An evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) competency profile for the Brazilian Health System developed through consensus: process and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational knowledge, skills and attitudes that should be articulated with background factors and needs. In this regard, the development of an EIPM competency profile is important to support the diagnosis, planning and implementation of EIPM. PURPOSE: To present the process and outcomes of the development of an EIPM competency profile by an expert committee, to be applied in different contexts of the Brazilian Health System. METHODS: A committee of experts in EIPM shared different views, experiences and opinions to develop an EIPM competency profile for Brazil. In six consensus workshops mediated by facilitators, the committee defined from macro problems to key actions and performances essential for the competency profile. The development steps consisted of: (1) Constitution of the committee, including researchers, professionals with practical experience, managers, and educators; (2) Development of a rapid review on EIPM competency profiles; (3) Agreement on commitments and responsibilities in the processes; (4) Identification and definition of macro problems relating to the scope of the competency profile; and (5) Outlining of general and specific capacities, to be incorporated into the competency profile, categorized by key actions. RESULTS: The development of the EIPM competency profile was guided by the following macro problems: (1) lack of systematic and transparent decision-making processes in health policy management; (2) underdeveloped institutional capacity for knowledge management and translation; and (3) incipient use of scientific evidence in the formulation and implementation of health policies. A general framework of key actions and performances of the EIPM Competency Profile for Brazil was developed, including 42 specific and general key actions distributed by area of activity (Health Management, Scientific Research, Civil Society, Knowledge Translation, and Cross-sectional areas). CONCLUSIONS: The competency profile presented in this article can be used in different contexts as a key tool for the institutionalization of EIPM.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population. RESULTS: Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Competency profiles for evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM): a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) requires a set of individual and organizational capacities, linked with background factors and needs. The identification of essential knowledge, skills and attitudes for EIPM can support the development of competency profiles and their application in different contexts. PURPOSE: To identify elements of competency (knowledge, skills and attitudes) for EIPM, according to different professional profiles (researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen). METHODS: Rapid umbrella review. A structured search was conducted and later updated in two comprehensive repositories (BVSalud and PubMed). Review studies with distinctive designs were included, published from 2010 onwards, without language restrictions. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies was not performed. A meta-aggregative narrative synthesis was used to report the findings. RESULTS: Ten reviews were included. A total of 37 elements of competency were identified, eight were categorized as knowledge, 19 as skills and 10 as attitudes. These elements were aggregated into four competency profiles: researcher, health professional, decision-maker and citizen. The competency profiles included different sets of EIPM-related knowledge, skills and attitudes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is innovative because it aggregates different profiles of competency from a practical perspective, favouring the application of its results in different contexts to support EIPM. Methodological limitations are related to the shortcuts adopted in this review: complementary searches of the grey literature were not performed, and the study selection and data extraction were not conducted in duplicate. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EIPM requires the development of individual and organizational capacities. This rapid review contributes to the discussion on the institutionalization of EIPM in health systems. The competency profiles presented here can support discussions about the availability of capacity and the need for its development in different contexts.

The Polisemy of Clinical Governance: a review of literature.

The article aims to explore the concept of clinical management, with a view towards understanding the diverse meanings that could be attributed to that expression. This discussion can contribute to the planning and organization of health services geared to the management of clinical practices, as well as to set forth principles to draft actions in that field. Methodologically, the study consists of a qualitative literature review, using keywords of the Virtual Health Library (VHL). In terms of results, seven topics stand out that synthesize the analysis of sources: management, quality promotion, clinical monitoring or auditing, education, responsibility or accountability, safety in care and a systemic dimension. The conclusion is that the variation of meanings relates to the way in which the authors of the studies reviewed express or unfold the structuring conceptual components broadly accepted as clinical governance. What we observe is a lack of a greater focus on discussions regarding planning and policies relating to clinical governance.