Dataset Information

Frameworks to assess health systems governance: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Governance of the health system is a relatively new concept and there are gaps in understanding what health system governance is and how it could be assessed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to describe the concept of governance and the theories underpinning as applied to health systems; and to identify which frameworks are available and have been applied to assess health systems governance. Frameworks were reviewed to understand how the principles of governance might be operationalized at different levels of a health system. Electronic databases and web portals of international institutions concerned with governance were searched for publications in English for the period January 1994 to February 2016. Sixteen frameworks developed to assess governance in the health system were identified and are described. Of these, six frameworks were developed based on theories from new institutional economics; three are primarily informed by political science and public management disciplines; three arise from the development literature and four use multidisciplinary approaches. Only five of the identified frameworks have been applied. These used the principal-agent theory, theory of common pool resources, North's institutional analysis and the cybernetics theory. Governance is a practice, dependent on arrangements set at political or national level, but which needs to be operationalized by individuals at lower levels in the health system; multi-level frameworks acknowledge this. Three frameworks were used to assess governance at all levels of the health system. Health system governance is complex and difficult to assess; the concept of governance originates from different disciplines and is multidimensional. There is a need to validate and apply existing frameworks and share lessons learnt regarding which frameworks work well in which settings. A comprehensive assessment of governance could enable policy makers to prioritize solutions for problems identified as well as replicate and scale-up examples of good practice.

SUBMITTER: Pyone T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5406767 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frameworks to assess health systems governance: a systematic review.

Pyone Thidar T Smith Helen H van den Broek Nynke N

Health policy and planning 20170601 5

Governance of the health system is a relatively new concept and there are gaps in understanding what health system governance is and how it could be assessed. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to describe the concept of governance and the theories underpinning as applied to health systems; and to identify which frameworks are available and have been applied to assess health systems governance. Frameworks were reviewed to understand how the principles of governance might be opera ...[more]

PMID: 28334991

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital health technologies (DHTs) generate a large volume of information used in health care for administrative, educational, research, and clinical purposes. The clinical use of digital information for diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic purposes has multiple patient safety problems, some of which result from poor information quality (IQ).ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to synthesize an IQ framework that could be used to evaluate the extent to which digital health information is fit for clinical purposes.MethodsThe review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO, Global Health, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Scopus, and HMIC (the Health Management Information Consortium) from inception until October 2019. Multidimensional IQ frameworks for assessing DHTs used in the clinical context by health care professionals were included. A thematic synthesis approach was used to synthesize the Clinical Information Quality (CLIQ) framework for digital health.ResultsWe identified 10 existing IQ frameworks from which we developed the CLIQ framework for digital health with 13 unique dimensions: accessibility, completeness, portability, security, timeliness, accuracy, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, relevance, conformance, consistency, and maintainability, which were categorized into 3 meaningful categories: availability, informativeness, and usability.ConclusionsThis systematic review highlights the importance of the IQ of DHTs and its relevance to patient safety. The CLIQ framework for digital health will be useful in evaluating and conceptualizing IQ issues associated with digital health, thus forestalling potential patient safety problems.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018097142; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97142.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024722.

Project description:BackgroundGrowing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance.MethodsWe drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories.ResultsWe identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n =?45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system's many constituents.ConclusionsA governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding the capacity of allied health professionals to engage in research has been recognised as a priority due to the many benefits it brings for patients, healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations and society more broadly. There is increasing recognition of the need for a coordinated multi-strategy approach to building research capacity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify existing integrated models and frameworks which guide research capacity building for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken searching five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AustHealth and Web of Science) using English language restrictions. Two authors independently screened and reviewed studies, extracted data and performed quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Content and thematic analysis methods were used to code and categorise the data.ResultsA total of 8492 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 20 were reviewed in full-text. One quantitative study and five qualitative studies were included, each of which describing a research capacity building framework. Three interconnected and interdependent themes were identified as being essential for research capacity building, including 'supporting clinicians in research', 'working together' and 'valuing research for excellence'.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review have been synthesised to develop a succinct and integrated framework for research capacity building which is relevant for allied health professionals working in publicly funded secondary and tertiary healthcare organisations. This framework provides further evidence to suggest that research capacity building strategies are interlinked and interdependent and should be implemented as part of an integrated 'whole of system' approach, with commitment and support from all levels of leadership and management. Future directions for research include using behaviour change and knowledge translation theories to guide the implementation and evaluation of this new framework.Trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42018087476 .

Project description:Despite growing support for integration of frontline services, a lack of information about the pre-conditions necessary to integrate such services hampers the ability of policy makers and implementers to assess how feasible or worthwhile integration may be, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We adopted a modified systematic review with aspects of realist review, including quantitative and qualitative studies that incorporated assessment of health system preparedness for and capacity to implement integrated services. We searched Medline via Ovid, Web of Science and the Cochrane library using terms adapted from Dudley and Garner's systematic review on integration in LMICs. From an initial list of 10 550 articles, 206 were selected for full-text review by two reviewers who independently reviewed articles and inductively extracted and synthesized themes related to health system preparedness. We identified five 'context' related categories and four health system 'capability' themes. The contextual enabling and constraining factors for frontline service integration were: (1) the organizational framework of frontline services, (2) health care worker preparedness, (3) community and client preparedness, (4) upstream logistics and (5) policy and governance issues. The intersecting health system capabilities identified were the need for: (1) sufficiently functional frontline health services, (2) sufficiently trained and motivated health care workers, (3) availability of technical tools and equipment suitable to facilitate integrated frontline services and (4) appropriately devolved authority and decision-making processes to enable frontline managers and staff to adapt integration to local circumstances. Moving beyond claims that integration is defined differently by different programs and thus unsuitable for comparison, this review demonstrates that synthesis is possible. It presents a common set of contextual factors and health system capabilities necessary for successful service integration which may be considered indicators of preparedness and could form the basis for an 'integration preparedness tool'.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this systematic review of diverse evidence was to examine the relationship between health system governance and workforce outcomes. Particular attention was paid to how governance mechanisms facilitate change in the workforce to ensure the effective use of all health providers.MethodsIn accordance with standard systematic review procedures, the research team independently screened over 4300 abstracts found in database searches, website searches, and bibliographies. Searches were limited to 2001-2012, included only publications from Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Peer- reviewed papers and grey literature were considered. Two reviewers independently rated articles on quality and relevance and classified them into themes identified by the team. One hundred and thirteen articles that discussed both workforce and governance were retained and extracted into narrative summary tables for synthesis.ResultsSix types of governance mechanisms emerged from our analysis. Shared governance, Magnet accreditation, and professional development initiatives were all associated with improved outcomes for the health workforce (e.g., decreased turnover, increased job satisfaction, increased empowerment, etc.). Implementation of quality-focused initiatives was associated with apprehension among providers, but opportunities for provider training on these initiatives increased quality and improved work attitudes. Research on reorganization of healthcare delivery suggests that changing to team-based care is accompanied by stress and concerns about role clarity, that outcomes vary for providers in private versus public organizations, and that co-operative clinics are beneficial for physicians. Funding schemes required a supplementary search to achieve adequate depth and coverage. Those findings are reported elsewhere.ConclusionsThe results of the review show that while there are governance mechanisms that consider workforce impacts, it is not to the extent one might expect given the importance of the workforce for improving patient outcomes. Furthermore, to successfully implement governance mechanisms in this domain, there are key strategies recommended to support change and achieve desired outcomes. The most important of these are: to build trust by clearly articulating the organization's goal; considering the workforce through planning, implementation, and evaluation phases; and providing strong leadership.

Project description:BackgroundResearch has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research.Results10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review.ConclusionLA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies.

Project description:BackgroundObjective of the study was to assess the effects of strategies to integrate targeted priority population, health and nutrition interventions into health systems on patient health outcomes and health system effectiveness and thus to compare integrated and non-integrated health programmes.MethodsSystematic review using Cochrane methodology of analysing randomised trials, controlled before-and-after and interrupted time series studies. We defined specific strategies to search PubMed, CENTRAL and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group register, considered studies published from January 1998 until September 2008, and tracked references and citations. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility, with an additional arbiter as needed, and extracted information on outcomes: primary (improved health, financial protection, and user satisfaction) and secondary (improved population coverage, access to health services, efficiency, and quality) using standardised, pre-piloted forms. Two reviewers in the final stage of selection jointly assessed quality of all selected studies using the GRADE criteria.ResultsOf 8,274 citations identified 12 studies met inclusion criteria. Four studies compared the benefits of Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses in Tanzania and Bangladesh, showing improved care management and higher utilisation of health facilities at no additional cost. Eight studies focused on integrated delivery of mental health and substance abuse services in the United Kingdom and United States of America. Integrated service delivery resulted in better clinical outcomes and greater reduction of substance abuse in specific sub-groups of patients, with no significant difference found overall. Quality of care, patient satisfaction, and treatment engagement were higher in integrated delivery models.ConclusionsTargeted priority population health interventions we identified led to improved health outcomes, quality of care, patient satisfaction and access to care. Limited evidence with inconsistent findings across varied interventions in different settings means no general conclusions can be drawn on the benefits or disadvantages of integrated service delivery.

Dataset Information

Frameworks to assess health systems governance: a systematic review.

Publications

Frameworks to assess health systems governance: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets