Dataset Information

Framework for Participatory Quantitative Health Impact Assessment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conducting health impact assessments (HIAs) is a growing practice in various organizations and countries, yet scholarly interest in HIAs has primarily focused on the synergies between exposure and health outcomes. This limits our understanding of what factors influence HIAs and the uptake of their outcomes. This paper presents a framework for conducting participatory quantitative HIA (PQHIA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including integrating the outcomes back into society after an HIA is conducted. The study responds to the question: what are the different components of a participatory quantitative model that can influence HIA implementation in LMICs?

Methods

To build the framework, we used a case study from a PQHIA fieldwork model developed in Port Louis (Mauritius). To explore thinking on the participatory components of the framework, we extract and analyze data from ethnographic material including fieldnotes, interviews, focus group discussions and feedback exercises with 14 stakeholders from the same case study. We confirm the validity of the ethnographic data using five quality criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity. We build the PQHIA framework connecting the main HIA steps with factors influencing HIAs.

Results

The final framework depicts the five standard HIA stages and summarizes participatory activities and outcomes. It also reflects key factors influencing PQHIA practice and uptake of HIA outcomes: costs for participation, HIA knowledge and interest of stakeholders, social responsibility of policymakers, existing policies, data availability, citizen participation, multi-level stakeholder engagement and multisectoral coordination. The framework suggests that factors necessary to complete a participatory HIA are the same needed to re-integrate HIA results back into the society. There are three different areas that can act as facilitators to PQHIAs: good governance, evidence-based policy making, and access to resources.

Conclusions

The framework has several implications for research and practice. It underlines the importance of applying participatory approaches critically while providing a blueprint for methods to engage local stakeholders. Participatory approaches in quantitative HIAs are complex and demand a nuanced understanding of the context. Therefore, the political and cultural contexts in which HIA is conducted will define how the framework is applied. Finally, the framework underlines that participation in HIA does not need to be expensive or time consuming for the assessor or the participant. Yet, participatory quantitative models need to be contextually developed and integrated if they are to provide health benefits and be beneficial for the participants. This integration can be facilitated by investing in opportunities that fuel good governance and evidence-based policy making.

SUBMITTER: Thondoo M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7589915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundThe number of Master of Public Health (MPH) programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is increasing, but questions have been raised regarding the relevance of their outcomes and impacts on context. Although processes for validating public health competencies have taken place in recent years in many high-income countries, validation in LMICs is needed. Furthermore, impact variables of MPH programmes in the workplace and in society have not been developed.MethodA set of public health competencies and impact variables in the workplace and in society was designed using the competencies and learning objectives of six participating institutions offering MPH programmes in or for LMICs, and the set of competencies of the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice as a reference. The resulting competencies and impact variables differ from those of the Council on Linkages in scope and emphasis on social determinants of health, context specificity and intersectoral competencies. A modified Delphi method was used in this study to validate the public health competencies and impact variables; experts and MPH alumni from China, Vietnam, South Africa, Sudan, Mexico and the Netherlands reviewed them and made recommendations.ResultsThe competencies and variables were validated across two Delphi rounds, first with public health experts (N = 31) from the six countries, then with MPH alumni (N = 30). After the first expert round, competencies and impact variables were refined based on the quantitative results and qualitative comments. Both rounds showed high consensus, more so for the competencies than the impact variables. The response rate was 100%.ConclusionThis is the first time that public health competencies have been validated in LMICs across continents. It is also the first time that impact variables of MPH programmes have been proposed and validated in LMICs across continents. The high degree of consensus between experts and alumni suggests that these public health competencies and impact variables can be used to design and evaluate MPH programmes, as well as for individual and team assessment and continuous professional development in LMICs.

Project description: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.

Project description:IntroductionThe rising incidence of mental illness and its impact on individuals, families, and societies is becoming a major public health concern, especially in resource-constrained countries. Consequently, there is an increasing demand for mental health services in many middle- and low-income countries (LMIC). Challenges such as inequality in access, lack of staff and hospital beds, and underfunding, often present in the LMIC, might in part be addressed by telemental health services. However, little is known about telemental health in the LMIC.MethodsA systematic review was performed, drawing on several electronic databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Original English language studies on the practice of telemental health in LMIC, involving patients and published between 1 January 2000 and 16 February 2017, were included.ResultsNineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the articles were recent, which may reflect an increasing focus on telemental health in the LMIC. Eight of these studies were from Asia. Eight of the studies were interventional/randomized controlled trials, and 11 examined general mental health issues. Videoconferencing was the most frequently (6) studied telemental modality. Other modalities studied were online decision support systems (3), text messaging and bibliotherapy (1), e-chatting combined with videoconferencing (1), online therapy (2), e-counseling (1), store-and-forward technology (1), telephone follow-up (1), online discussion groups (1), audiovisual therapy and bibliotherapy (1), and computerized occupational therapy (1). Although many of the studies showed that telemental services had positive outcomes, some studies reported no postintervention improvements.ConclusionThe review shows a rising trend in telemental activity in the LMIC. There is a greater need for telemental health in the LMIC, but more research is needed on empirical and theoretical aspects of telemental activity in the LMIC and on direct comparisons between telemental activity in the LMIC and the non-LMIC.

Project description:BackgroundFood systems are increasingly recognized as critical for advancing nutrition, and the food environment is viewed as the nexus between those systems and dietary consumption. Developing a measurement framework of the market food environment is a research priority, particularly for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which face rapid shifts in markets, dietary patterns, and nutrition outcomes.ObjectivesIn this study, we sought to assess current conceptions and measures of the market food environment that could be adapted for use in LMICs.MethodsWe conducted a narrative review of the literature to identify measures of the market food environment in recent use. First, we identified and reviewed frameworks of the food environment for LMICs with a specific focus on the market food environment. Second, we compiled 141 unique measures of the market food environment from 20 articles into a list that was pile-sorted by 5 nutrition experts into domains. We then categorized the measures based on percentage agreement across all sorts. Finally, we compared measured and conceptual domains of the market food environment to identify measurement gaps and needed adaptations.ResultsConceptual frameworks provide differing definitions of the market food environment but conform in their definitions of food availability, price, marketing, and product characteristics. Greater clarity is needed in defining relevant vendor and product characteristics. Eight measured domains of the market food environment emerged from the literature review, with significant overlap among conceptual domains. Measurement gaps exist for food quality, safety, packaging, desirability, and convenience. Personal characteristics also emerged as measured domains, although these are not part of the food environment per se.ConclusionsThese results are a step toward elucidating how, why, and where we measure the market food environment in LMICs. Future research should focus on prioritizing the most meaningful methods and metrics and on developing new measures where gaps exist.

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.