Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice.

Even the highest quality evidence will have little impact unless it is incorporated into decision-making for health. It is therefore critical to overcome the many barriers to using evidence in decision-making, including (1) missing the window of opportunity, (2) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (3) controversy, irrelevant and conflicting evidence, as well as (4) vested interests and conflicts of interest. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list, it covers a number of main themes discussed in the knowledge translation literature on this topic, and better understanding these barriers can help readers of the evidence to be more savvy knowledge users and help researchers overcome challenges to getting their evidence into practice. Thus, the first step in being able to use research evidence for improving population health is ensuring that the evidence is available at the right time and in the right format and language so that knowledge users can take the evidence into consideration alongside a multitude of other factors that also influence decision-making. The sheer volume of scientific publications makes it difficult to find the evidence that can actually help inform decisions for health. Policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, require context-specific evidence to ensure local relevance. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of policy-relevant local evidence is important, but it is still not enough. There are times when the interpretation of the evidence leads to various controversies and disagreements, which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence. Research evidence can also be influenced and misused for various aims and agendas. It is therefore important to ensure that any new evidence comes from reliable sources and is interpreted in light of the overall body of scientific literature. It is not enough to simply produce evidence, nor even to synthesize and package evidence into a more user-friendly format. Particularly at the policy level, political savvy is also needed to ensure that vested interests do not undermine decisions that can impact the health of individuals and populations.

Evidence for Health I: Producing evidence for improving health and reducing inequities.

In an ideal world, researchers and decision-makers would be involved from the outset in co-producing evidence, with local health needs assessments informing the research agenda and research evidence informing the actions taken to improve health. The first step in improving the health of individuals and populations is therefore gaining a better understanding of what the main health problems are, and of these, which are the most urgent priorities by using both quantitative data to develop a health portrait and qualitative data to better understand why the local population thinks that addressing certain health challenges should be prioritized in their context. Understanding the causes of these health problems often involves analytical research, such as case-control and cohort studies, or qualitative studies to better understand how more complex exposures lead to specific health problems (e.g. by interviewing local teenagers discovering that watching teachers smoke in the school yard, peer pressure, and media influence smoking initiation among youth). Such research helps to develop a logic model to better map out the proximal and distal causes of poor health and to determine potential pathways for intervening and impacting health outcomes. Rarely is there a single 'cure' or stand-alone intervention, but rather, a continuum of strategies are needed from diagnosis and treatment of patients already affected, to disease prevention, health promotion and addressing the upstream social determinants of health. Research for developing and testing more upstream interventions must often go beyond randomized controlled trials, which are expensive, less amenable to more complex interventions, and can be associated with certain ethical challenges. Indeed, a much neglected area of the research cycle is implementation and evaluation research, which often involves quasi-experimental research study designs as well as qualitative research, to better understand how to derive the greatest benefit from existing interventions and ways of maximizing health improvements in specific local contexts. There is therefore a need to alter current incentive structures within the research enterprise to place greater emphasis on implementation and evaluation research conducted in collaboration with knowledge users who are in a position to use the findings in practice to improve health.

Evidence for Health III: Making evidence-informed decisions that integrate values and context.

Making evidence-informed decisions with the aim of improving the health of individuals or populations can be facilitated by using a systematic approach. While a number of algorithms already exist, and while there is no single 'right' way of summarizing or ordering the various elements that should be involved in making such health-related decisions, an algorithm is presented here that lays out many of the key issues that should be considered, and which adds a special emphasis on balancing the values of individual patients and entire populations, as well as the importance of incorporating contextual considerations. Indeed many different types of evidence and value judgements are needed during the decision-making process to answer a wide range of questions, including (1) What is the priority health problem? (2) What causes this health problem? (3) What are the different strategies or interventions that can be used to address this health problem? (4) Which of these options, as compared to the status quo, has an added benefit that outweighs the harms? (5) Which options would be acceptable to the individuals or populations involved? (6) What are the costs and opportunity costs? (7) Would these options be feasible and sustainable in this specific context? (8) What are the ethical, legal and social implications of choosing one option over another? (9) What do different stakeholders stand to gain or lose from each option? and (10) Taking into account the multiple perspectives and considerations involved, which option is most likely to improve health while minimizing harms? This third and final article in the 'Evidence for Health' series will go through each of the steps in the algorithm in greater detail to promote more evidence-informed decisions that aim to improve health and reduce inequities.

[Availability of indicators for monitoring the achievement of "Universal Health" in Latin America and the Caribbean]. / Disponibilidad de indicadores para el seguimiento del alcance de la "Salud Universal" en América Latina y el Caribe.

Objective The objective of this study was to identify the availability of health indicators for validly measuring advances in the attainment of "universal health" in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Methods A systematic search was undertaken for scientific evidence and available technical and scientific documents on assessing health system performance and advances in universal health in the following phases: phase 1, mapping of indicators; phase 2, classification of indicators; and phase 3, mapping the availability of selected indicators in LAC. Results Sixty-three (63) national sources of information and eight international sources were identified. A total of 749 indicators were selected from the different databases and studies evaluated, 619 of which were related to the attainment of universal health and 130 to the burden of disease. The following indicators were identified: financial protection, 42 (6%); coverage of service delivery, 415 (55.4%); population coverage, 6 (0.8%); health determinants, 101 (14%); assessment of inequalities in health, 55 (7.3%); and estimation of burden of disease, 130 (17.3%). Finally, the availability of 141 indicators was mapped for each LAC country. Conclusions The results of this study will help establish a framework for measuring the achievements, obstacles, and rate of progress toward universal health in LAC.

Informing evidence-based policies for ageing and health in Ghana.

PROBLEM: Ghana's population is ageing. In 2011, the Government of Ghana requested technical support from the World Health Organization (WHO) to help revise national policies on ageing and health. APPROACH: We applied WHO's knowledge translation framework on ageing and health to assist evidence based policy-making in Ghana. First, we defined priority problems and health system responses by performing a country assessment of epidemiologic data, policy review, site visits and interviews of key informants. Second, we gathered evidence on effective health systems interventions in low- middle- and high-income countries. Third, key stakeholders were engaged in a policy dialogue. Fourth, policy briefs were developed and presented to the Ghana Health Services. LOCAL SETTING: Ghana has a well-structured health system that can adapt to meet the health care needs of older people. RELEVANT CHANGES: Six problems were selected as priorities, however after the policy dialogue, only five were agreed as priorities by the stakeholders. The key stakeholders drafted evidence-based policy recommendations that were used to develop policy briefs. The briefs were presented to the Ghana Health Service in 2014. LESSONS LEARNT: The framework can be used to build local capacity on evidence-informed policy-making. However, knowledge translation tools need further development to be used in low-income countries and in the field of ageing. The terms and language of the tools need to be adapted to local contexts. Evidence for health system interventions on ageing populations is very limited, particularly for low- and middle-income settings.

Building a knowledge translation platform in Malawi to support evidence-informed health policy.

With the support of the World Health Organization's Evidence-Informed Policy Network, knowledge translation platforms have been developed throughout Africa, the Americas, Eastern Europe, and Asia to further evidence-informed national health policy. In this commentary, we discuss the approaches, activities and early lessons learned from the development of a Knowledge Translation Platform in Malawi (KTPMalawi). Through ongoing leadership, as well as financial and administrative support, the Malawi Ministry of Health has strongly signalled its intention to utilize a knowledge translation platform methodology to support evidence-informed national health policy. A unique partnership between Dignitas International, a medical and research non-governmental organization, and the Malawi Ministry of Health, has established KTPMalawi to engage national-level policymakers, researchers and implementers in a coordinated approach to the generation and utilization of health-sector research. Utilizing a methodology developed and tested by knowledge translation platforms across Africa, a stakeholder mapping exercise and initial capacity building workshops were undertaken and a multidisciplinary Steering Committee was formed. This Steering Committee prioritized the development of two initial Communities of Practice to (1) improve data utilization in the pharmaceutical supply chain and (2) improve the screening and treatment of hypertension within HIV-infected populations. Each Community of Practice's mandate is to gather and synthesize the best available global and local evidence and produce evidence briefs for policy that have been used as the primary input into structured deliberative dialogues. While a lack of sustained initial funding slowed its early development, KTPMalawi has greatly benefited from extensive technical support and mentorship by an existing network of global knowledge translation platforms. With the continued support of the Malawi Ministry of Health and the Evidence-Informed Policy Network, KTPMalawi can continue to build on its role in facilitating the use of evidence in the development and refinement of health policy in Malawi.

Evaluation of the international forum on evidence informed health policymaking: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - 27 to 31 August 2012.

BACKGROUND: Meetings and conferences are often used as a tool to disseminate information, network with colleagues, and/or set direction for a field of study, but there is little evidence to support whether such events achieve their objectives. This study evaluates the International Forum on Evidence Informed Health Policymaking (EIHP), a three-day meeting held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 2012, to determine the success of the meeting based on pre-determined objectives. METHODS: The evaluation strategy was developed based on a previously published conference evaluation framework and operationalized as an end-of-conference participant survey that incorporated both process (programme/organization) and outcome measures (potential changes in behaviour). RESULTS: Sixty seven of approximately 121 attendees filled out a questionnaire (a 55% response rate) and, overall, participants rated the programme components and plenary sessions very highly. The top three benefits reported by participants were: i) sharing experiences and lessons learned (75%); ii) new opportunities for future collaboration (69%); and iii) new knowledge (67%). Conversely, only 25% or less of meeting participants reported an intent to utilize any of the potential benefits highlighted in the questionnaire, with the notable exception of pursuing new opportunities for future collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation findings suggest that the International Forum achieved its objectives of sharing experiences with EIHP and providing opportunities for networking among EIHP initiatives, although there are limited prospects for direct improvements to efforts to support EIHP.

Translating research into action: WHO evidence-informed guidelines for safe and effective micronutrient interventions.

In 2009 WHO adopted a new process by which recommendations for safe and effective micronutrient interventions are developed, ensuring the use of best practices and available evidence. This process includes nine steps ranging from establishing steering and guideline groups and prioritizing needs to planning the implementation and updating the guidelines. Systematic reviews of evidence are used to address critical outcomes for decision making, considering the balance among risks and benefits, values, preferences, and costs. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology is used to assess the overall evidence quality and establish the strength of the recommendations. Guideline development is underway for interventions covering iron and vitamin A supplementation, home fortification with multiple micronutrient powders, and fortification of staple foods. Global guidelines are disseminated through the WHO electronic Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions, a resource of the evidence and tools for scaling-up micronutrient interventions. The WHO Department of Nutrition for Health and Development and the Evidence-Informed Policy Network will support countries to scale-up the delivery of micronutrient interventions by adapting these evidence-informed guidelines and policies to make them context specific. This will be accomplished by providing summaries of the best available evidence on micronutrient interventions, evidence on health systems, and effective delivery systems along with capturing the tacit knowledge of the countries' realities. With a systematic approach that uses the WHO strategy on research for health as the connecting thread, the challenges to successfully implement safe and effective micronutrient programs can be addressed.

Implementation research evidence uptake and use for policy-making.

A major obstacle to the progress of the Millennium Development Goals has been the inability of health systems in many low- and middle-income countries to effectively implement evidence-informed interventions. This article discusses the relationships between implementation research and knowledge translation and identifies the role of implementation research in the design and execution of evidence-informed policy. After a discussion of the benefits and synergies needed to translate implementation research into action, the article discusses how implementation research can be used along the entire continuum of the use of evidence to inform policy. It provides specific examples of the use of implementation research in national level programmes by looking at the scale up of zinc for the treatment of childhood diarrhoea in Bangladesh and the scaling up of malaria treatment in Burkina Faso. A number of tested strategies to support the transfer of implementation research results into policy-making are provided to help meet the standards that are increasingly expected from evidence-informed policy-making practices.

[Assessment of Brazilian clinical guidelines in oncology: gaps in drafting, applicability, and editorial independence]. / Avaliação de diretrizes clínicas brasileiras em oncologia: carências no rigor do desenvolvimento, aplicabilidade e independência editorial.

The expansion in the variety of clinical guidelines in oncology is perceptible worldwide, highlighting the need to guarantee the quality of these documents. The study thus aimed to assess the quality of Brazilian national guidelines for treatments of breast, prostate, and colon and rectal cancers. We selected 12 Brazilian guidelines published by four different drafting groups (Ministry of Health, Supplementary Health System, and medical societies and associations), and the AGREE II instrument was applied. In all these guidelines, we identified important weaknesses in more than one Domain, especially low values for "applicability" and "editorial independence". The patterns observed per Domains are more related to the drafting group than the respective clinical conditions. Lower scores in "drafting rigor" and "editorial independence" were obtained by nongovernmental drafting groups, including absence of information or lack of its transparency. Although the "clarity of presentation" in the Ministry of Health guidelines was relatively lower, all the guidelines presented major limitations in "applicability". Consequently, in the overall assessment, none of the guidelines was recommended without modifications, and four were not recommended at all. Finally, it is necessary to upgrade the guidelines according to the underlying evidence ("methodological rigor") and to present the recommended practices in a comprehensible and applicable way ("applicability"), and to mitigate conflicting interests in order to offer cancer patients the best available care in Brazil.

A ampliação da variedade de diretrizes clínicas em oncologia é perceptível em todo o mundo, o que salienta a necessidade de garantir a qualidade destes documentos. Assim, o objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a qualidade de diretrizes nacionais de tratamentos dos cânceres de mama, próstata e de cólon e reto. Foram selecionadas 12 diretrizes brasileiras publicadas por quatro grupos elaboradores distintos (Ministério da Saúde, sistema suplementar de saúde e de sociedades e associações médicas), e aplicado o instrumento AGREE II. Em todas as diretrizes avaliadas foram identificadas fragilidades importantes em mais de um Domínio, com destaque para os baixos valores para "aplicabilidade" e "independência editorial". Os padrões observados por Domínios apresentam-se mais relacionados com o grupo elaborador do que com as condições clínicas tratadas. Menores escores no "rigor do desenvolvimento" e "independência editorial" foram obtidos por grupos elaboradores não governamentais, inclusive com ausência ou falta de transparência nas informações. Mesmo que a "clareza da apresentação" das diretrizes do Ministério da Saúde tenha sido relativamente inferior, na "aplicabilidade" todas apresentaram limitações expressivas. Consequentemente, na avaliação global nenhuma das diretrizes foi recomendada sem modificações, sendo quatro delas não recomendadas. Por fim, é necessário qualificar as recomendações no que tange as evidências que as fundamentam ("rigor metodológico"), assim como dispor de forma compreensível e exequível as condutas a serem adotadas ("aplicabilidade") e mitigar interesses conflitantes, para que seja ofertado o melhor cuidado aos pacientes oncológicos no país.

La ampliación de la variedad de directrices clínicas en oncología es perceptible en todo el mundo, lo que resalta la necesidad de garantizar la calidad de estos documentos. Por este motivo, el objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la calidad de directrices nacionales de tratamientos de los cánceres de mama, próstata, así como de colon y recto. Se seleccionaron doce directrices brasileñas, publicadas por cuatro grupos elaboradores distintos (Ministerio de Salud, sistema suplementario de salud, así como sociedades y asociaciones médicas), y se aplicó el instrumento AGREE II. En todas las directrices evaluadas se identificaron debilidades importantes en más de un Dominio, destacando los bajos valores para la "aplicabilidad" e "independencia editorial". Los patrones observados por Dominios se presentan más relacionados con el grupo elaborador, que con las condiciones clínicas tratadas. Menores puntuaciones en el "rigor del desarrollo" e "independencia editorial" se obtuvieron por parte de grupos elaboradores no gubernamentales, inclusive con ausencia o falta de transparencia en la información. A pesar de que la "claridad de la presentación" de las directrices del Ministerio de la Salud haya sido relativamente inferior en la "aplicabilidad", todas presentaron limitaciones expresivas. Consecuentemente, en la evaluación global, ninguna de las directrices fue recomendada sin modificaciones, siendo cuatro de ellas no recomendadas. Por fin, se hace necesario cualificar las recomendaciones, en lo que se refiere a las evidencias que las fundamentan ("rigor metodológico"), así como disponer de forma comprensible y factible las conductas que deben ser adoptadas ("aplicabilidad"), al igual que mitigar intereses conflictivos, para que sea ofertado el mejor cuidado a los pacientes oncológicos en el país.

Politics and political determinants of health policy and systems research funding in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Objectives and importance of study: The importance of health policy and systems research (HPSR) has been acknowledged since 2004 and was recognised by the United Nations World Health Assembly in 2005. However, many factors influence its development. This paper aims to analyse the impact of politics and political determinants on HPSR funding in selected countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. METHODS: Using a standardised protocol, we performed an analysis of available data and financing structures for health research and HPSR, based on research in eight countries, including interviews with key stakeholders (n = 42). RESULTS: Dollar depreciation and gross national product growth in the region may play a role in how governments fund research. There have been shifts in the political spectrum in governments, which have affected research coordination and funding in positive and negative ways. HPSR funding in some countries was dependent on budget decisions and although some have improved funding, others have regressed by decreasing funding or have completely cancelled financing mechanisms. Caribbean countries rely mainly on institutional funding. HPSR is recognised as important but remains underfunded; stakeholders believed it should be used more in decision making. CONCLUSION: Although HPSR is recognised as valuable for decision making and policy development, it does not have the financial support required to flourish in Latin America and the Carribean. Data on health research financing were not easy to access. There was little or no evidence of published reports or papers about research financing, health research funding, and HPSR funding in particular in the studied countries. Because of the fragility of health systems highlighted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, HPSR should be of great relevance and value to both policy makers and funders.

A Knowledge Translation framework on ageing and health.

BACKGROUND: The world's population aged 60 and over will more than triple from 600 million to 2 billion between the years 2000 to 2050. This demographic change has significant impact on health, social, and economic sectors. The need to ensure that research into older peoples' health is effectively translated to policy is immediate. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to present a proposed framework to support evidence informed policymaking in ageing and health. METHODS: We undertook a two stage process to develop the framework. We (a) conducted a review of the literature, and (b) convened an expert panel to provide feedback. RESULTS: Numerous frameworks have been proposed yet the majority do not address all the barriers. The Lavis et al., framework addresses a majority of the obstacles associated with evidence-informed policymaking and this framework was modified to include sub-elements important to ageing and health and to reflect the order of importance of the elements. The main elements are: a climate and/or context for research use, linkage and exchange efforts, creation of new knowledge, push efforts, facilitating pull efforts, pull efforts, and evaluation. A four-step implementation process is proposed. DISCUSSION: This paper offers an approach to Knowledge Translation within the field of ageing and health. The framework and proposed implementation could be used to conceptualize and implement evidence-informed policymaking.

Avaliação de diretrizes clínicas brasileiras em oncologia: carências no rigor do desenvolvimento, aplicabilidade e independência editorial / Assessment of Brazilian clinical guidelines in oncology: gaps in drafting, applicability, and editorial independence / Evaluación de directrices clínicas brasileñas en oncología: carencias en el rigor del desarrollo, aplicabilidad e independencia editorial

A ampliação da variedade de diretrizes clínicas em oncologia é perceptível em todo o mundo, o que salienta a necessidade de garantir a qualidade destes documentos. Assim, o objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a qualidade de diretrizes nacionais de tratamentos dos cânceres de mama, próstata e de cólon e reto. Foram selecionadas 12 diretrizes brasileiras publicadas por quatro grupos elaboradores distintos (Ministério da Saúde, sistema suplementar de saúde e de sociedades e associações médicas), e aplicado o instrumento AGREE II. Em todas as diretrizes avaliadas foram identificadas fragilidades importantes em mais de um Domínio, com destaque para os baixos valores para "aplicabilidade" e "independência editorial". Os padrões observados por Domínios apresentam-se mais relacionados com o grupo elaborador do que com as condições clínicas tratadas. Menores escores no "rigor do desenvolvimento" e "independência editorial" foram obtidos por grupos elaboradores não governamentais, inclusive com ausência ou falta de transparência nas informações. Mesmo que a "clareza da apresentação" das diretrizes do Ministério da Saúde tenha sido relativamente inferior, na "aplicabilidade" todas apresentaram limitações expressivas. Consequentemente, na avaliação global nenhuma das diretrizes foi recomendada sem modificações, sendo quatro delas não recomendadas. Por fim, é necessário qualificar as recomendações no que tange as evidências que as fundamentam ("rigor metodológico"), assim como dispor de forma compreensível e exequível as condutas a serem adotadas ("aplicabilidade") e mitigar interesses conflitantes, para que seja ofertado o melhor cuidado aos pacientes oncológicos no país.

The expansion in the variety of clinical guidelines in oncology is perceptible worldwide, highlighting the need to guarantee the quality of these documents. The study thus aimed to assess the quality of Brazilian national guidelines for treatments of breast, prostate, and colon and rectal cancers. We selected 12 Brazilian guidelines published by four different drafting groups (Ministry of Health, Supplementary Health System, and medical societies and associations), and the AGREE II instrument was applied. In all these guidelines, we identified important weaknesses in more than one Domain, especially low values for "applicability" and "editorial independence". The patterns observed per Domains are more related to the drafting group than the respective clinical conditions. Lower scores in "drafting rigor" and "editorial independence" were obtained by nongovernmental drafting groups, including absence of information or lack of its transparency. Although the "clarity of presentation" in the Ministry of Health guidelines was relatively lower, all the guidelines presented major limitations in "applicability". Consequently, in the overall assessment, none of the guidelines was recommended without modifications, and four were not recommended at all. Finally, it is necessary to upgrade the guidelines according to the underlying evidence ("methodological rigor") and to present the recommended practices in a comprehensible and applicable way ("applicability"), and to mitigate conflicting interests in order to offer cancer patients the best available care in Brazil.

La ampliación de la variedad de directrices clínicas en oncología es perceptible en todo el mundo, lo que resalta la necesidad de garantizar la calidad de estos documentos. Por este motivo, el objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la calidad de directrices nacionales de tratamientos de los cánceres de mama, próstata, así como de colon y recto. Se seleccionaron doce directrices brasileñas, publicadas por cuatro grupos elaboradores distintos (Ministerio de Salud, sistema suplementario de salud, así como sociedades y asociaciones médicas), y se aplicó el instrumento AGREE II. En todas las directrices evaluadas se identificaron debilidades importantes en más de un Dominio, destacando los bajos valores para la "aplicabilidad" e "independencia editorial". Los patrones observados por Dominios se presentan más relacionados con el grupo elaborador, que con las condiciones clínicas tratadas. Menores puntuaciones en el "rigor del desarrollo" e "independencia editorial" se obtuvieron por parte de grupos elaboradores no gubernamentales, inclusive con ausencia o falta de transparencia en la información. A pesar de que la "claridad de la presentación" de las directrices del Ministerio de la Salud haya sido relativamente inferior en la "aplicabilidad", todas presentaron limitaciones expresivas. Consecuentemente, en la evaluación global, ninguna de las directrices fue recomendada sin modificaciones, siendo cuatro de ellas no recomendadas. Por fin, se hace necesario cualificar las recomendaciones, en lo que se refiere a las evidencias que las fundamentan ("rigor metodológico"), así como disponer de forma comprensible y factible las conductas que deben ser adoptadas ("aplicabilidad"), al igual que mitigar intereses conflictivos, para que sea ofertado el mejor cuidado a los pacientes oncológicos en el país.

Mejorar la salud pública y los sistemas de salud mediante políticas fundamentadas en la evidencia en la Región de las Américas

[EXTRACTO]. El enfoque de que la formulación de políticas debe fundamentarse en la evidencia —es decir, que las decisiones en cuanto a las políticas deben sustentarse en el uso sistemático y transparente de datos científicos— atrajo mucha atención internacional en los primeros años del milenio. El movimiento fue incentivado por el Informe mundial sobre el conocimiento orientado a mejorar la salud del 2004 y las declaraciones de las Cumbres Ministeriales sobre Investigación en Salud, celebradas en Ciudad de México en el 2005 y en Bamako (Malí) en el 2008 y convocadas ambas por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. De manera más reciente, en la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible, de las Naciones Unidas, se presentaron 17 objetivos para el desarrollo mundial, en los cuales las políticas fundamentadas en la investigación desempeñarán un papel clave...

[EXTRACTO]. A estratégia de formulação de políticas informadas por evidências – na qual as decisões políticas são informadas pelo uso sistemático e transparente de evidências – foi objeto de grande atenção internacional no início do milênio. O movimento foi impulsionado pelo Relatório mundial sobre conhecimentos para melhorar a saúde de 2004 e pelas declarações emitidas nas Reuniões de Cúpula Ministerial de Pesquisa em Saúde na Cidade do México em 2005 e em Bamaco, Mali, em 2008, ambas convocadas pela Organização Mundial da Saúde. Mais recentemente, a Agenda 2030 das Nações Unidas para o desenvolvimento sustentável formulou 17 objetivos para o desenvolvimento global, e as políticas informadas por pesquisa serão essenciais...

Feasibility of a rapid response mechanism to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems in a low income country: a case study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the recognition of the importance of evidence-informed health policy and practice, there are still barriers to translating research findings into policy and practice. The present study aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid response mechanism, a knowledge translation strategy designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for evidence about health systems in a low income country, Uganda. Rapid response mechanisms aim to address the barriers of timeliness and relevance of evidence at the time it is needed. METHODS: A rapid response mechanism (service) designed a priori was offered to policymakers in the health sector in Uganda. In the form of a case study, data were collected about the profile of users of the service, the kinds of requests for evidence, changes in answers, and courses of action influenced by the mechanism and their satisfaction with responses and the mechanism in general. RESULTS: We found that in the first 28 months, the service received 65 requests for evidence from 30 policymakers and stakeholders, the majority of whom were from the Ministry of Health. The most common requests for evidence were about governance and organization of health systems. It was noted that regular contact between the policymakers and the researchers at the response service was an important factor in response to, and uptake of the service. The service seemed to increase confidence for policymakers involved in the policymaking process. CONCLUSION: Rapid response mechanisms designed to meet policymakers' urgent needs for research evidence about health systems are feasible and acceptable to policymakers in low income countries.

Disponibilidad de indicadores para el seguimiento del alcance de la “Salud Universal” en América Latina y el Caribe / Availability of indicators for monitoring the achievement of “Universal Health” in Latin America and the Caribbean

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue identificar la disponibilidad de indicadores en salud que permitan medir con validez los avances en la consecución de la “Salud Universal” en América Latina y el Caribe (ALC). Métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de evidencia científica y documentos técnicocientíficos disponibles sobre la evaluación del desempeño de los sistemas de salud y del avance en Salud Universal en las siguientes fases: fase 1 de mapeo de indicadores, fase 2 de clasificación de indicadores, y fase 3 de mapeo de la disponibilidad de indicadores seleccionados en ALC. Resultados: Se localizaron 63 fuentes de información a nivel nacional y 8 a nivel internacional. De las diferentes fuentes de bases de datos y estudios evaluados, se seleccionaron 749 indicadores, 619 de los cuales estaban relacionados con las dimensiones de la Salud Universal y 130, con la carga de enfermedad. Se identificaron 42 (6%) indicadores de protección financiera, 415 (55,4%) de cobertura de prestación de servicios, 6 (0,8%) de cobertura poblacional, 101 (14%) de determinantes de la salud, 55 (7,3%) para la evaluación de las inequidades en salud, y 130 (17,3%) para estimar la carga de enfermedad. Finalmente, se mapeó la disponibilidad de 141 indicadores en cada país de ALC. Conclusiones: Los resultados de este estudio contribuyen a avanzar en el establecimiento de un marco que permitirá medir los logros, los obstáculos y la velocidad de los avances hacia la Salud Universal en ALC.

Objective. The objective of this study was to identify the availability of health indicators for validly measuring advances in the attainment of “universal health” in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Methods. A systematic search was undertaken for scientific evidence and available technical and scientific documents on assessing health system performance and advances in universal health in the following phases: phase 1, mapping of indicators; phase 2, classification of indicators; and phase 3, mapping the availability of selected indicators in LAC. Results. Sixty-three (63) national sources of information and eight international sources were identified. A total of 749 indicators were selected from the different databases and studies evaluated, 619 of which were related to the attainment of universal health and 130 to the burden of disease. The following indicators were identified: financial protection, 42 (6%); coverage of service delivery, 415 (55.4%); population coverage, 6 (0.8%); health determinants, 101 (14%); assessment of inequalities in health, 55 (7.3%); and estimation of burden of disease, 130 (17.3%). Finally, the availability of 141 indicators was mapped for each LAC country. Conclusions. The results of this study will help establish a framework for measuring the achievements, obstacles, and rate of progress toward universal health in LAC.