes in a crisis. This evidence-informed approach can be used to identify and advocate for more comprehensive upstream policies and programs that address underlying gender inequities.
| S-EPMC9484860 | 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. 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-literature
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 issue of decision making in situations in which there is insufficient evidence at hand. Policymakers often have insufficient evidence to know with certainty what the impacts of a health policy or programme option will be, but they must still make decisions. We suggest four questions that can be considered when there may be insufficient evidence to be confident about the impacts of implementing an option. These are: 1. Is there a systematic review of the impacts of the option? 2. Has inconclusive evidence been misinterpreted as evidence of no effect? 3. Is it possible to be confident about a decision despite a lack of evidence? 4. Is the option potentially harmful, ineffective or not worth the cost?
| S-EPMC3271827 | biostudies-literature