Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes. Objective: To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies. Evidence Review: This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Findings: Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Strengthening women's empowerment and gender equality in fragile contexts towards peaceful and inclusive societies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Across the globe, gender disparities still exist with regard to equitable access to resources, participation in decision-making processes, and gender and sexual-based violence. This is particularly true in fragile and conflict-affected settings, where women and girls are affected by both fragility and conflict in unique ways. While women have been acknowledged as key actors in peace processes and post-conflict reconstruction (e.g., through the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda) evidence on the effectiveness of gender-specific and gender-transformative interventions to improve women's empowerment in fragile and conflict-affected states and situations (FCAS) remains understudied. Objectives: The purpose of this review was to synthesize the body of evidence around gender-specific and gender-transformative interventions aimed at improving women's empowerment in fragile and conflict-affected settings with high levels of gender inequality. We also aimed to identify barriers and facilitators that could affect the effectiveness of these interventions and to provide implications for policy, practice and research designs within the field of transitional aid. Methods: We searched for and screened over 100,000 experimental and quasi-experimental studies focused on FCAS at the individual and community levels. We used standard methodological procedures outlined by the Campbell Collaboration for the data collection and analysis, including quantitative and qualitative analyses, and completed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology to assess the certainty around each body of evidence. Results: We identified 104 impact evaluations (75% randomised controlled trials) assessing the effects of 14 different types of interventions in FCAS. About 28% of included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias (45% among quasi-experimental designs). Interventions supporting women's empowerment and gender equality in FCAS produced positive effects on the outcomes related to the primary focus of the intervention. There are no significant negative effects of any included interventions. However, we observe smaller effects on behavioural outcomes further along the causal chain of empowerment. Qualitative syntheses indicated that gender norms and practices are potential barriers to intervention effectiveness, while working with local powers and institutions can facilitate the uptake and legitimacy of interventions. Conclusions: We observe gaps of rigorous evidence in certain regions (notably MENA and Latin America) and in interventions specifically targeting women as actors of peacebuilding. Gender norms and practices are important elements to consider in programme design and implementation to maximise potential benefits: focusing on empowerment only might not be enough in the absence of targeting the restrictive gender norms and practices that may undermine intervention effectiveness. Lastly, programme designers and implementation should consider explicitly targeting specific empowerment outcomes, promoting social capital and exchange, and tailoring the intervention components to the desired empowerment-related outcomes.

PROTOCOL: Strengthening women's empowerment and gender equality in fragile contexts towards peaceful and inclusive societies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This review builds on 3ie's (international initiative for impact evaluation) evidence gap map (EGM) of the impact evaluation and systematic review (SR) evidence base of interventions aiming to promote peaceful and inclusive societies in fragile contexts. The EGM identified a cluster of studies evaluating gender equality-focused behaviour change communication programmes and raised interest in investigating the evidence base for understanding the role of women more broadly as agents of change in developing peaceful and inclusive societies. Building on the cluster of evidence identified in the EGM, our review will increase generalisability of findings from single studies and focus on interventions across a broad range of geographical locations, settings and populations, types of implementations and outcomes. We will also address (when possible) the identified gaps in literature regarding metaanalysis in conflict-affected contexts. As such, we propose the following objectives: (1) The primary objective of this review is to identify, assess and synthesise evidence on the effect of gender specific and gender transformative interventions within the context of the four pillars of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on women's empowerment and gender equality in Fragile and Conflict Affected States/Situations (FCAS). The SR will facilitate the use of evidence in informing policy and practice decisions within the field of transition aid, particularly as it relates to gender focused programming. (2) Our second objective is to assess how these interventions contribute to inclusive and sustainable peace in conflict affected situations. We will compare the effectiveness of these different types of interventions through the lenses of their ecological level, types of impact on women's empowerment, local context of gender inequality and conflict. To achieve these objectives we aim to answer the following questions: (1) What are the impacts of gender transformative and specific interventions on women's empowerment and gender equality in FCAS? (2) What are the effects of these interventions on sustainable peace? (3) To what extent do effects vary by population group, ecological level and types of interventions? (4) What are contextual barriers to and facilitators of intervention effectiveness?

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Practical factors determining adolescent substance use treatment settings: Results from four online stakeholder panels.

Practical factors can significantly influence the setting, or level of care, where an adolescent receives substance use treatment. This study aimed to identify practical factors that stakeholders find most critical to consider when planning adolescent substance use treatment. We conducted online panels with four stakeholder groups: providers, policymakers, researchers, and parents. Stakeholders nominated, rated, and commented on the importance of 10 practical factors that could influence treatment setting decisions. We assessed consensus on the rated importance of practical factors using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. We thematically analyzed stakeholders comments to explain how they differentiated relative importance. 153 stakeholders (66 providers, 38 policymakers, 27 researchers, and 22 parents) identified continuity of care, coordination of care across service sectors, and quality of care as the practical factors of highest importance. Participants rated higher the practical factors they perceived to (1) trump clinical appropriateness as the reason for placing an adolescent in a given setting, (2) steer adolescents toward specific settings, or (3) steer an adolescent away from specific settings. Conversely, participants rated lower the practical factors they perceived (1) applicable to clinical intervention rather than treatment setting, (2) unrelated to initial recommendations, (3) relevant to any setting, or (4) applicable only to certain contexts and sub-populations. These findings help elucidate why stakeholders view certain practical factors as critical to consider in actual decisions about substance use treatment settings for adolescents. Future research should investigate how to incorporate these practical factors alongside clinical needs and treatment goals in placement criteria and treatment matching.

Considerations of complexity in rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews: a primer on using the GRADE approach in global health.

Public health interventions and health technologies are commonly described as 'complex', as they involve multiple interacting components and outcomes, and their effects are largely influenced by contextual interactions and system-level processes. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers evaluating the effects of these complex interventions and technologies report difficulties in using existing methods and frameworks, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). As part of a special series of papers on implications of complexity in the WHO guideline development, this paper serves as a primer on how to consider sources of complexity when using the GRADE approach to rate certainty of evidence. Relevant sources of complexity in systematic reviews, health technology assessments and guidelines of public health are outlined and mapped onto the reported difficulties in rating the estimates of the effect of these interventions. Recommendations on how to address these difficulties are further outlined, and the need for an integrated use of GRADE from the beginning of the review or guideline development is emphasised. The content of this paper is informed by the existing GRADE guidance, an ongoing research project on considering sources of complexity when applying the GRADE approach to rate certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and the review authors' own experiences with using GRADE.

Acceptability of an online modified Delphi panel approach for developing health services performance measures: results from 3 panels on arthritis research.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Online modified Delphi (OMD) panel approaches can be used to engage large and diverse groups of clinical experts and stakeholders in developing health services performance measures. Such approaches are increasing in popularity among health researchers. However, information about their acceptability to participating experts and stakeholders is lacking but important to determine before recommending widespread use of online approaches. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to explore acceptability of the OMD panel approach from the participants' perspective. METHOD: We use data from participants in three OMD panels designed to develop performance measures for use in arthritis research and quality improvement efforts. At the end of each online panel, we surveyed clinical experts and stakeholders who shared their experiences with the OMD process by answering 13 close-ended questions using 7-point Likert-type scales. A mean of 5 or higher on a given question was treated as an indication of acceptability. RESULTS: Ninety-eight clinical experts and stakeholders (92% participation rate) answered survey questions about the online process. They considered the OMD panel approach to be acceptable, particularly the ease of using the online system (mean = 5.3, standard deviation = 1.3) and the understanding gained from online discussions (mean = 5.2, standard deviation = 1.0). Participants also felt that participation in the Delphi study was interesting (mean = 5.6, standard deviation =1.1). CONCLUSION: These findings illustrate likely acceptability and a potential for a more widespread use of OMD panel approaches by stakeholders in developing health services performance measures.