Dataset Information

Research on implementation of interventions in tuberculosis control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several interventions for tuberculosis (TB) control have been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) over the past decade. These include isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) for HIV-infected individuals and household contacts of infectious TB patients, diagnostic algorithms for rule-in or rule-out of smear-negative pulmonary TB, and programmatic treatment for multidrug-resistant TB. There is no systematically collected data on the type of evidence that is publicly available to guide the scale-up of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We investigated the availability of published evidence on their effectiveness, delivery, and cost-effectiveness that policy makers need for scaling-up these interventions at country level.

Methods and findings

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and several regional databases were searched for studies published from 1 January 1990 through 31 March 2012 that assessed health outcomes, delivery aspects, or cost-effectiveness for any of these interventions in low- or middle-income countries. Selected studies were evaluated for their objective(s), design, geographical and institutional setting, and generalizability. Studies reporting health outcomes were categorized as primarily addressing efficacy or effectiveness of the intervention. These criteria were used to draw landscapes of published research. We identified 59 studies on IPT in HIV infection, 14 on IPT in household contacts, 44 on rule-in diagnosis, 19 on rule-out diagnosis, and 72 on second-line treatment. Comparative effectiveness studies were relatively few (n = 9) and limited to South America and sub-Saharan Africa for IPT in HIV-infection, absent for IPT in household contacts, and rare for second-line treatment (n = 3). Evaluations of diagnostic and screening algorithms were more frequent (n = 19) but geographically clustered and mainly of non-comparative design. Fifty-four studies evaluated ways of delivering these interventions, and nine addressed their cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

There are substantial gaps in published evidence for scale-up for five WHO-recommended TB interventions settings at country level, which for many countries possibly precludes program-wide implementation of these interventions. There is a strong need for rigorous operational research studies to be carried out in programmatic settings to inform on best use of existing and new interventions in TB control.

SUBMITTER: Cobelens F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3525528 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Research on implementation of interventions in tuberculosis control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Cobelens Frank F van Kampen Sanne S Ochodo Eleanor E Atun Rifat R Lienhardt Christian C

PLoS medicine 20121218 12

<h4>Background</h4>Several interventions for tuberculosis (TB) control have been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) over the past decade. These include isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) for HIV-infected individuals and household contacts of infectious TB patients, diagnostic algorithms for rule-in or rule-out of smear-negative pulmonary TB, and programmatic treatment for multidrug-resistant TB. There is no systematically collected data on the type of evidence that is publicly av ...[more]

PMID: 23271959

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods and findingsOn January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs. Any empirical and peer-reviewed studies that focused on these interventions and reported implementation outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Given the focus on this review and the heterogeneity in aims and methodologies of included studies, risk of bias assessment to understand how effect size may have been compromised by bias is not applicable. We instead commented on the distribution of research designs and discussed about stronger/weaker designs. We synthesized extracted data using descriptive statistics and following the review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252969). Of 9,683 potential studies and 7,419 unique records screened for inclusion, 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries). The number of studies published has been increasing over time. Nearly 40% of all the studies were on cervical cancer. With regards to intervention type, screening accounted for 49%, treatment for 39%, while prevention for 12% (with 80% of the latter focusing on prevention of the NCD behavior risk factors). Feasibility (38%) was the most studied implementation outcome followed by adoption (23%); few studies addressed sustainability. The implementation strategies were not specified well enough. Most studies used quantitative methods (86%). The weakest study design, preexperimental, and the strongest study design, experimental, were respectively employed in 25% and 24% of included studies. Approximately 72% of studies reported funding, with international funding being the predominant source. The majority of studies were proof of concept or pilot (88%) and targeted the micro level of health system (79%). Less than 5% of studies report using implementation research framework.ConclusionsDespite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

Project description:Background:We systematically reviewed implementation research targeting depression interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to assess gaps in methodological coverage. Methods:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of depression interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome published through March 2019. Results:A total of 8714 studies were screened, 759 were assessed for eligibility, and 79 studies met inclusion criteria. Common implementation outcomes reported were acceptability (n = 50; 63.3%), feasibility (n = 28; 35.4%), and fidelity (n = 18; 22.8%). Only four studies (5.1%) reported adoption or penetration, and three (3.8%) reported sustainability. The Sub-Saharan Africa region (n = 29; 36.7%) had the most studies. The majority of studies (n = 59; 74.7%) reported outcomes for a depression intervention implemented in pilot researcher-controlled settings. Studies commonly focused on Hybrid Type-1 effectiveness-implementation designs (n = 53; 67.1), followed by Hybrid Type-3 (n = 16; 20.3%). Only 21 studies (26.6%) tested an implementation strategy, with the most common being revising professional roles (n = 10; 47.6%). The most common intervention modality was individual psychotherapy (n = 30; 38.0%). Common study designs were mixed methods (n = 27; 34.2%), quasi-experimental uncontrolled pre-post (n = 17; 21.5%), and individual randomized trials (n = 16; 20.3). Conclusions:Existing research has focused on early-stage implementation outcomes. Most studies have utilized Hybrid Type-1 designs, with the primary aim to test intervention effectiveness delivered in researcher-controlled settings. Future research should focus on testing and optimizing implementation strategies to promote scale-up of evidence-based depression interventions in routine care. These studies should use high-quality pragmatic designs and focus on later-stage implementation outcomes such as cost, penetration, and sustainability.

Project description:Neonatal mortality remains a significant health problem in low-income settings. Low-cost essential newborn care (ENC) interventions with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness exist but have not reached high coverage (≥90%). Little is known about the strategies used to implement these interventions or how they relate to improved coverage. We conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes for ENC in low- and low middle-income countries capturing evidence from five medical and global health databases from 1990 to 2018. We included studies of implementation of delayed cord clamping, immediate drying, skin-to-skin contact (SSC) and/or early initiation of breastfeeding implemented in the first hour (facility-based studies) or the 1st day (community-based studies) of life. Implementation strategies and outcomes were categorized according to published frameworks: Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change and Outcomes for Implementation Research. The relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes was evaluated using standardized mean differences and correlation coefficients. Forty-three papers met inclusion criteria. Interventions included community-based care/health promotion and facility-based support and health care provider training. Included studies used 3-31 implementation strategies, though the consistency with which strategies were applied was variable. Conduct educational meetings was the most frequently used strategy. Included studies reported 1-4 implementation outcomes with coverage reported most frequently. Heterogeneity was high and no statistically significant association was found between the number of implementation strategies used and coverage of ENC. This review highlights several challenges in learning from implementation of ENC in low- and low middle-income countries, particularly poor description of interventions and implementation outcomes. We recommend use of UK Medical Research Council guidelines (2015) for process evaluations and checklists for reporting implementation studies. Improved reporting of implementation research in this setting is necessary to learn how to improve service delivery and outcomes and thereby reduce neonatal mortality.

Project description:Globally, public health measures like face masks, hand hygiene and maintaining social distancing have been implemented to delay and reduce local transmission of COVID-19. To date there is emerging evidence to provide effectiveness and compliance to intervention measures on COVID-19 due to rapid spread of the disease. We synthesized evidence of community interventions and innovative practices to mitigate COVID-19 as well as previous respiratory outbreak infections which may share some aspects of transmission dynamics with COVID-19. In the study, we systematically searched the literature on community interventions to mitigate COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), H1N1 Influenza and MERS (middle east respiratory syndrome) epidemics in PubMed, Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO), MEDRXIV and Google from their inception until May 30, 2020 for up-to-date published and grey resources. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicates. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183064). Of 41,138 papers found, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria in various settings in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). One of the papers from LMICs originated from Africa (Madagascar) with the rest from Asia 9 (China 5, Bangladesh 2, Thailand 2); South America 5 (Mexico 3, Peru 2) and Europe 2 (Serbia and Romania). Following five studies on the use of face masks, the risk of contracting SARS and Influenza was reduced OR 0.78 and 95% CI = 0.36-1.67. Equally, six studies on hand hygiene practices reported a reduced risk of contracting SARS and Influenza OR 0.95 and 95% CI = 0.83-1.08. Further two studies that looked at combined use of face masks and hand hygiene interventions showed the effectiveness in controlling the transmission of influenza OR 0.94 and 95% CI = 0.58-1.54. Nine studies on social distancing intervention demonstrated the importance of physical distance through closure of learning institutions on the transmission dynamics of disease. The evidence confirms the use of face masks, good hand hygiene and social distancing as community interventions are effective to control the spread of SARS and influenza in LMICs. However, the effectiveness of community interventions in LMICs should be informed by adherence of the mitigation measures and contextual factors taking into account the best practices. The study has shown gaps in adherence/compliance of the interventions, hence a need for robust intervention studies to better inform the evidence on compliance of the interventions. Nevertheless, this rapid review of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance on similar respiratory infectious diseases like Covid-19 in Kenya and similar LMIC context.

Project description:ObjectiveA review of the implementation outcomes of clean cookstove use, and its effects on blood pressure (BP) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of studies that reported the effect of clean cookstove use on BP among women, and implementation science outcomes in LMICs.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, INSPEC, Scielo, Cochrane Library, Global Health and Web of Science PLUS. We conducted searches in November 2017 with a repeat in May 2018. We did not restrict article publication date.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included only studies conducted in LMICs, published in English, regardless of publication year and studies that examined the use of improved or clean cookstove intervention on BP. Two authors independently screened journal article titles, abstracts and full-text articles to identify those that included the following search terms: high BP, hypertension and or household air pollution, LMICs, cookstove and implementation outcomes.ResultsOf the 461 non-duplicate articles identified, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (in Nigeria, Guatemala and Ghana) and two studies of pre-post design (in Bolivia and Nicaragua) met eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated the effect of cookstove use on BP in women. Two of the three RCTs reported a mean reduction in diastolic BP of -2.8 mm Hg (-5.0, -0.6; p=0.01) for the Nigerian study; -3.0 mm Hg; (-5.7, -0.4; p=0.02) for the Guatemalan study; while the study conducted in Ghana reported a non-significant change in BP. The pre-post studies reported a significant reduction in mean systolic BP of -5.5 mm Hg; (p=0.01) for the Bolivian study, and -5.9 mm Hg (-11.3, -0.4; p=0.05) for the Nicaraguan study. Implementation science outcomes were reported in all five studies (three reported feasibility, one reported adoption and one reported feasibility and adoption of cookstove interventions).ConclusionAlthough this review demonstrated that there is limited evidence on the implementation of clean cookstove use in LMICs, the effects of clean cookstove on BP were significant for both systolic and diastolic BP among women. Future studies should consider standardised reporting of implementation outcomes.

Dataset Information

Research on implementation of interventions in tuberculosis control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Research on implementation of interventions in tuberculosis control in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets