Dataset Information

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach.

Methods/design

We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies.

Discussion

Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42014013204.

SUBMITTER: Wilson MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4273322 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

Wilson Michael G MG Ellen Moriah E ME Lavis John N JN Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Moat Kaelan A KA Shemer Joshua J Sullivan Terry T Garner Sarah S Goeree Ron R Grilli Roberto R Peffer Justin J Samra Kevin K

Systematic reviews 20141211

<h4>Background</h4>Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective ...[more]

PMID: 25495034

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization.MethodsWe applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers.ResultsWe identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes.ConclusionsThis CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

Project description:BackgroundThe health policy and systems research literature increasingly observes that knowledge translation (KT) practices are difficult to sustain. An important issue is that it remains unclear what sustainability of KT practices means and how it can be improved. The aim of this study was thus to identify and explain those processes, activities, and efforts in the literature that facilitate the sustaining of KT practices in health policy-making processes.MethodsWe used a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to review the health policy and systems research and Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature. The STS literature was included as to enrich the review with constructivist social scientific perspectives on sustainability and KT. The CIS methodology allowed for creating new theory by critically combining both literatures. We searched the literature by using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and qualitative sampling. Searches were guided by pre-set eligibility criteria and all entries were iteratively analysed using thematic synthesis.ResultsEighty documents were included. Our synthesis suggests a shift from sustainability as an end-goal towards sustaining as actors' relatively mundane work aimed at making and keeping KT practices productive. This 'sustaining work' is an interplay of three processes: (i) translating, (ii) contexting, and (iii) institutionalising. Translating refers to activities aimed at constructing and extending networks. Contexting emphasises the activities needed to create contexts that support KT practices. Institutionalising addresses how actors create, maintain, and disrupt institutions with the aim of sustaining KT practices.ConclusionThe 'sustaining work' perspective of our CIS emphasises KT actors' ongoing work directed at sustaining KT practices. We suggest that this perspective can guide empirical study of sustaining work and that these empirical insights, combined with this CIS, can inform training programmes for KT actors, and thereby improve the sustainability of KT practices.

Project description:Health systems guidance (HSG) are systematically developed statements that assist with decisions about options for addressing health systems challenges, including related changes in health systems arrangements. However, the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG poses unique conceptual and methodological challenges related to the varied types of evidence that are relevant, the complexity of health systems, and the pre-eminence of contextual factors. To address this gap, we are conducting a program of research that aims to create a tool to support the appraisal of HSG and further enhance HSG development and reporting. The focus of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to determine quality criteria (concepts) relevant for this process.We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach to knowledge synthesis that enabled an iterative, flexible, and dynamic analysis of diverse bodies of literature in order to generate a candidate list of concepts that will constitute the foundational components of the HSG tool. Using our review questions as compasses, we were able to guide the search strategy to look for papers based on their potential relevance to HSG appraisal, development, and reporting. The search strategy included various electronic databases and sources, subject-specific journals, conference abstracts, research reports, book chapters, unpublished data, dissertations, and policy documents. Screening the papers and data extraction was completed independently and in duplicate, and a narrative approach to data synthesis was executed.We identified 43 papers that met eligibility criteria. No existing review was found on this topic, and no HSG appraisal tool was identified. Over one third of the authors implicitly or explicitly identified the need for a high-quality tool aimed to systematically evaluate HSG and contribute to its development/reporting. We identified 30 concepts that may be relevant to the appraisal of HSG and were able to cluster them into three meaningful domains: process principles, content, and context principles.Our study showed the role that the quality criteria play in the development, appraisal, and reporting of HSG and demonstrated the link and resonance within and between the various concepts in the three domains.

Project description:BackgroundEnvironmental health risks are disproportionately colocated with communities in poverty and communities of color. In some cases, participatory research projects have effectively addressed structural causes of health risk in environmental justice (EJ) communities. However, many such projects fail to catalyze change at a structural level.ObjectivesThis review employs Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) to theorize specific elements of participatory research for environmental health that effectively prompt structural change in EJ communities.MethodsAcademic database search was used to identify peer-reviewed literature describing participatory research with EJ communities to address environmental health. Synthetic constructs were developed iteratively related to study characteristics, design elements, and outcomes; and data were extracted for included records. Statistical analyses were performed to assess correlations between study design elements and structural change outcomes. Through critical, comparative, and contextual analyses of the "structural change" case study group and "non- structural change" group, informed by relevant theoretical literature, a synthesizing argument was generated.ResultsFrom 505 total records identified, eligibility screening produced 232 case study articles, representing 154 case studies, and 55 theoretical articles for synthesis. Twenty-six case studies resulted in a structural change outcome. The synthesizing argument states that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when a) community members hold formal leadership roles; b) project design includes decision-makers and policy goals; and c) long term partnerships are sustained through multiple funding mechanisms. The assumption of EJ community benefit through research participation is critically examined.DiscussionRecommended future directions include establishing structural change as a goal of participatory research, employing participatory assessment of community benefit, and increased hiring of faculty of color at research institutions. The power, privilege, and political influence that academic institutions are able to leverage in partnership with EJ communities may be as valuable as the research itself. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6274.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of the determinants of health has caused a shift towards understanding health from a holistic perspective as well as increased recognition of public health's contributions to the health of the population. Several frameworks exist to conceptualise healthcare systems, highlighting the stark contrast of frameworks unique to public health systems. The objectives of this study were to define public health systems and assess differences between healthcare systems and public health systems within established health systems frameworks.MethodsA critical interpretive synthesis was conducted. Databases searched included EBSCOhost, OVID, Scholars Portal, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Health Systems Evidence. Data extraction, coding and analysis followed a best-fit framework analysis method. Initial codes were based on a current leading health systems and policy classification scheme - health systems arrangements (governance, financial and delivery arrangements).ResultsA total of 5933 unique documents were identified and 67 were included in the analysis. Definitions of public health and public health systems varied significantly as did their roles and functions across jurisdictions. Public health systems arrangements generally followed those of health systems, with the addition of partnerships (community and inter-sectoral) and communication playing a larger role in public health. A public health systems framework and conceptualisation of how public health currently fits within health systems are presented.ConclusionsPublic health systems are unique and vital entities within health systems. In addition to examining how public health and public health systems have been defined within the literature, this review suggests that establishing the scope of public health is crucial to understanding its role within the larger health system and adds to the discourse around the relationship between public health, healthcare and population health. More broadly, this study addresses an important gap in understanding public health systems and provides conceptual and practical contributions as well as areas for future research.

Project description:Recent theorizing about the connection between the brain and trauma (Perry, 2009; Porges, 2011; van der Kolk, 2015) has led to a burgeoning of interest in the provision of music-based programs with people who have had adverse experiences. Although there has been critique of the lack of scientific basis of these theories and their implications for practice (McLean, 2016), they remain popular with practitioners who are keen to introduce innovative and potentially beneficial approaches to the people with whom they work. Music therapists have a long tradition of working with traumatized clients, however, the brain-based rationales did not seem congruent with the less predictable and more idiosyncratic benefits reported, which seem to occur through more psychodynamic mechanisms of action. In order to unravel what seemed to be a body of literature plagued by the conflation of theories, we undertook a critical interpretive synthesis of literature in the past 10 years to cross-examine the ways that music and trauma have been connected. To do this we extracted data from 36 identified articles to distinguish what music methods were used, what claims were made about benefits, what theoretical justifications were provided and how much research basis there was for the claims being made. Having systematically disentangled the various dimensions, we then constructed a spectrum of approaches that offers a logical categorization of four different ways of using music with people who have had adverse life experiences. These included using music for stabilizing, entrainment, expressive and performative purposes. Specific music-based methods were proposed for those associated with brain-based rationales, and more responsive, multi-method approaches were congruent with recovery and social change models. Future research would benefit from a more clearly articulated connection between theoretical rationale, music-based methods, benefits and research approaches. The resultant spectrum may provide useful guidance for both practice and research design.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Dataset Information

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets