Dataset Information

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results.

Methods

To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages.

Results

The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

Conclusions

Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

SUBMITTER: Lavis JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4429608 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

Lavis John N JN Wilson Michael G MG Moat Kaelan A KA Hammill Amanda C AC Boyko Jennifer A JA Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Flottorp Signe S

Health research policy and systems 20150225

<h4>Background</h4>Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results.<h4>Methods</h4>To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We ...[more]

PMID: 25971248

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn public clinics in Kenya, separate, sequential delivery of the component services of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) (e.g. HIV testing, counselling, and dispensing) creates long wait times that hinder clients' ability and desire to access and continue PrEP. We conducted a mixed methods study in four public clinics in western Kenya to identify strategies for operationalizing a one-stop shop (OSS) model and evaluate whether this model could improve client wait time and care acceptability among clients and providers without negatively impacting uptake or continuation.MethodsFrom January 2020 through November 2020, we collected and analysed 47 time-and-motion observations using Mann-Whitney U tests, 29 provider and client interviews, 68 technical assistance reports, and clinic flow maps from intervention clinics. We used controlled interrupted time series (cITS) to compare trends in PrEP initiation and on-time returns from a 12-month pre-intervention period (January-December 2019) to an 8-month post-period (January-November 2020, excluding a 3-month COVID-19 wash-out period) at intervention and control clinics.ResultsFrom the pre- to post-period, median client wait time at intervention clinics dropped significantly from 31 to 6 minutes (p = 0.02), while median provider contact time remained around 23 minutes (p = 0.4). Intervention clinics achieved efficiency gains by moving PrEP delivery to lower volume departments, moving steps closer together (e.g. relocating supplies; cross-training and task-shifting), and differentiating clients based on the subset of services needed. Clients and providers found the OSS model highly acceptable and additionally identified increased privacy, reduced stigma, and higher quality client-provider interactions as benefits of the model. From the pre- to post-period, average monthly initiations at intervention and control clinics increased by 6 and 2.3, respectively, and percent of expected follow-up visits occurring on time decreased by 18% and 26%, respectively; cITS analysis of PrEP initiations (n = 1227) and follow-up visits (n = 2696) revealed no significant difference between intervention and control clinics in terms of trends in PrEP initiation and on-time returns (all p>0.05).ConclusionsAn OSS model significantly improved client wait time and care acceptability without negatively impacting initiations or continuations, thus highlighting opportunities to improve the efficiency of PrEP delivery efficiency and client-centredness.

Project description:Participation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a 'One Stop' screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach.Participants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed 'One Stop' cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis.1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1?years?±?15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2-59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48-53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2-33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21-0.66), p?<?0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46-3.00), p?<?0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22-2.51), p?<?0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3-39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07-0.74), p?<?0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2-24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9-9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5-7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9-88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location.Identified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.

Dataset Information

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets