Approaches to improve quality of care (QoC) for women and newborns: conclusions, evidence gaps and research priorities.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bhutta ZA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4160923 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Approaches to improve quality of care (QoC) for women and newborns: conclusions, evidence gaps and research priorities.
Bhutta Zulfiqar A ZA Salam Rehana A RA Lassi Zohra S ZS Austin Anne A Langer Ana A
Reproductive health 20140904
This series of papers focuses on a quality of care framework for maternal health, and systematically reviews the evidence of interventions aimed at improving care at the community-, district- and factility-levels. While the systematic reviews highlight the effectiveness of specific quality improvement efforts on maternal and newborn health, it also illlustrates the dearth of evidence on community-, district- and facility-level interventions, particulary for issues specific to quality of maternal ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposePrioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME).DesignCross-sectional study.ParticipantsDiabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.MethodsWe provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions.Main outcome measureRanking of importance of each clinical question.ResultsThirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as "must be measured in all studies" included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review.ConclusionsA limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.
| S-EPMC5510756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is the most severe and disabling form of tuberculosis (TB), accounting for around 1-5% of the global TB caseload, with mortality of approximately 20% in children and up to 60% in persons co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus even in those treated. Relatively few centres of excellence in TBM research exist and the field would therefore benefit from greater co-ordination, advocacy, collaboration and early data sharing. To this end, in 2009, 2015 and 2019 we convened the TBM International Research Consortium, bringing together approximately 50 researchers from five continents. The most recent meeting took place on 1 st and 2 nd March 2019 in Lucknow, India. During the meeting, researchers and clinicians presented updates in their areas of expertise, and additionally presented on the knowledge gaps and research priorities in that field. Discussion during the meeting was followed by the development, by a core writing group, of a synthesis of knowledge gaps and research priorities within seven domains, namely epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, host-directed therapy, critical care and implementation science. These were circulated to the whole consortium for written input and feedback. Further cycles of discussion between the writing group took place to arrive at a consensus series of priorities. This article summarises the consensus reached by the consortium concerning the unmet needs and priorities for future research for this neglected and often fatal disease.
| S-EPMC7014926 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8926410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively.ObjectiveWe sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility.MethodsWe convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale.ResultsThe panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices.ConclusionsWe identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.
| S-EPMC8837706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the present COVID-19 crisis, one of the greatest challenges for research funding at both the international and national level is selecting the best research topic to achieve efficiency and equity in health research and to address the knowledge gap urgently raised due to the event. Despite international recommendations, countries should consider their context-specific situation and define local research priorities. We aimed to exercise a priority-setting activity to identify the knowledge gaps and suggest research priorities in response to the COVID-19 epidemic in Iran.MethodsFirst, we tried to identify the contextual knowledge gaps based on an online survey, performing key informant interviews (i.e. health professionals, policy-makers and managers) and media analysis. We also performed a literature review and considered international research priorities for COVID-19. Subsequently, we prepared a list of research questions and challenges to respond to the COVID-19 crisis in Iran using a systems approach. Then we mapped approved COVID-19 research projects in the country to research questions. Finally, we compared the identified research questions (not challenges) with the prioritized research from international organizations and then prioritized them for Iran.ResultsWe found risk factors and epidemiological dissemination patterns of the virus and its consequences in an epidemiology domain, implementation of clinical and hygiene in a clinical management domain, genetic studies for targeting prevention and treatment in a candidate treatment and vaccine research and development (R&D) knowledge domain, examination of the manifestations of ethics in society instead of ethics in research in an ethics domain, "care, access and health system" and "public health and participation in response to public health and clinical research" as two sub-domains of a social sciences domain, and finally, no new questions in either the virology, transmission, diagnosis or animal and environmental domain.ConclusionsIn the event of global health crises like COVID-19, prioritization of research questions can be done globally, but some of the research priorities are context-specific and may vary by regional needs. To better manage research resources, researchers must respond to the challenges faced in each country based on its political, economic, social and cultural characteristics, and to make evidence-informed decisions, global knowledge gaps must be customized in each country.
| S-EPMC8889392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lay abstractVery little is known about the status of autism research in Central Asia. Through the library databases, we identified and reviewed 11 scientific studies conducted with autistic people and their families in five Central Asian countries-Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Of the 11 studies, 10 were conducted in Kazakhstan and 1 in Uzbekistan. Within these limited number of research studies, different topics such as diagnosis, risk factors of autism, biology, and various service and intervention areas were addressed. We identified several knowledge gaps and research priorities to address the needs of autistic people, their families, and professionals in Central Asia.
| S-EPMC10851649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of the human microbiome in health and disease is an emerging and important area of research; however, there is a concern that African populations are under-represented in human microbiome studies. We, therefore, conducted a systematic survey of African human microbiome studies to provide an overview and identify research gaps. Our secondary objectives were: (i) to determine the number of peer-reviewed publications; (ii) to identify the extent to which the researches focused on diseases identified by the World Health Organization [WHO] State of Health in the African Region Report as being the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in 2018; (iii) to describe the extent and pattern of collaborations between researchers in Africa and the rest of the world; and (iv) to identify leadership and funders of the studies.MethodologyWe systematically searched Medline via PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information through EBSCOhost, and Web of Science from inception through to 1st April 2020. We included studies that characterized samples from African populations using next-generation sequencing approaches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature search, title and abstract, and full-text screening, as well as data extraction.ResultsWe included 168 studies out of 5515 records retrieved. Most studies were published in PLoS One (13%; 22/168), and samples were collected from 33 of the 54 African countries. The country where most studies were conducted was South Africa (27/168), followed by Kenya (23/168) and Uganda (18/168). 26.8% (45/168) focused on diseases of significant public health concern in Africa. Collaboration between scientists from the United States of America and Africa was most common (96/168). The first and/or last authors of 79.8% of studies were not affiliated with institutions in Africa. Major funders were the United States of America National Institutes of Health (45.2%; 76/168), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (17.8%; 30/168), and the European Union (11.9%; 20/168).ConclusionsThere are significant gaps in microbiome research in Africa, especially those focusing on diseases of public health importance. There is a need for local leadership, capacity building, intra-continental collaboration, and national government investment in microbiome research within Africa. Video Abstract.
| S-EPMC8672519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWell-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).ResultsAmong 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.DiscussionTo ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
| S-EPMC8738821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDry eye, a common yet underrecognized and evolving field, has few recommended treatment algorithms, mostly based on expert consensus rather than robust research evidence. There are high costs associated with managing dry eye and conducting research to identify effective and safe long-term treatments. To support evidence-based management of dry eye, our purpose was to identify and prioritize important clinical research questions for future clinical research.MethodsWe translated recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2013 Preferred Practice Patterns for dry eye into answerable clinical research questions about treatment effectiveness. Clinicians around the world who manage patients with dry eye rated each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round online Delphi survey. We considered questions as "important" if ≥75% of respondents assigned a rating of 6 or more in round 2. We mapped the identified important clinical research questions to reliable systematic reviews published up to March 2016.ResultsSeventy-five clinicians from at least 21 countries completed both Delphi rounds. Among the 58 questions, 24 met our definition of "important": 9/24 and 7/24 addressed topical and systemic treatments, respectively. All 4 questions with the highest 25th percentiles addressed topical treatments. Although 6/24 "important" questions were associated with 4 existing reliable systematic reviews, none of these reviews came to a definitive conclusion about treatment effectiveness.ConclusionsWe identified gaps pertaining to treatment options for dry eye. Future clinical research on the management of dry eye should strongly consider these prioritized questions.
| S-EPMC5678755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a guideline-recommended, multidisciplinary program of exercise training, risk factor management, and psychosocial counseling for people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is beneficial but underused and with substantial disparities in referral, access, and participation. The emergence of new virtual and remote delivery models has the potential to improve access to and participation in CR and ultimately improve outcomes for people with CVD. Although data suggest that new delivery models for CR have safety and efficacy similar to traditional in-person CR, questions remain regarding which participants are most likely to benefit from these models, how and where such programs should be delivered, and their effect on outcomes in diverse populations. In this review, we describe important gaps in evidence, identify relevant research questions, and propose strategies for addressing them. We highlight 4 research priorities: (1) including diverse populations in all CR research; (2) leveraging implementation methodologies to enhance equitable delivery of CR; (3) clarifying which populations are most likely to benefit from virtual and remote CR; and (4) comparing traditional in-person CR with virtual and remote CR in diverse populations using multicenter studies of important clinical, psychosocial, and cost-effectiveness outcomes that are relevant to patients, caregivers, providers, health systems, and payors. By framing these important questions, we hope to advance toward a goal of delivering high-quality CR to as many people as possible to improve outcomes in those with CVD.
| S-EPMC9988237 | biostudies-literature