Dataset Information

District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT: Health management information systems (HMIS) produce large amounts of data about health service provision and population health, and provide opportunities for data-based decision-making in decentralized health systems. Yet the data are little-used locally. A well-defined approach to district-level decision-making using health data would help better meet the needs of the local population. In this second of four papers on district decision-making for health in low-income settings, our aim was to explore ways in which district administrators and health managers in low- and lower-middle-income countries use health data to make decisions, to describe the decision-making tools they used and identify challenges encountered when using these tools. A systematic literature review, following PRISMA guidelines, was undertaken. Experts were consulted about key sources of information. A search strategy was developed for 14 online databases of peer reviewed and grey literature. The resources were screened independently by two reviewers using pre-defined inclusion criteria. The 14 papers included were assessed for the quality of reported evidence and a descriptive evidence synthesis of the review findings was undertaken. We found 12 examples of tools to assist district-level decision-making, all of which included two key stages-identification of priorities, and development of an action plan to address them. Of those tools with more steps, four included steps to review or monitor the action plan agreed, suggesting the use of HMIS data. In eight papers HMIS data were used for prioritization. Challenges to decision-making processes fell into three main categories: the availability and quality of health and health facility data; human dynamics and financial constraints. Our findings suggest that evidence is available about a limited range of processes that include the use of data for decision-making at district level. Standardization and pre-testing in diverse settings would increase the potential that these tools could be used more widely.

SUBMITTER: Wickremasinghe D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5009221 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review.

Wickremasinghe Deepthi D Hashmi Iram Ejaz IE Schellenberg Joanna J Avan Bilal Iqbal BI

Health policy and planning 20160901

Health management information systems (HMIS) produce large amounts of data about health service provision and population health, and provide opportunities for data-based decision-making in decentralized health systems. Yet the data are little-used locally. A well-defined approach to district-level decision-making using health data would help better meet the needs of the local population. In this second of four papers on district decision-making for health in low-income settings, our aim was to e ...[more]

PMID: 27591202

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunity Engagement is an important ethical imperative in research. Although substantial research emphasizes its real value and strategic importance, much of the available literature focuses primarily on the success of community participation, with little emphasis given to specific community engagement processes, mechanisms and strategies in relation to intended outcomes in research environments. The systematic literature review's objective was to explore the nature of community engagement processes, strategies and approaches in health research settings in low- and middle-income countries.MethodsThe systematic literature review design was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched for peer-reviewed, English-language literature published between January 2011 and December 2021 through three databases on the internet (PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar). The terms "community engagement," "community involvement," "participation," "research settings," and "low- and middle-income countries" were merged in the search.ResultsThe majority of publications [8/10] were led by authors from low- and middle-income countries, with many of them, [9/10] failing to continuously include important aspects of study quality. Even though consultation and information sessions were less participatory, articles were most likely to describe community engagement in these types of events. The articles covered a wide range of health issues, but the majority were concerned with infectious diseases such as malaria, human immunodeficiency virus, and tuberculosis, followed by studies on the environment and broader health factors. Articles were largely under-theorized.ConclusionsDespite the lack of theoretical underpinnings for various community engagement processes, strategies and approaches, community engagement in research settings was variable. Future studies should go deeper into community engagement theory, acknowledge the power dynamics underpin community engagement, and be more practical about the extent to which communities may participate.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study was done to determine the overall estimate of decision-making autonomy on maternal health services and associated factors in low- and middle-income countries.MethodPubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Ethiopian University online library were searched. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel and analyzed using STATA statistical software (version 14). Publication bias was checked by forest plot, Begg's rank test, and Egger's regression test. To look for heterogeneity, I2 was computed, and an overall estimated analysis was carried out. Subgroup analysis was done by country, year, and publication. Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool was used to check the quality of each study. We carried out a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis.ResultsOut of 1305 articles retrieved, 19 studies (with 104,871 study participants) met eligibility criteria and were included in this study. The pooled prevalence of women's decision-making autonomy on maternal health services in low- and middle-income countries was 55.15% (95% confidence interval: 44.11-66.19; I2 = 98.6%, P < 0.001). Based on subgroup analysis, decision-making autonomy in maternal health services was the highest in Ethiopia at 61.36% (95% confidence interval: 50.58-72.15) and the lowest in Nigeria at 36.16% (95% confidence interval: 12.99-43.39). It was 32.16% (95% confidence interval: 32.72-39.60) and 60.18% (95% confidence interval: 47.92-72.44) before and after 2016, respectively. It was also 54.64% (95% confidence interval: 42.51-66.78) in published studies and 57.91% (95% confidence interval: 54.80-61.02) in unpublished studies. Age (adjusted odds ratio = 2.67; 95% confidence interval: (1.29-5.55), I2 = 90.1%), primary level of education (adjusted odds ratio = 1.75; 95% confidence interval: (1.39-2.21), I2 = 63.8%), secondary education level (adjusted odds ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval: (1.32-3.32), I2 = 87.8%), being urban resident (adjusted odds ratio = 1.80; 95% confidence interval: (1.22-2.66), I2 = 73%), and monthly income (adjusted odds ratio = 3.23; 95% confidence interval: (1.85-5.65), I2 = 97%) were positively associated with decision-making autonomy on maternal health service.ConclusionDecision-making autonomy on maternal health services in low- and middle-income countries was low. Sociodemographic factors also influenced it. Educational accessibility and income generation should have been recommended, enabling women to decide for themselves.

Project description:AimsThis systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.MethodsData collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.ConclusionsMore rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.

Project description:Introduction: Although pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have been increasingly using decision-making frameworks, it is not certain whether these enable better quality decision making. This could be addressed by formally evaluating the quality of decision-making process within those organizations. The aim of this literature review was to identify current techniques (tools, questionnaires, surveys, and studies) for measuring the quality of the decision-making process across the three stakeholders. Methods: Using MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and other Internet-based search engines, a literature review was performed to systematically identify techniques for assessing quality of decision making in medicines development, regulatory review, and HTA. A structured search was applied using key words and a secondary review was carried out. In addition, the measurement properties of each technique were assessed and compared. Ten Quality Decision-Making Practices (QDMPs) developed previously were then used as a framework for the evaluation of techniques identified in the review. Due to the variation in studies identified, meta-analysis was inappropriate. Results: This review identified 13 techniques, where 7 were developed specifically to assess decision making in medicines' development, regulatory review, or HTA; 2 examined corporate decision making, and 4 general decision making. Regarding how closely each technique conformed to the 10 QDMPs, the 13 techniques assessed a median of 6 QDMPs, with a mode of 3 QDMPs. Only 2 techniques evaluated all 10 QDMPs, namely the Organizational IQ and the Quality of Decision Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS), of which only one technique, QoDoS could be applied to assess decision making of both individuals and organizations, and it possessed generalizability to capture issues relevant to companies as well as regulatory authorities. Conclusion: This review confirmed a general paucity of research in this area, particularly regarding the development and systematic application of techniques for evaluating quality decision making, with no consensus around a gold standard. This review has identified QoDoS as the most promising available technique for assessing decision making in the lifecycle of medicines and the next steps would be to further test its validity, sensitivity, and reliability.

Dataset Information

District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review.

Publications

District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a systematic literature review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets