Dataset Information

Policy options for surgical mentoring: Lessons from Zambia based on stakeholder consultation and systems science.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Supervision by surgical specialists is beneficial because they can impart skills to district hospital-level surgical teams. The SURG-Africa project in Zambia comprises a mentoring trial in selected districts, involving two provincial-level mentoring teams. The aim of this paper is to explore policy options for embedding such surgical mentoring in existing policy structures through a participatory modeling approach.

Methods

Four group model building workshops were held, two each in district and central hospitals. Participants worked in a variety of institutions and had clinical and/or administrative backgrounds. Two independent reviewers compared the causal loop diagrams (CLDs) that resulted from these workshops in a pairwise fashion to construct an integrated CLD. Graph theory was used to analyze the integrated CLD, and dynamic system behavior was explored using the Method to Analyse Relations between Variables using Enriched Loops (MARVEL) method.

Results

The establishment of a provincial mentoring faculty, in collaboration with key stakeholders, would be a necessary step to coordinate and sustain surgical mentoring and to monitor district-level surgical performance. Quarterly surgical mentoring reviews at the provincial level are recommended to evaluate and, if needed, adapt mentoring. District hospital administrators need to closely monitor mentee motivation.

Conclusions

Surgical mentoring can play a key role in scaling up district-level surgery but its implementation is complex and requires designated provincial level coordination and regular contact with relevant stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Broekhuizen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480833 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Lisbon Strategy was adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the European Union (EU) in 2000. By moving science into a central position for the development of a European knowledge-based economy and society, its adoption at political level seems to have been a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. Recognising the need for scientists to act collectively in order to contribute to shape the future of science policy in Europe, a pioneering group of European science organisations leaders and representatives, as well as other scientists, initiated a European, interdisciplinary, inclusive movement leading to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) to support basic research of the highest quality. Having scientists' campaign for the funding of bottom-up research by the EU Framework Programmes exclusively on scientific grounds, and for an ERC, was a unique event in the recent history of European science policy. For the first time, the scientific community acted collectively and across disciplinary or national boundaries as a political actor for the sake of a better science policy for Europe. As is often the case when first-hand experience is gained through the creation of a new organization, novel forms of collaboration arise. The European biomedical community has recently proposed the creation of a strategic action plan for health research (the European Council of Health Research; EuCHR), provisionally translated at present into a Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) research in Horizon 2020, the EU's research-funding programme for the period 2014-2020. The creation of such Scientific Panel should be viewed as an important contribution by the biomedical community as a major political agreement has been reached on the need for a comprehensive and long-term scientific strategy to accelerate research and facilitate innovation at EU level. It is our belief that describing and analyzing the process leading to the creation of the ERC and SPH (2002-2014) should be widely shared with the research community in general, as this may contribute to the understanding of the evolving relations between scientists and science-policy making.

Project description:Homecare is generally understood to refer to services that support people to continue living in their own homes. Older people are the primary users and many countries report an increase in the number using homecare services and greater spending on such provision, driven in part by investment in 'ageing in place' policies. Despite this, and reflecting social care more generally, homecare is relatively under-researched. However, in the UK at least, there is growing interest and investment in social care research. In order that this investment is not wasted, it is essential that research addresses what stakeholders identify as research priorities. This study reports work undertaken in the UK during 2021/22 to identify research priorities for homecare for older people, and a broad scoping of existing evidence. A two-stage consultation process was used. First, topic areas for research were identified through consultations with stakeholders. Second, a survey ascertained agreement and differences between groups regarding the relative importance of topic areas as research priorities. Over 50 people participated including older people (n = 7), family members (n = 11), homecare workers (n = 16), homecare providers (n = 9) and national policy, evidence and advocacy leads (n = 13). Twenty discrete research topic areas were identified. Only one topic area (Joint working between homecare and health services) was a 'Top 5' research priority for all stakeholder groups. Timely engagement with homecare and Workforce: recruitment and retention were 'Top 5' priorities for three stakeholder groups. Scoping of existing research indicates that topic areas receiving the most research attention to date are not among those identified as being of high priority for research. To our knowledge, this is the first time research priorities for homecare have been generated. Findings will be of value to research funders, organisations using research evidence and the research community.