Dataset Information

Implementation research approaches to promoting universal health coverage in Africa: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Implementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, its role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). Hence, this scoping review aimed to identify and characterise the use of implementation research initiatives for assessing UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.

Methods

The review protocol was developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, as enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched. The search also included a hand search of relevant grey literature and reference lists. Literature sources involving the application of implementation research in the context of UHC in Africa were eligible for inclusion.

Results

The database search yielded 2153 records. We identified 12 additional records from hand search of reference lists. After the removal of duplicates, we had 2051 unique records, of which 26 studies were included in the review. Implementation research was used within ten distinct UHC-related contexts, including HIV; maternal and child health; voluntary male medical circumcision; healthcare financing; immunisation; healthcare data quality; malaria diagnosis; primary healthcare quality improvement; surgery and typhoid fever control. The consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) was the most frequently used framework. Qualitative and mixed-methods study designs were the commonest methods used. Implementation research was mostly used to guide post-implementation evaluation of health programmes and the contextualisation of findings to improve future implementation outcomes. The most commonly reported contextual facilitators were political support, funding, sustained collaboration and effective programme leadership. Reported barriers included inadequate human and other resources; lack of incentives; perception of implementation as additional work burden; and socio-cultural barriers.

Conclusions

This review demonstrates that implementation research can be used to achieve UHC-related outcomes in Africa. It has identified important facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for promoting UHC in the region.

SUBMITTER: Nnaji CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094606 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionImplementation research has emerged as part of evidence-based decision-making efforts to plug current gaps in the translation of research evidence into health policy and practice. While there has been a growing number of institutions and initiatives promoting the uptake of implementation research in Africa, their role and effectiveness remain unclear, particularly in the context of universal health coverage (UHC). This review aims to extensively identify and characterise the nature, facilitators and barriers to the use of implementation research for assessing or evaluating UHC-related interventions or programmes in Africa.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be developed based on the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute. It will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases will be conducted: Medline (via PubMed), Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Relevant grey literature and reference lists will also be searched. All publications describing the application of implementation research in the context of UHC will be considered for inclusion. Findings will be narratively synthesised and analysed using a predefined conceptual framework. Where applicable, quantitative evidence will be aggregated using summary statistics. There will be consultation of stakeholders, including UHC-oriented health professionals, programme managers, implementation researchers and policy-makers; to provide methodological, conceptual and practical insights.Ethics and disseminationThe data used in this review will be sourced from publicly available literature; hence, this study will not require ethical approval. Findings and recommendations will be disseminated to reach a diverse audience, including UHC advocates, implementation researchers and key health system stakeholders within the African region. Additionally, findings will be disseminated through an open-access publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the opportunities and challenges within the health system to facilitate the achievement of universal health coverage (UHC) for people with stroke (PWS) in South Africa (SA).SettingSA.DesignScoping review.Search methodsWe conducted a scoping review of opportunities and challenges to achieve UHC for PWS in SA. Global and Africa-specific databases and grey literature were searched in July 2020. We included studies of all designs that described the healthcare system for PWS. Two frameworks, the Health Systems Dynamics Framework and WHO Framework, were used to map data on governance and regulation, resources, service delivery, context, reorientation of care and community engagement. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.ResultsFifty-nine articles were included in the review. Over half (n=31, 52.5%) were conducted in Western Cape province and most (n=41, 69.4%) were conducted in urban areas. Studies evaluated a diverse range of health system categories and various outcomes. The most common reported component was service delivery (n=46, 77.9%), and only four studies (6.7%) evaluated governance and regulation. Service delivery factors for stroke care were frequently reported as poor and compounded by context-related limiting factors. Governance and regulations for stroke care in terms of government support, investment in policy, treatment guidelines, resource distribution and commitment to evidence-based solutions were limited. Promising supporting factors included adequately equipped and staffed urban tertiary facilities, the emergence of Stroke units, prompt assessment by health professionals, positive staff attitudes and care, two clinical care guidelines and educational and information resources being available.ConclusionThis review fills a gap in the literature by providing the range of opportunities and challenges to achieve health for all PWS in SA. It highlights some health system areas that show encouraging trends to improve service delivery including comprehensiveness, quality and perceptions of care.

Project description:BackgroundThe progress of Universal health coverage (UHC) is measured using tracer indicators of key interventions, which have been implemented in healthcare system. UHC is about population, comprehensive health services and financial coverage for equitable quality services and health outcome. There is dearth of evidence about the extent of the universality of UHC in terms of types of health services, its integrated definition (dimensions) and tracer indicators utilized in the measurement of UHC. Therefore, we mapped the existing literature to assess universality of UHC and summarize the challenges towards UHC.MethodsThe checklist Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews was used. A systematic search was carried out in the Web of Science and PubMed databases. Hand searches were also conducted to find articles from Google Scholar, the World Bank Library, the World Health Organization Library, the United Nations Digital Library Collections, and Google. Article search date was between 20 October 2021 and 12 November 2021 and the most recent update was done on 03 March 2022. Articles on UHC coverage, financial risk protection, quality of care, and inequity were included. The Population, Concept, and Context framework was used to determine the eligibility of research questions. A stepwise approach was used to identify and select relevant studies, conduct data charting, collation and summarization, as well as report results. Simple descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis were used to present the findings.ResultsForty-seven papers were included in the final review. One-fourth of the articles (25.5%) were from the African region and 29.8% were from lower-middle-income countries. More than half of the articles (54.1%) followed a quantitative research approach. Of included articles, coverage was assessed by 53.2% of articles; financial risk protection by 27.7%, inequity by 25.5% and quality by 6.4% of the articles as the main research objectives or mentioned in result section. Most (42.5%) of articles investigated health promotion and 2.1% palliation and rehabilitation services. Policy and healthcare level and cross-cutting barriers of UHC were identified. Financing, leadership/governance, inequity, weak regulation and supervision mechanism, and poverty were most repeated policy level barriers. Poor quality health services and inadequate health workforce were the common barriers from health sector challenges. Lack of common understanding on UHC was frequently mentioned as a cross-cutting barrier.ConclusionsThe review showed that majority of the articles were from the African region. Methodologically, quantitative research design was more frequently used to investigate UHC. Palliation and rehabilitation health care services need attention in the monitoring and evaluation of UHC progress. It is also noteworthy to focus on quality and inequity of health services. The study implies that urgent action on the identified policy, health system and cross-cutting barriers is required to achieve UHC.

Project description:BackgroundUniversal health coverage (UHC) embedded within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, is defined by the World Health Organization as all individuals having access to required health services, of sufficient quality, without suffering financial hardship. Effective strategies for financing healthcare are critical in achieving this goal yet remain a challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This systematic review aims to determine reported health financing mechanisms in SSA within the published literature and summarize potential learnings.MethodsA systematic review was conducted aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. On 19 to 30 July 2019, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Global Health Database, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and JSTOR were searched for literature published from 2005. Studies describing health financing approaches for UHC in SSA were included. Evidence was synthesised in form of a table and thematic analysis.ResultsOf all records, 39 papers were selected for inclusion. Among the included studies, most studies were conducted in Kenya (n = 7), followed by SSA as a whole (n = 6) and Nigeria (n = 5). More than two thirds of the selected studies reported the importance of equitable national health insurance schemes for UHC. The results indicate that a majority of health care revenue in SSA is from direct out-of-pocket payments. Another common financing mechanism was donor funding, which was reported by most of the studies. The average quality score of all studies was 81.6%, indicating a high appraisal score. The interrater reliability Cohen's kappa score, κ=0.43 (p = 0.002), which showed a moderate level of agreement.ConclusionsAppropriate health financing strategies that safeguard financial risk protection underpin sustainable health services and the attainment of UHC. It is evident from the review that innovative health financing strategies in SSA are needed. Some limitations of this review include potentially skewed interpretations due to publication bias and a higher frequency of publications included from two countries in SSA. Establishing evidence-based and multi-sectoral strategies tailored to country contexts remains imperative.

Project description:IntroductionAddressing inequities in health service coverage is a global priority, especially with the resurgence of interest in universal health coverage. However, in Africa, which has the lowest health service coverage index, there is limited information on the progress of countries in addressing inequalities related to health services. Thus, we seek to map the evidence on inequalities in health service coverage in Africa.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. We preregistered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on 26 July 2022 (https://osf.io/zd5bt). We will consider any empirical research that assesses inequalities in relation to services for reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (eg, family planning), infectious diseases (eg, tuberculosis treatment) and non-communicable diseases (eg, cervical cancer screening) in Africa. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. We will also hand-search Google and Global Index Medicus, and screen reference lists of relevant studies. We will evaluate studies for eligibility and extract data from included studies using pre-piloted and standardised forms. We will further extract a core set of health service coverage indicators, which are disaggregated by place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status and social capital plus equity stratifiers. We will summarise data using a narrative approach involving thematic syntheses and descriptive statistics. We will report our findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. This work will contribute to identifying knowledge gaps in the evidence of inequalities in health service coverage in Africa, and propose strategies that could help overcome current challenges. We will disseminate our findings to knowledge users through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and organisation of workshops.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Universal health coverage (UHC) includes the dimensions of equity in access, quality services that improve health and protection against financial hardship. Cataract continues to be the leading cause of blindness globally, despite cataract surgery being an efficacious intervention. The aim of this scoping review is to map the nature, extent and global distribution of data on cataract services for UHC in terms of equity, access, quality and financial protection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The search will be constructed by an Information Specialist and undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health databases. We will include all published non-interventional primary research studies and systematic reviews that report a quantitative assessment of access, equity, quality or financial protection of cataract surgical services for adults at the subnational, national, regional or global level from population-based surveys or routinely collected health service data since 1 January 2000 and published through to February 2020.Screening and data charting will be undertaken using Covidence systematic review software. Titles and abstracts of identified studies will be screened by two authors independently. Full-text articles of potentially relevant studies will be obtained and reviewed independently by two authors against the inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies between the authors will be resolved by discussion, and with a third author as necessary. A data charting form will be developed and piloted on three studies by three authors and amendments made as necessary. Data will be extracted by two reviewers independently and summarised narratively and using maps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was not sought as the scoping review will only use published and publicly accessible data. The review will be published in an open access peer-reviewed journal. A summary of the results will be developed for website posting, stakeholder meetings and inclusion in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.