Dataset Information

The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT: The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n?=?13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research-policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research-policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.

SUBMITTER: Votruba N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7195852 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries.

Votruba Nicole N Grant Jonathan J Thornicroft Graham G

Health policy and planning 20200501 4

The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To ...[more]

PMID: 32040175

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health remains a neglected issue on the global health policy agenda, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is slow. The new EVITA framework was developed to improve mental health evidence uptake and policy agenda-setting in LMICs. In addition, behavioural science methods may be able to support knowledge translation to policy.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods study design, we applied and tested the newly developed EVITA 1.1 framework against three case studies related to South Africa at the district, national and international levels. In-depth interviews with 26 experts were conducted between August and November 2019, transcribed, coded and analysed in NVivo, using iterative categorization. The data were analysed against both the EVITA framework and the MINDSPACE framework for behavioural insights.ResultsIn our case study comparison, we found that (1) research translation to the policy agenda occurs in a complex, fluid system which includes multiple "research clouds", "policy spheres" and other networks; (2) mental health research policy agenda-setting is based on key individuals and intermediaries and their interrelationships; and (3) key challenges and strategies for successful research to policy agenda impact are known, but are frequently not strategically implemented, such as including all stakeholders to overcome the policy implementation gap. Our data also suggest that behavioural science methods can be strategically applied to support knowledge translation to policy agenda-setting.ConclusionWe found that the EVITA framework is useful for understanding and improving mental health research policy interrelationships to support evidence uptake to the policy agenda, and that behavioural science methods are effective support mechanisms. The revised EVITA 2.0 framework therefore includes behavioural insights, for improved mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs. More research is needed to understand whether EVITA can be applied to other LMICs and to high-income contexts.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify priority policy issues in access to medicines (ATM) relevant for low- and middle-income countries, to identify research questions that would help address these policy issues, and to prioritize these research questions in a health policy and systems research (HPSR) agenda.MethodsThe study involved i) country- and regional-level priority-setting exercises performed in 17 countries across five regions, with a desk review of relevant grey and published literature combined with mapping and interviews of national and regional stakeholders; ii) interviews with global-level stakeholders; iii) a scoping of published literature; and iv) a consensus building exercise with global stakeholders which resulted in the formulation and ranking of HPSR questions in the field of ATM.ResultsA list of 18 priority policy issues was established following analysis of country-, regional-, and global-level exercises. Eighteen research questions were formulated during the global stakeholders' meeting and ranked according to four ranking criteria (innovation, impact on health and health systems, equity, and lack of research). The top three research questions were: i) In risk protection schemes, which innovations and policies improve equitable access to and appropriate use of medicines, sustainability of the insurance system, and financial impact on the insured? ii) How can stakeholders use the information available in the system, e.g., price, availability, quality, utilization, registration, procurement, in a transparent way towards improving access and use of medicines? and iii) How do policies and other interventions into private markets, such as information, subsidies, price controls, donation, regulatory mechanisms, promotion practices, etc., impact on access to and appropriate use of medicines?ConclusionsOur HPSR agenda adopts a health systems perspective and will guide relevant, innovative research, likely to bear an impact on health, health systems and equity.

Project description:Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders - not only the technical capacity to "do" research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers' needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact.

Project description:BackgroundThe interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence-policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsA systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English.ResultsFrom 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out 'agenda-setting', we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting.ConclusionOur systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.

Project description:Background: Child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) policy is essential for the rational development of mental health systems for children and adolescents. However, there is a universal lack of CAMH policy, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, this review aims to identify challenges and lessons for LMICs to develop and implement CAMH policy. Methods: PubMed (1781-), MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1966-), and PsycINFO (1895-) were searched from inception to December 31, 2018, for publications on CAMH policy development and/or implementation. Abstracts and main texts of articles were double screened, and extracted data were analyzed through thematic synthesis. Results: A total of 31 publications were included through the systematic review. Six major challenges were identified for CAMH policy in LMICs: (i) poor public awareness and low political willingness; (ii) stigma against mental disorders; (iii) biased culture values toward children, adolescents and CAMH, from developmental nihilism to medicalization; (iv) the lack of CAMH data and evidence, from service statistics to program evaluation; (v) the shortage of CAMH resources, including human resources, service facilities, and funding; and (vi) unintended consequence of international support, including reducing local responsibilities, planning fragmentation, and unsustainability. Six lessons to overcome challenges were summarized: (i) rethinking the concept of CAMH, (ii) encouraging a stand-alone CAMH policy and budget, (iii) involving stakeholders, (iv) reinforcing the role of research and researchers in policy process, (v) innovating the usage of human and service resources, and (vi) maximizing the positive influence of international organizations and non-governmental organizations. Conclusion: Many LMICs are still facing various challenges for their CAMH policy development and implementation. To overcome the challenges, great and long-term efforts are needed, which include great determination of from domestic and global agents, multidisciplinary innovations, and collaboration and coordination from different sectors.

Project description:13 years after the first Lancet Series on maternal and child undernutrition, we reviewed the progress achieved on the basis of global estimates and new analyses of 50 low-income and middle-income countries with national surveys from around 2000 and 2015. The prevalence of childhood stunting has fallen, and linear growth faltering in early life has become less pronounced over time, markedly in middle-income countries but less so in low-income countries. Stunting and wasting remain public health problems in low-income countries, where 4·7% of children are simultaneously affected by both, a condition associated with a 4·8-times increase in mortality. New evidence shows that stunting and wasting might already be present at birth, and that the incidence of both conditions peaks in the first 6 months of life. Global low birthweight prevalence declined slowly at about 1·0% a year. Knowledge has accumulated on the short-term and long-term consequences of child undernutrition and on its adverse effect on adult human capital. Existing data on vitamin A deficiency among children suggest persisting high prevalence in Africa and south Asia. Zinc deficiency affects close to half of all children in the few countries with data. New evidence on the causes of poor growth points towards subclinical inflammation and environmental enteric dysfunction. Among women of reproductive age, the prevalence of low body-mass index has been reduced by half in middle-income countries, but trends in short stature prevalence are less evident. Both conditions are associated with poor outcomes for mothers and their children, whereas data on gestational weight gain are scarce. Data on the micronutrient status of women are conspicuously scarce, which constitutes an unacceptable data gap. Prevalence of anaemia in women remains high and unabated in many countries. Social inequalities are evident for many forms of undernutrition in women and children, suggesting a key role for poverty and low education, and reinforcing the need for multisectoral actions to accelerate progress. Despite little progress in some areas, maternal and child undernutrition remains a major global health concern, particularly as improvements since 2000 might be offset by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dataset Information

The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries.

Publications

The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets