Dataset Information

How to optimise public health interventions: a scoping review of guidance from optimisation process frameworks.

ABSTRACT: Background: Optimisation processes have the potential to rapidly improve the impact of health interventions. Optimisation can be defined as a deliberate, iterative and data-driven process to improve a health intervention and/or its implementation to meet stakeholder-defined public health impacts within resource constraints. This study aimed to identify frameworks used to optimise the impact of health interventions and/or their implementation, and characterise the key concepts, steps or processes of identified frameworks.

Methods: A scoping review of MEDLINE, CINAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source databases was undertaken. Two reviewers independently coded the key concepts, steps or processes involved in each frameworks, and identified if it was a framework aimed to optimise interventions or their implementation. Two review authors then identified the common steps across included frameworks.

Results: Twenty optimisation frameworks were identified. Eight frameworks were for optimising interventions, 11 for optimising implementation and one covered both intervention and implementation optimisation. The mean number of steps within the frameworks was six (range 3-9). Almost half (n?=?8) could be classified as both linear and cyclic frameworks, indicating that some steps may occur multiple times in a single framework. Two meta-frameworks are proposed, one for intervention optimisation and one for implementation strategy optimisation. Steps for intervention optimisation are: Problem identification; Preparation; Theoretical/Literature base; Pilot/Feasibility testing; Optimisation; Evaluation; and Long-term implementation. Steps for implementation strategy optimisation are: Problem identification; Collaborate; Plan/design; Pilot; Do/change; Study/evaluate/check; Act; Sustain/endure; and Disseminate/extend.

Conclusions: This review provides a useful summary of the common steps followed to optimise a public health intervention or its implementation according to established frameworks. Further opportunities to study and/or validate such frameworks and their impact on improving outcomes exist.

SUBMITTER: McCrabb S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7709329 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to optimise public health interventions: a scoping review of guidance from optimisation process frameworks.

McCrabb Sam S Mooney Kaitlin K Elton Benjamin B Grady Alice A Yoong Sze Lin SL Wolfenden Luke L

BMC public health 20201202 1

<h4>Background</h4>Optimisation processes have the potential to rapidly improve the impact of health interventions. Optimisation can be defined as a deliberate, iterative and data-driven process to improve a health intervention and/or its implementation to meet stakeholder-defined public health impacts within resource constraints. This study aimed to identify frameworks used to optimise the impact of health interventions and/or their implementation, and characterise the key concepts, steps or pr ...[more]

PMID: 33267844

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDigital health interventions (DHIs) are defined as health services delivered electronically through formal or informal care. DHIs can range from electronic medical records used by providers to mobile health apps used by consumers. DHIs involve complex interactions between user, technology and the healthcare team, posing challenges for implementation and evaluation. Theoretical or interpretive frameworks are crucial in providing researchers guidance and clarity on implementation or evaluation approaches; however, there is a lack of standardisation on which frameworks to use in which contexts. Our goal is to conduct a scoping review to identify frameworks to guide the implementation or evaluation of DHIs.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be conducted using methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual and will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies will be included if they report on frameworks (ie, theoretical, interpretive, developmental) that are used to guide either implementation or evaluation of DHIs. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO will be searched in addition to grey literature and reference lists of included studies. Citations and full text articles will be screened independently in Covidence after a reliability check among reviewers. We will use qualitative description to summarise findings and focus on how research objectives and type of DHIs are aligned with the frameworks used.Ethics and disseminationWe engaged an advisory panel of digital health knowledge users to provide input at strategic stages of the scoping review to enhance the relevance of findings and inform dissemination activities. Specifically, they will provide feedback on the eligibility criteria, data abstraction elements, interpretation of findings and assist in developing key messages for dissemination. This study does not require ethical review. Findings from review will support decision making when selecting appropriate frameworks to guide the implementation or evaluation of DHIs.

Project description:Competencies ensure public health students and professionals have the necessary knowledge, skills, values, and behaviours to do their jobs effectively. Public health is a dynamic and complex field requiring robust competency statements and frameworks that are regularly renewed. Many countries have public health competencies, but there has been no evidence synthesis on how these are developed. Our research aim was to synthesize the extent and nature of the literature on approaches and best practices for competencies statement and framework development in the context of public health, including identifying the relevant literature on approaches for developing competency statements and frameworks for public health students and professionals using a scoping review; and, synthesizing and describing approaches and best practices for developing public health competency statements and frameworks using a thematic analysis of the literature identified by the scoping review. We conducted a scoping review and thematic analysis of the academic and grey literature to synthesize and describe approaches and best practices for developing public health competency statements and frameworks. A systematic search of six databases uncovered 13 articles for inclusion. To scope the literature, articles were assessed for characteristics including study aim, design, methods, key results, gaps, and future research recommendations. Most included articles were peer-reviewed journal articles, used qualitative or mixed method design, and were focused on general, rather than specialist, public health practitioners. Thematic analysis resulted in the generation of six analytical themes that describe the multi-method approaches utilized in developing competency statements and frameworks including literature reviews, expert consultation, and consensus-building. There was variability in the transparency of competency framework development, with challenges balancing foundational and discipline-specific competencies. Governance, and intersectoral and interdisciplinary competency, are needed to address complex public health issues. Understanding approaches and best practices for competency statement and framework development will support future evidence-informed iterations of public health competencies.

Project description:Public Health evaluation is essential to understanding what does and does not work, and robust demonstration of effectiveness may be crucial to securing future funding. Despite this, programs are often implemented with poor, incomplete or no evaluation. Public health practitioners are frequently required to provide evidence for the effectiveness of their services; thus, there is a growing need for evaluation guidance on how to evaluate public health programs. The aim of this study is to identify accessible high-quality, evaluation guidance, available to researchers and practitioners and to catalogue, summarise and categorise the content of a subset of accessible, quality guides to evaluation.We systematically reviewed grey and academic literature for documents providing support for evaluation of complex health interventions. Searches were conducted January to March 2015, and included academic databases, internet search engines, and consultations with academic and practicing public health experts. Data were extracted by two authors and sent to the authors of the guidance documents for comments.Our initial search identified 402 unique documents that were screened to identify those that were (1) developed by or for a national or international organization (2) freely available to all (3) published during or after 2000 (4) specific to public health. This yielded 98 documents from 43 organisations. Of these, 48 were reviewed in detail. This generated a detailed catalogue of quality evaluation guidance. The content included in documents covers 37 facets of evaluation.A wide range of guidance on evaluation of public health initiatives is available. Time and knowledge constraints may mean that busy practitioners find it challenging to access the most, up-to-date, relevant and useful guidance. This review presents links to and reviews of 48 quality guides to evaluation as well as categorising their content. This facilitates quick and each access to multiple selected sources of specific guidance.

Project description:Universal, unconditional basic income is attracting increasing policy and academic interest. Income is a key health determinant, and a basic income could affect health through its effect on other determinants, such as employment. However, there is little evidence of its potential effects on public health, because no studies of interventions which meet the definition of basic income have been done. However, there is evidence from studies of interventions with similarities to basic income. Therefore, we aimed to identify these studies and to consider what can be learned from them about the potential effects of such interventions on health and socioeconomic outcomes. We did a systematic scoping review of basic income-like interventions, searching eight bibliographic and eight specialist databases from inception to July, 2019, with extensive hand searching. We included publications in English of quantitative and qualitative studies done in upper-middle-income or high-income countries, of universal, permanent, or subsistence-level interventions providing unconditional payments to individuals or families. We sought to identify the range of outcomes reported by relevant studies, and report health, education, employment, and social outcomes. We extracted and tabulated relevant data and narratively reported effects by intervention and outcome. We identified 27 studies of nine heterogeneous interventions, some universal and permanent, and many evaluated using randomised controlled trials or robust quasi-experimental methods. Evidence on health effects was mixed, with strong positive effects on some outcomes, such as birthweight and mental health, but no effect on others. Employment effects were inconsistent, although mostly small for men and larger for women with young children. There was evidence of spill-over effects in studies measuring effects on large populations. In conclusion, little evidence exists of large reductions in employment, and some evidence suggests positive effects on some other outcomes, including health outcomes. Evidence for macro-level effects is scarce. Quasi-experimental and dynamic modelling approaches are well placed to investigate such effects.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Rehabilitation interventions for older adults are complex as they involve a number of interacting components, have multiple outcomes of interest and are influenced by a number of contextual factors. The importance of rigorous intervention development prior to formal evaluation has been acknowledged and a number of frameworks have been developed. This review explored which frameworks have been used to guide the development of rehabilitation interventions for older adults. DESIGN:Systematic scoping review. SETTING:Studies were not limited for inclusion based on setting. PARTICIPANTS:Studies were included that featured older adults (>65 years of age). INTERVENTIONS:Studies were included that reported the development of a rehabilitation intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Data were extracted on study population, setting, type of intervention developed and frameworks used. The primary outcome of interest was the type of intervention development framework. RESULTS:Thirty-five studies were included. There was a range of underlying medical conditions including mild cognitive impairment and dementia (n=5), cardiac (n=4), stroke (n=3), falls (n=3), hip fracture (n=2), diabetes (n=2), breast cancer (n=1), Parkinson's disease (n=1), depression (n=1), chronic health problems (n=1), osteoarthritis (n=1), leg ulcer (n=1), neck pain (n=1) and foot problems (n=1). The intervention types being developed included multicomponent, support based, cognitive, physical activities, nursing led, falls prevention and occupational therapy led. Twelve studies (34%) did not report using a framework. Five frameworks were reported with the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions being the most frequently cited (77%, n=17). CONCLUSION:At present, the MRC framework is the most popular for developing rehabilitation interventions for older adults. Many studies do not report using a framework. Further, specific guidance to assist this complex field of rehabilitation research is required.

Project description:The strategic importance of monitoring social determinants of health (SDH) and health equity and inequity has been a central focus in global discussions around the 2011 Rio Political Declaration on SDH and the Millennium Development Goals. This study is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) equity-oriented analysis of linkages between health and other sectors (EQuAL) project, which aims to define a framework for monitoring SDH and health equity.This review provides a global summary and analysis of the domains and indicators that have been used in recent studies covering the SDH. These studies are considered here within the context of indicators proposed by the WHO EQuAL project. The objectives are as follows: to describe the range of international and national studies and the types of indicators most frequently used; report how they are used in causal explanation of the SDH; and identify key priorities and challenges reported in current research for national monitoring of the SDH.We conducted a scoping review of published SDH studies in the PubMed(®) database to obtain evidence of socio-economic indicators. We evaluated, selected, and extracted data from national scale studies published from 2004 to 2014. The research included papers published in English, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.The final sample consisted of 96 articles. SDH monitoring is well reported in the scientific literature independent of the economic level of the country and magnitude of deprivation in population groups. The research methods were mostly quantitative and many papers used multilevel and multivariable statistical analyses and indexes to measure health inequalities and SDH. In addition to the usual economic indicators, a high number of socio-economic indicators were used. The indicators covered a broad range of social dimensions, which were given consideration within and across different social groups. Many indicators included in the WHO EQuAL framework were not common in the studies in this review due to their intersectoral and interdisciplinary nature.Our review illustrates that the attention to SDH monitoring has grown in terms of its importance and complexity within the scientific health literature. We identified a need to make indicators more wide-ranging in order to include a broader range of social conditions. The WHO EQuAL framework can provide intersectoral and interdisciplinary means of building a more comprehensive standardised approach to monitoring the SDH and improving equity in health.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite an estimated 300 000 mobile health apps on the market, there remains no consensus around helping patients and clinicians select safe and effective apps. In 2018, our team drew on existing evaluation frameworks to identify salient categories and create a new framework endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). We have since created a more expanded and operational framework Mhealth Index and Navigation Database (MIND) that aligns with the APA categories but includes objective and auditable questions (105). We sought to survey the existing space, conducting a review of all mobile health app evaluation frameworks published since 2018, and demonstrate the comprehensiveness of this new model by comparing it to existing and emerging frameworks.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of mobile health app evaluation frameworks.Data sourcesReferences were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO with publication date between January 2018 and October 2020.Eligibility criteriaPapers were selected for inclusion if they meet the predetermined eligibility criteria-presenting an evaluation framework for mobile health apps with patient, clinician or end user-facing questions.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened the literature separately and applied the inclusion criteria. The data extracted from the papers included: author and dates of publication, source affiliation, country of origin, name of framework, study design, description of framework, intended audience/user and framework scoring system. We then compiled a collection of more than 1701 questions across 79 frameworks. We compared and grouped these questions using the MIND framework as a reference. We sought to identify the most common domains of evaluation while assessing the comprehensiveness and flexibility-as well as any potential gaps-of MIND.ResultsNew app evaluation frameworks continue to emerge and expand. Since our 2019 review of the app evaluation framework space, more frameworks include questions around privacy (43) and clinical foundation (57), reflecting an increased focus on issues of app security and evidence base. The majority of mapped frameworks overlapped with at least half of the MIND categories. The results of this search have informed a database (apps.digitalpsych.org) that users can access today.ConclusionAs the number of app evaluation frameworks continues to rise, it is becoming difficult for users to select both an appropriate evaluation tool and to find an appropriate health app. This review provides a comparison of what different app evaluation frameworks are offering, where the field is converging and new priorities for improving clinical guidance.

Project description:There is limited research on capacity building interventions that include theoretical foundations. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify underlying theories, models and frameworks used to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building practices and services offered by public health organizations.Four search strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, professional development plans in combination with tools, resources, processes, procedures, steps, model, framework, guideline, described in a public health or healthcare setting, or non-government, government, or community organizations as they relate to healthcare, and explicitly or implicitly mention a theory, model and/or framework that grounds the type of capacity building approach developed. Quality assessment were performed on all included articles. Data analysis included a process for synthesizing, analyzing and presenting descriptive summaries, categorizing theoretical foundations according to which theory, model and/or framework was used and whether or not the theory, model or framework was implied or explicitly identified.Nineteen articles were included in this review. A total of 28 theories, models and frameworks were identified. Of this number, two theories (Diffusion of Innovations and Transformational Learning), two models (Ecological and Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation) and one framework (Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning) were identified as the most frequently cited.This review identifies specific theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building interventions relevant to public health organizations. It provides public health practitioners with a menu of potentially usable theories, models and frameworks to support capacity building efforts. The findings also support the need for the use of theories, models or frameworks to be intentional, explicitly identified, referenced and for it to be clearly outlined how they were applied to the capacity building intervention.

Project description:BackgroundIf Public Health is the science and art of how society collectively aims to improve health, and reduce inequalities in health, then Public Health Economics is the science and art of supporting decision making as to how society can use its available resources to best meet these objectives and minimise opportunity cost. A systematic review of published guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions within this broad public policy paradigm was conducted.MethodsElectronic databases and organisation websites were searched using a 22 year time horizon (1990-2012). References of papers were hand searched for additional papers for inclusion. Government reports or peer-reviewed published papers were included if they; referred to the methods of economic evaluation of public health interventions, identified key challenges of conducting economic evaluations of public health interventions or made recommendations for conducting economic evaluations of public health interventions. Guidance was divided into three categories UK guidance, international guidance and observations or guidance provided by individual commentators in the field of public health economics. An assessment of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the guidance was made and served as a rationale for categorising the papers.ResultsWe identified 5 international guidance documents, 7 UK guidance documents and 4 documents by individual commentators. The papers reviewed identify the main methodological challenges that face analysts when conducting such evaluations. There is a consensus within the guidance that wider social and environmental costs and benefits should be looked at due to the complex nature of public health. This was reflected in the theoretical underpinning as the majority of guidance was categorised as extra-welfarist.ConclusionsIn this novel review we argue that health economics may have come full circle from its roots in broad public policy economics. We may find it useful to think in this broader paradigm with respect to public health economics. We offer a 12 point checklist to support government, NHS commissioners and individual health economists in their consideration of economic evaluation methodology with respect to the additional challenges of applying health economics to public health.

Dataset Information

How to optimise public health interventions: a scoping review of guidance from optimisation process frameworks.

Publications

How to optimise public health interventions: a scoping review of guidance from optimisation process frameworks.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets