Analysis of funding landscape for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A scoping review of the literature over the past decade.

BACKGROUND: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) can strengthen health systems and improve population health outcomes. In the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), there is limited recognition of the importance of HPSR and funding remains the main challenge. This study seeks to: (1) assess the reporting of funding in HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the EMR, (2) examine the source of funding in the published HPSR papers in the EMR and (3) explore variables influencing funding sources, including any difference in funding sources for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related articles. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review of HPSR papers published between 2010 and 2022 (inclusively) in the EMR, addressing the following areas: reporting of funding in HPSR papers, source of funding in the published HPSR papers, authors' affiliations and country of focus. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for conducting scoping reviews. We also conducted univariate and bivariate analyses for all variables at 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: Of 10,797 articles screened, 3408 were included (of which 9.3% were COVID-19-related). More than half of the included articles originated from three EMR countries: Iran (n = 1018, 29.9%), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (n = 595, 17.5%) and Pakistan (n = 360, 10.6%). Approximately 30% of the included articles did not report any details on study funding. Among articles that reported funding (n = 1346, 39.5%), analysis of funding sources across all country income groups revealed that the most prominent source was national (55.4%), followed by international (41.7%) and lastly regional sources (3%). Among the national funding sources, universities accounted for 76.8%, while governments accounted for 14.9%. Further analysis of funding sources by country income group showed that, in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, all or the majority of funding came from international sources, while in high-income and upper-middle-income countries, national funding sources, mainly universities, were the primary sources of funding. The majority of funded articles' first authors were affiliated with academia/university, while a minority were affiliated with government, healthcare organizations or intergovernmental organizations. We identified the following characteristics to be significantly associated with the funding source: country income level, the focus of HPSR articles (within the EMR only, or extending beyond the EMR as part of international research consortia), and the first author's affiliation. Similar funding patterns were observed for COVID-19-related HPSR articles, with national funding sources (78.95%), mainly universities, comprising the main source of funding. In contrast, international funding sources decreased to 15.8%. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to address the reporting of funding and funding sources in published HPSR articles in the EMR. Approximately 30% of HPSR articles did not report on the funding source. Study findings revealed heavy reliance on universities and international funding sources with minimal role of national governments and regional entities in funding HPSR articles in the EMR. We provide implications for policy and practice to enhance the profile of HPSR in the region.

Equity and unmet need of non-communicable diseases services in Saudi Arabia using a National Household Survey (2019).

BACKGROUND: Saudi Arabia is implementing a comprehensive health system transformation in health services provision, governance, and financing. Given the high burden of non-communicable diseases (NCD), a key objective of the transformation is to integrate NCD prevention and treatment into primary care. The study objectives were to assess primary care service use for treatment of NCDs, to quantify existing inequities in preventive services utilization, and to identify regional and sociodemographic factors associated with these inequities. METHODS: Using the 2019 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia World Health Survey, multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to identify predictors of utilization of primary care services for NCD prevention and treatment, unmet need among those with a diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia, and unmet need in breast and cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: Among those with an NCD diagnosis, living in a high-income household was associated with a lower probability of having an unmet need compared to those in low-income households. Furthermore, rural residents were less likely to have an unmet need compared to urban residents (OR 0.58, p=0.029). Individuals without a perceived need for healthcare within the last 12 months had three times the probability of unmet need in comparison to those with such a perceived need (p<0.001). Women in all regions had a lower probability of ever having a mammogram compared to women in the central regions around Riyadh. Women with an education above a secondary level had five times the odds of undergoing cervical cancer screening and three times the likelihood of ever having a mammogram (P=0.012, p=0.02) than other women. Compared to women in low-income households, those in middle (OR 1.99, P=0.026), upper middle (OR 3.47, p<0.001), or high-income households (OR 2.59, p<0.001) had a higher probability of having had cervical cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Inequities in NCD treatment and prevention services' utilization in Saudi Arabia are strongly associated with region of living, population density, wealth, income, education and perceived need for health care. More research is needed to better understand the extent of unmet primary care needs for NCD and how to address the underlying contributing factors to access inequities.

Multi-sectoral collaborations in selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region: assessment, enablers and missed opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic response.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emphasized the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration to respond effectively to public health emergencies. This study aims to generate evidence on the extent to which multi-sectoral collaborations have been employed in the macro-level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in nine selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). METHODS: The study employed in-depth analytical research design and was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, data were collected using a comprehensive documentation review. In the second phase, key informant interviews were conducted to validate findings from the first phase and gain additional insights into key barriers and facilitators. We analysed the macro-level pandemic responses across the following seven components of the analytical framework for multi-sectoral collaborations: (1) context and trigger; (2) leadership, institutional mechanisms and processes; (3) actors; (4) administration, funding and evaluation; (5) degree of multi-sectoral engagement; (6) impact; and (7) enabling factors. RESULTS: Governments in the EMR have responded differently to the pandemic, with variations in reaction speed and strictness of implementation. While inter-ministerial committees were identified as the primary mechanism through which multi-sectoral action was established and implemented in the selected countries, there was a lack of clarity on how they functioned, particularly regarding the closeness of the cooperation and the working methods. Coordination structures lacked a clear mandate, joint costed action plan, sufficient resources and regular reporting on commitments. Furthermore, there was no evidence of robust communication planning both internally, focused on promoting internal consensual decision-making and managing power dynamics, and externally, concerning communication with the public. Across the selected countries, there was strong representation of different ministries in the pandemic response. Conversely, the contribution of non-state actors, including non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, the private sector, the media and citizens, was relatively modest. Their involvement was more ad hoc, fragmented and largely self-initiated, particularly within the selected middle- and low income- countries of the EMR. Moreover, none of the countries incorporated explicit accountability framework or included anti-corruption and counter-fraud measures as integral components of their multi-sectoral plans and coordination mechanisms. Key enablers for the adoption of multi-sectoral collaborations have been identified, paving the way for more efficient responses in the future. DISCUSSION: Mirroring global efforts, this study demonstrates that the selected countries in the EMR are making efforts to integrate multi-sectoral action into their pandemic responses. Nevertheless, persistent challenges and gaps remain, presenting untapped opportunities that governments can leverage to enhance the efficiency of future public health emergency responses.

Exploring patient perspectives: A qualitative inquiry into healthcare perceptions, experiences and satisfaction in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: Patient perspectives have received increasing importance within health systems over the past four decades. Measures of patient experience and satisfaction are commonly used. However, these measures do not capture all the information that is available through engaging with patients. An improved understanding of the various types of patient perspectives and the distinctions between them is needed. The lack of such knowledge limits the usefulness of including patient perspectives as components within pay-for-performance initiatives. This study aimed to explore patient perspectives on hospital care in Lebanon. It also aimed to contribute insights that may improve the national pay-for-performance initiative and to the knowledge on engaging patients towards person-centered health systems. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group discussions with persons recently discharged after hospitalization under the coverage of the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health. This study was implemented in 2017 and involved 42 participants across eight focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the information provided by participants. RESULTS: Five overall themes supported by 17 categories were identified, capturing the meaning of the participants' perspectives: health is everything; being turned into second class citizens; money and personal connections make all the difference; wanting to be treated with dignity and respect; and tolerating letdown, for the sake of right treatment. The most frequently prioritized statement in a ranking exercise regarding patient satisfaction was regular contact with the patient's doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives include more than what is traditionally incorporated in measures of patient satisfaction and experience. Patient valuing of health and their perceptions on each of the health system, and access and quality of care should also be taken into account. Hospital pay-for-performance initiatives can be made more responsive through a broader consideration of these perspectives. More broadly, health systems would benefit from wider engagement of patients. We propose a framework relating patient perspectives to value-based healthcare and health system performance.

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of evidence syntheses in informing policymaking, their production and use remain limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). There is a lack of empirical research on approaches to promote and use policy-relevant evidence syntheses to inform policymaking processes in the EMR. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe the development of an impact-oriented approach to link evidence synthesis to policy, and its implementation through selected case studies in Lebanon, a middle-income country in the EMR. METHODS: This study followed a multifaceted and iterative process that included (i) a review of the literature, (ii) input from international experts in evidence synthesis and evidence-informed health policymaking, and (iii) application in a real-world setting (implementation). We describe four selected case studies of implementation. Surveys were used to assess policy briefs, deliberative dialogues, and post-dialogue activities. Additionally, Kingdon's stream theory was adopted to further explain how and why the selected policy issues rose to the decision agenda. RESULTS: The approach incorporates three interrelated phases: (1) priority setting, (2) evidence synthesis, and (3) uptake. Policy-relevant priorities are generated through formal priority setting exercises, direct requests by policymakers and stakeholders, or a focusing event. Identified priorities are translated into focused questions that can be addressed via evidence synthesis (phase 1). Next, a scoping of the literature is conducted to identify existing evidence syntheses addressing the question of interest. Unless the team identifies relevant, up-to-date and high-quality evidence syntheses, it proceeds to conducting SRs addressing the priority questions of interest (phase 2). Next, the team prepares knowledge translation products (e.g., policy briefs) for undertaking knowledge uptake activities, followed by monitoring and evaluation (phase 3). There are two prerequisites to the application of the approach: enhancing contextual awareness and capacity strengthening. The four case studies illustrate how evidence produced from the suites of activities was used to inform health policies and practices. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe both the development and implementation of an approach to link evidence synthesis to policy in the EMR. We believe the approach will be useful for researchers, knowledge translation platforms, governments, and funders seeking to promote evidence-informed policymaking and practice.

Baseline Assessment of Health Research Systems in Saudi Arabia: Harnessing Efforts and Mobilizing Actions.

Major transformations are taking place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to achieve the 2030 vision for the health sector. A key component in strengthening the health system is a strong research governance strategy that can support the decision-making process by providing timely and accurate evidence that reflects local context and needs. This paper sought to better understand governance structures and policies for health research systems and support clusters so that they function effectively. This paper outlines the findings of an in-depth baseline assessment of existing health research efforts, activities, and plans of eight research clusters in the KSA and identifies key gaps and strengths in health research governance and capabilities. A cross-sectional design was used to survey research clusters in KSA. A six-part survey was developed to better understand the research clusters' health research governance and capacities. The survey was sent to all KSA clusters and was completed in a group setting during meetings. Findings clearly show strong efforts to support research governance initiatives in health clusters in KSA. While some clusters are more advanced than others, there are plenty of opportunities to share knowledge and combine efforts to help achieve the goals set out for KSA health transformation. This baseline assessment also reflects the first attempt of its kind to understand the KSA experience and provide much-needed lessons on country-wide efforts to support the health system given the trickling effect of this sector on all others, enhancing and advancing national growth.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area. METHODS: We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts. RESULTS: Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was 'researchers/academia' (n=17, 77%) followed by 'healthcare providers' (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was 'health burden' (n=12, 80%), followed by 'availability of resources' (n=11, 73%). CONCLUSION: We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Examining and Contextualizing Approaches to Establish Policy Support Organizations - A Mixed Method Study.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in the number of policy support organizations (PSOs) that have been created to foster the systematic use of evidence in health system policymaking. Our aim was to identify approaches for establishing a PSO or similar entities by soliciting insights from those with practical experience with developing and operationalizing PSOs in real-world contexts. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed method approached. We first conducted a survey to identify the views and experiences of those who were directly involved in the establishment of PSOs that have been developed and implemented across a variety of political-, health- and research-system contexts. The survey findings were then used to develop a purposive sample of PSO leaders and refine an interview guide for interviews with them. RESULTS: We received 19 completed surveys from leaders of PSOs in countries across the WHO regions and that operate in different settings (eg, as independent organization or within a university or government department) and conducted interviews with 15 senior managers from nine PSOs. Our findings provide in-depth insights about approaches and strategies across four stages for establishing a PSO, which include: (i) building awareness for the PSO; (ii) developing the PSO; (iii) assessing the PSO to identify potential areas for enhancement; and (iv) supporting maturation to build sustainability in the long-term. Our findings provide rich insights about the process of establishing a PSO from leaders who have undertaken the process. CONCLUSION: While all PSOs share the same objective in supporting evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM), there is no single approach that can be considered to be the most successful in establishing a PSO, and each country should identify the approach based on its context.

Barriers and enablers in implementing an electronic incident reporting system in a teaching hospital: A case study from Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Widespread recognition of the impact of healthcare adverse events has triggered incident reporting system implementation to promote patient safety. The aim was to assess the effectiveness, usability, enablers, and barriers of the Electronic Occurrence Variance Reporting System (eOVR) in addition to end user satisfaction. METHODS: This study comprised a cross-sectional survey two years after implementation of the eOVR. Secondary data analysis evaluated the volume of incident reporting before and after implementing the eOVR. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures: satisfaction and system usability, system security, workplace safety culture, training, and reporting trends. An overall satisfaction was collected. SECONDARY OUTCOME: rate of reported OVRs per 1000 admissions. Furthermore, barriers and enablers to the reporting process were explored. RESULTS: Study findings indicate that the eOVR has been successful in terms of high satisfaction according to respondents. Most of the respondents found the system easy to access, maintained patient confidentiality and reporting anonymity. Around half the respondents indicated having a non-punitive culture of reporting in their hospital. Physicians had significantly lower scores in all primary outcomes Incident reporting increased by 33.6% (p < 0.0001) after implementing the eOVR. CONCLUSION: Successful incident reporting systems should be easy and simple to use, accessible and include features that guarantee anonymity and confidentiality. End-users should be trained prior to launching such a system. The implementation of such systems needs to be combined with promoting a just culture in the organization, timely feedback, more involvement and focus on physicians and junior staff which will improve user satisfaction and reporting rates.

Funding for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean region: amount, source and key determinants.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the current state of funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) on a national level across the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), and to examine the key factors influencing funding for HPSR in the region. METHODS: A multistep approach was employed, involving a documentation review, secondary data analysis and key informant interviews with 30 stakeholders from five countries in the EMR. Findings are presented narratively (and where applicable as percentages). RESULTS: National funding for research and development (R&D) in general, and for health research in particular, has been low in comparative terms and lagging behind at the global scale, while funding for HPSR has been lacking on a national level. None of the 22 EMR countries studied had explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR. Analysis of funding sources of 1821 published HPSR articles in the EMR (2010-2019) showed that the most notable source was external/international grants (45.6%), followed by university/academia (35.1%), and government (9.5%). Although HPSR publications have been increasing over time, this still falls short of the scale needed for strengthening health systems and informing current transformations in the region. Findings from the interviews identified several factors influencing investment in or funding for HPSR in the EMR. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the EMR's policy priorities are related to health systems, however our research finds that overall investment in health research and HPSR is still low, with limited recognition of the importance of HPSR in the EMR.

Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and types of conflict of interest (COI) disclosed by authors of primary studies of health policy and systems research (HPSR). DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data extraction. We conducted descriptive analyses. SETTING: We collected data from papers published in 2016 in 'health policy and service journals' category in Web of Science database. PARTICIPANTS: We included primary studies (eg, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, qualitative studies) of HPSR published in English in 2016 peer-reviewed health policy and services journals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported COI disclosures including whether authors reported COI or not, form in which COI disclosures were provided, number of authors per paper who report any type of COI, number of authors per paper who report specific types and subtypes of COI. RESULTS: We included 200 eligible primary studies of which 132 (66%) included COI disclosure statements of authors. Of the 132 studies, 19 (14%) had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI and the most frequently reported type was individual financial COI (n=15, 11%). None of the authors reported individual intellectual COIs or personal COIs. Financial and individual COIs were reported more frequently compared with non-financial and institutional COIs. CONCLUSION: A low percentage of HPSR primary studies included authors reporting COI. Non-financial or institutional COIs were the least reported types of COI.

Health care workers in conflict and post-conflict settings: Systematic mapping of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are essential for the delivery of health care services in conflict areas and in rebuilding health systems post-conflict. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically identify and map the published evidence on HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings. Our ultimate aim is to inform researchers and funders on research gap on this subject and support relevant stakeholders by providing them with a comprehensive resource of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mapping of the literature. We included a wide range of study designs, addressing any type of personnel providing health services in either conflict or post-conflict settings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and built two interactive systematic maps organized by country, study design and theme. RESULTS: Out of 13,863 identified citations, we included a total of 474 studies: 304 on conflict settings, 149 on post-conflict settings, and 21 on both conflict and post-conflict settings. For conflict settings, the most studied counties were Iraq (15%), Syria (15%), Israel (10%), and the State of Palestine (9%). The most common types of publication were opinion pieces in conflict settings (39%), and primary studies (33%) in post-conflict settings. In addition, most of the first and corresponding authors were affiliated with countries different from the country focus of the paper. Violence against health workers was the most tackled theme of papers reporting on conflict settings, while workforce performance was the most addressed theme by papers reporting on post-conflict settings. The majority of papers in both conflict and post-conflict settings did not report funding sources (81% and 53%) or conflicts of interest of authors (73% and 62%), and around half of primary studies did not report on ethical approvals (45% and 41%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic mapping provides a comprehensive database of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale that is often needed to inform policies and strategies on effective workforce planning and management and in reducing emigration. It can also be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps to direct future primary research, and knowledge clusters.

Supporting the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones in low- and middle-income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Decision-makers in crisis zones are faced with the challenge of having to make health-related decisions under limited time and resource constraints and in light of the many factors that can influence their decisions, of which research evidence is just one. To address a key gap in the research literature about how best to support the use of research evidence in such situations, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis approach to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones. METHODS: We systematically reviewed both empirical and non-empirical literature and used an interpretive analytic approach to synthesise the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a 'compass' question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SSCI and Web of Science. A second reviewer was assigned to a representative sample of articles. We purposively sampled additional papers to fill in conceptual gaps. RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible papers to be analysed and purposively sampled an additional 6 to fill conceptual gaps. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual framework that focuses on evidence use in crisis zones examined through the lens of four systems - political, health, international humanitarian aid and health research. Within each of the four systems, the framework identifies the most actionable strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a new conceptual framework that outlines strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones within different systems. This study expands on the literature pertaining to evidence-informed decision-making.

Understanding the implications of the Sustainable Development Goals for health policy and systems research: results of a research priority setting exercise.

BACKGROUND: Given the paradigmatic shift represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as compared to the Millennium Development Goals - in particular their broad and interconnected nature - a new set of health policy and systems research (HPSR) priorities are needed to inform strategies to address these interconnected goals. OBJECTIVES: To identify high priority HPSR questions linked to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. METHODS: We focused on three themes that we considered to be central to achieving the health related SDGs: (i) Protecting and promoting access to health services through systems of social protection (ii) Strengthening multisectoral collaborations for health and (iii) Developing more participatory and accountable institutions. We conducted 54 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions to investigate policy-maker perspectives on evidence needs. We also conducted an overview of literature reviews in each theme. Information from these sub-studies was extracted into a matrix of possible research questions and developed into three domain-specific lists of 30-36 potential priority questions. Topic experts from the global research community then refined and ranked the proposed questions through an online platform. A final webinar on each theme sought feedback on findings. RESULTS: Policy-makers continue to demand HPSR for many well-established issues such as health financing, human resources for health, and service delivery. In terms of service delivery, policy-makers wanted to know how best to strengthen primary health care and community-based systems. In the themes of social protection and multisectoral collaboration, prioritized questions had a strong emphasis on issues of practical implementation. For participatory and accountable institutions, the two priority questions focused on political factors affecting the adoption of accountability measures, as well as health worker reactions to such measures. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve the SDGs, there is a continuing need for research in some already well established areas of HPSR as well as key areas highlighted by decision-makers. Identifying appropriate conceptual frameworks as well as typologies of examples may be a prerequisite for answering some of the substantive policymaker questions. In addition, implementation research engaging non-traditional stakeholders outside of the health sector will be critical.

Quality, safety and performance management in primary health care: from scoping review to research priority setting and implementation plan in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

INTRODUCTION: Strong primary health care (PHC) leads to better health outcomes, improves health equity and accelerates progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The Astana Declaration on PHC emphasised the importance of quality care to achieve UHC. A comprehensive understanding of the quality paradigm of PHC is critical, yet it remains elusive in countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). This study used a multistep approach to generate a policy-relevant research agenda for strengthening quality, safety and performance management in PHC in the EMR. METHODS: A multistep approach was adopted, encompassing the following steps: scoping review and generation of evidence and gap maps, validation and ranking exercises, and development of an approach for research implementation. We followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting scoping reviews and a method review of the literature to build the evidence and gap maps. For the validation and ranking exercises, we purposively sampled 55 high-level policy-makers and stakeholders from selected EMR countries. We used explicit multicriteria for ranking the research questions emerging from the gap maps. The approach for research implementation was adapted from the literature and subsequently tailored to address the top ranked research question. RESULTS: The evidence and gap maps revealed limited production of research evidence in the area of quality, safety and performance management in PHC by country and by topic. The priority setting exercises generated a ranked list of 34 policy-relevant research questions addressing quality, safety and performance management in PHC in the EMR. The proposed research implementation plan involves collaborative knowledge generation with policy-makers along with knowledge translation and impact assessment. CONCLUSION: Study findings can help inform and direct future plans to generate, disseminate and use research evidence to enhance quality, safety and performance management in PHC in EMR and beyond. Study methodology can help bridge the gap between research and policy-making.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of essential health benefits package within primary health care settings in low-income and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: One of the key requirements for achieving universal health coverage is the proper design and implementation of essential health benefits package (EHPs). We systematically reviewed the evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EHPs within primary health care settings in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: We searched multiple databases and the gray literature. Two reviewers completed independently and in duplicate data selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. We synthesized the findings according to the following health systems arrangement levels: governance, financial, and delivery arrangements. RESULTS: Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. At the governance level, key reported barriers were insufficient policymaker-implementer interactions, limited involvement of consumers and stakeholders, sub-optimal primary health care network arrangement, poor marketing and promotion of package, and insufficient coordination with community network. The key reported facilitator was the presence of a legal policy framework for package implementation. At the financial level, barriers included delays and inadequate remunerations to health care providers while facilitators included government and donor commitments to financing of package and flexibility in exploring new funding mechanisms. At the delivery level, barriers included inadequate supervision, poor facility infrastructure, limited availability of equipment and supplies, and shortages of workers. Facilitators included proper training and management of workforce, availability of female health workers, presence of clearly defined packages, and continuum of care, including referrals to promote comprehensive service delivery. CONCLUSION: We identified a set of barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed to ensure proper implementation of EHPs within primary health care settings.

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. CONCLUSION: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR. METHODS: We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the 'Health Policy and Services' (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal's characteristics. RESULTS: We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals' characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.

Health research institutional mapping: an Eastern Mediterranean Regional perspective.

BACKGROUND: Research-conducive environments are mandatory for planning, implementing and translating research findings into evidence-informed health policies. AIM: This study aimed at comprehensive situation analysis of health research institutions in the Region. METHODS: We collected data on: institutional characteristics, research scope, capacity building, ethics, governance and resources. RESULTS: We contacted 575 institutions, of which, 223 (38.8%) responded, indicating that they conducted population research (82%). Reported studies were mostly in medicine, public health and epidemiology, while reported capacity building mainly focused on scientific writing (20.6%), research proposal writing (18%) and quantitative research methods (17%). Most institutions reported having collaborating partners (82%) - predominantly national (77%). Sixty-four percent of institutions received their own funding, with 48% reporting always having access to national databases. CONCLUSION: Governments in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and international funding agencies are called upon to support health research production through increasing allocated support and capacity building in health research.