Dataset Information

The role of academic health centres in building equitable health systems: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Academic health centres (AHCs) are complex organisations often defined by their 'tripartite' mission: to achieve high standards of clinical care, undertake clinical and laboratory research and educate health professionals. In the last decade, AHCs have moved away from what was a dominant focus on high impact (clinical) interventions for individuals, towards a more population-oriented paradigm requiring networked institutions and responsiveness to a range of issues including distribution of health outcomes and health determinants. Reflective of this paradigm shift is a growing interest in the role of AHCs in addressing health disparities and improving health system equity. This protocol outlines a systematic review that seeks to synthesise and critically appraise the current state of evidence on the role of AHCs in contributing to equitable health systems locally and globally.

Methods and analysis

Electronic searches will be conducted on a pilot list of bibliographic databases, including Google Scholar, Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Campbell Library and A+ Education, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2016. Apart from studies reporting clinical interventions or trials, all types of published peer-reviewed and grey literature will be included in the review. The single screening method will be employed in selecting studies, with two additional reviewers consulted where allocation is unclear. Quality and relevance appraisal utilising Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools will follow data extraction to a preprepared template. Thematic synthesis will be undertaken to develop descriptive themes and inform analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

As the review is focused on the analysis of secondary data, it does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be disseminated through articles in peer-reviewed journals and trade publications as well as presentations at relevant national and international conferences. Results will be further disseminated through networks and associations of AHCs.

Protocol registration

International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42016051802.

SUBMITTER: Edelman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5730009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublished practical examples of how to bridge gaps between research, policy and practice in health systems research in Sub Saharan Africa are scarce. The aim of our study was to use a case study approach to analyse how and why different operational health research projects in Africa have contributed to health systems strengthening and promoted equity in health service provision.MethodsUsing case studies we have collated and analysed practical examples of operational research projects on health in Sub-Saharan Africa which demonstrate how the links between research, policy and action can be strengthened to build effective and pro-poor health systems. To ensure rigour, we selected the case studies using pre-defined criteria, mapped their characteristics systematically using a case study development framework, and analysed the research impact process of each case study using the RAPID framework for research-policy links. This process enabled analysis of common themes, successes and weaknesses.Results3 operational research projects met our case study criteria: HIV counselling and testing services in Kenya; provision of TB services in grocery stores in Malawi; and community diagnostics for anaemia, TB and malaria in Nigeria. Political context and external influences: in each case study context there was a need for new knowledge and approaches to meet policy requirements for equitable service delivery. Collaboration between researchers and key policy players began at the inception of operational research cycles. Links: critical in these operational research projects was the development of partnerships for capacity building to support new services or new players in service delivery.Evidenceevidence was used to promote policy dialogue around equity in different ways throughout the research cycle, such as in determining the topic area and in development of indicators.ConclusionBuilding equitable health systems means considering equity at different stages of the research cycle. Partnerships for capacity building promotes demand, delivery and uptake of research. Links with those who use and benefit from research, such as communities, service providers and policy makers, contribute to the timeliness and relevance of the research agenda and a receptive research-policy-practice interface. Our study highlights the need to advocate for a global research culture that values and funds these multiple levels of engagement.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Health leadership and management capacity are essential for health system strengthening and for attaining universal health coverage by optimising the existing human, technological and financial resources. However, in health systems, health leadership and management training is not widely available. The use of information technology for education (ie, eLearning) could help address this training gap by enabling flexible, efficient and scalable health leadership and management training. We present a protocol for a systematic review on the effectiveness of eLearning for health leadership and management capacity building in improving health system outcomes. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS:We will follow the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We will search for experimental studies focused on the use of any type of eLearning modality for health management and leadership capacity building in all types of health workforce cadres. The primary outcomes of interest will be health outcomes, financial risk protection and user satisfaction. In addition, secondary outcomes of interest include the attainment of health system objectives of improved equity, efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness. We will search relevant databases of published and grey literature as well as clinical trials registries from 1990 onwards without language restrictions. Two review authors will screen references, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment independently. Contingent on the heterogeneity of the collated literature, we will perform either a meta-analysis or a narrative synthesis of the collated data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The systematic review will aim to inform policy makers, investors, health professionals, technologists and educators about the existing evidence, potential gaps in literature and the impact of eLearning for health leadership and management capacity building on health system outcomes. We will disseminate the review findings by publishing it as a peer-reviewed journal manuscript and conference abstracts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42017056998.

Project description:BackgroundMany academic medical centres have introduced strategies to assess the productivity of faculty as part of compensation schemes. We conducted a systematic review of the effects of such strategies on faculty productivity.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Healthstar, Embase and PsycInfo databases from their date of inception up to October 2011. We included studies that assessed academic productivity in clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities, as well as compensation, promotion processes and satisfaction.ResultsOf 531 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we included 9 articles reporting on eight studies. The introduction of strategies for assessing academic productivity as part of compensation schemes resulted in increases in clinical productivity (in six of six studies) in terms of clinical revenue, the work component of relative-value units (these units are nonmonetary standard units of measure used to indicate the value of services provided), patient satisfaction and other departmentally used standards. Increases in research productivity were noted (in five of six studies) in terms of funding and publications. There was no change in teaching productivity (in two of five studies) in terms of educational output. Such strategies also resulted in increases in compensation at both individual and group levels (in three studies), with two studies reporting a change in distribution of compensation in favour of junior faculty. None of the studies assessed effects on administrative productivity or promotion processes. The overall quality of evidence was low.InterpretationStrategies introduced to assess productivity as part of a compensation scheme appeared to improve productivity in research activities and possibly improved clinical productivity, but they had no effect in the area of teaching. Compensation increased at both group and individual levels, particularly among junior faculty. Higher quality evidence about the benefits and harms of such assessment strategies is needed.

Project description:Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a chronic disease affecting the heart valves, secondary to group A streptococcal infection (GAS) and subsequent acute rheumatic fever (ARF). However, RHD cure and preventative measures are inextricably linked with socioeconomic development, as the disease mainly affects children and young adults living in poverty. In order to address RHD, public health officials and health policymakers require up-to-date knowledge on the epidemiology of GAS, ARF and RHD, as well as the existing enablers and gaps in delivery of evidence-based care for these conditions. We propose to conduct a systematic review to assess the literature comprehensively, synthesising all existing quantitative and qualitative data relating to RHD in Africa.We plan to conduct a comprehensive literature search using a number of databases and reference lists of relevant articles published from January 1995 to December 2015. Two evaluators will independently review and extract data from each article. Additionally, we will assess overall study quality and risk of bias, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria for quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively. We will meta-analyse estimates of prevalence, incidence, case fatality and mortality for each of the conditions separately for each country. Qualitative meta-analysis will be conducted for facilitators and barriers in RHD health access. Lastly, we will create a list of key stakeholders. This protocol is registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews, registration number CRD42016032852.The information provided by this review will inform and assist relevant stakeholders in identifying key areas of intervention, and designing and implementing evidence-based programmes and policies at the local and regional level. With slight modifications (ie, to the country terms in the search strategy), this protocol can be used as part of a needs assessment in any endemic country.