Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers' experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October - November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

Building regional anesthesia capacity in limited-resource settings: a pilot study evaluating a 4-week curriculum.

Aim: To pilot a 4-week regional anesthesia curriculum for limited-resource settings. Intervention: A baseline needs assessment and knowledge test were deployed. The curriculum included lectures and hands-on teaching, followed by knowledge attainment tests. Results: Scores on the knowledge test improved from a mean of 37.1% (SD 14.7%) to 50.9% (SD 18.6%) (p = 0.017) at 4 weeks and 49% at 24 months. An average of 1.7 extremity blocks per month was performed in 3 months prior to the curriculum, compared with an average of 4.1 per month in 8 months following. Conclusion: This collaborative curriculum appeared to have a positive impact on the knowledge and utilization of regional anesthesia.

Like using a refrigerator to heat food: capacity and capability funding in primary care and the legacy of the Primary Health Organisation Performance Programme.

INTRODUCTION In 2016, the New Zealand Ministry of Health introduced the System Level Measures (SLM) framework as a new approach to health system improvement that emphasised quality improvement and integration. A funding stream that was a legacy of past primary care performance management was repurposed as 'capacity and capability' funding to support the implementation of the SLM framework. AIM This study explored how the capacity and capability funding has been used and the issues and challenges that have arisen from the funding implementation. METHODS Semi-structured interviews with 50 key informants from 18 of New Zealand's 20 health districts were conducted. Interview transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS The capacity and capability funding was used in three different ways. Approximately one-third of districts used it to actively support quality improvement and integration initiatives. Another one-third tweaked existing performance incentive schemes and in the remaining one-third, the funding was passed directly on to general practices without strings attached. Three key issues were identified related to implementation of the capacity and capability funding: lack of clear guidance regarding the use of the funding; funding perceived as a barrier to integration; and funding seen as insufficient for intended purposes. DISCUSSION The capacity and capability funding was intended to support collaborative integration and quality improvement between health sector organisations at the district level. However, there is a mismatch between the purpose of the capacity and capability funding and its use in practice, which is primarily a product of incremental and inconsistent policy development regarding primary care improvement.

How Health Promoters Can Assess Capacity Building Processes in Setting-Based Approaches-Development and Testing of a Monitoring Instrument.

Background: Health promoters often use stakeholder groups to jointly plan and implement local interventions. Stakeholder groups should take over responsibility to later run the health promotion program independently. Monitoring this process of capacity building can help health promoters improve the quality of the process. Instruments for the systematic assessment of capacity building among stakeholder groups are scarce. The goal of this study was to develop, and pilot test a generic assessment instrument for setting-based capacity building. Methods: We drafted a semi-standardized monitoring instrument to be used in stakeholder groups in various settings. This "EVA-protocol" (short for evaluation protocol) was based on capacity building domains e.g., leadership, resource mobilization. It was pilot implemented in a research network on increasing an active lifestyle in various settings. The respective health promoters documented 78 meetings of 15 different stakeholder groups. We performed feedback interviews and member checking among the facilitating health promoters, asking for comprehensibility, length, usability and perceived benefits of the instrument. Findings: Data collected in the "EVA-protocol" helped the facilitating health promoters understand the development of competences and capacities in the stakeholder groups and identify factors that favor or hinder the capacity building process. The instrument was rated as user friendly, but it was remarked that it is best filled out by two persons and reflected upon by those to offer the greatest benefit. Not all projects could afford this procedure due to lack of time/staff resources. Conclusions: The drafted instrument can serve as quality management tool for health promoters who facilitate participatory stakeholder groups in different settings and intend to build capacities for sustainable health promotion structures.

Evolution of the Public Health Preparedness and Response Capability Standards to Support Public Health Emergency Management Practices and Processes.

In spring 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. The capability standards provide a framework that supports state, local, tribal, and territorial public health agency preparedness planning and response to public health threats and emergencies. In 2017, a project team at the CDC Division of State and Local Readiness incorporated input from subject matter experts, national partners, and stakeholders to update the 2011 capability standards. As a result, CDC released the updated capability standards in October 2018, which were amended in January 2019. The original structure of the 15 capability standards remained unchanged, but updates were made to capability functions, tasks, and resource elements to reflect advances in public health emergency preparedness and response practices since 2011. When the number of functions and tasks in the 2018 capability standards were compared to those in the 2011 capabilities, only 20% (3/15) of the capabilities had a decrease in function number. The majority of changes were at the task level (task numbers changed in 80%, or 12/15, capabilities) in the 2018 version. The capability standards provide public health agencies with a practical framework, informed by updated science and tools, which can guide prioritization of limited resources to strengthen public health agency emergency preparedness and response capacities.

Institutionalizing One Health: From Assessment to Action.

A One Health approach is critical to strengthening health security at country, regional, and global levels. However, operationally its uptake remains limited. Recent momentum in assessing capacity to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to disease threats has resulted in identification of gaps that require dedicated action. This article highlights relevant tools, standards, and guidance to assist countries and institutions in meeting the collective vision articulated at the 2018 Prince Mahidol Award Conference on "Making the World Safe from the Threats of Emerging Infectious Diseases." Taking stock of assessment findings, resources, priorities, and implementation initiatives across human and animal health, environment and disaster risk reduction sectors can help expand participation in global health security, target risk drivers, and form synergies for collective action and shared gains for both emerging and endemic disease challenges. In addition to health security gains, a multisectoral, One Health approach can drive benefits for wider health sector and global development goals.

Routine HIV Screening as a Standard of Care: Implementing HIV Screening in General Medical Settings, 2013-2015.

OBJECTIVE: We implemented routine HIV screening as part of the 4-year Care and Prevention in the United States Demonstration Project, whose aim was to reduce HIV/AIDS-related morbidity and mortality among racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States. We describe the capacity-building efforts to implement routine HIV screening and provide lessons learned and implications for practice. METHODS: From January 2013 through September 2015, the Public Health Institute of Metropolitan Chicago (PHIMC) implemented routine HIV screening in 7 health care systems in Illinois by providing capacity-building assistance focused on systems and operational infrastructure, staff member skills and organizational structure, and clinic culture. Each site received funding to integrate routine HIV screening into the existing clinic flow, engage the entire health care team in the process, and transform the system and shift clinic culture to sustain HIV screening. RESULTS: All 7 systems established policies and procedures to implement routine screening, 5 systems integrated HIV test ordering and documentation into their electronic health records, and 4 systems established a third-party billing and reimbursement process for testing. The 7 systems conducted a total of 49 285 tests and identified 160 people living with HIV. The number of tests increased by more than 40% each year. CONCLUSIONS: PHIMC identified the following practices for consideration when implementing routine HIV screening in general medical settings: create a culture that supports HIV screening, use champions in clinics, integrate HIV screening into clinic flow and electronic health records, and train clinic staff members on HIV messaging. Incorporating these practices can help other clinical settings build capacity to make routine HIV screening a standard of care.

Organisational capacity and its relationship to research use in six Australian health policy agencies.

There are calls for policymakers to make greater use of research when formulating policies. Therefore, it is important that policy organisations have a range of tools and systems to support their staff in using research in their work. The aim of the present study was to measure the extent to which a range of tools and systems to support research use were available within six Australian agencies with a role in health policy, and examine whether this was related to the extent of engagement with, and use of research in policymaking by their staff. The presence of relevant systems and tools was assessed via a structured interview called ORACLe which is conducted with a senior executive from the agency. To measure research use, four policymakers from each agency undertook a structured interview called SAGE, which assesses and scores the extent to which policymakers engaged with (i.e., searched for, appraised, and generated) research, and used research in the development of a specific policy document. The results showed that all agencies had at least a moderate range of tools and systems in place, in particular policy development processes; resources to access and use research (such as journals, databases, libraries, and access to research experts); processes to generate new research; and mechanisms to establish relationships with researchers. Agencies were less likely, however, to provide research training for staff and leaders, or to have evidence-based processes for evaluating existing policies. For the majority of agencies, the availability of tools and systems was related to the extent to which policymakers engaged with, and used research when developing policy documents. However, some agencies did not display this relationship, suggesting that other factors, namely the organisation's culture towards research use, must also be considered.

Institutional capacity to generate and use evidence in LMICs: current state and opportunities for HPSR.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed decision-making for health is far from the norm, particularly in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has an important role in providing the context-sensitive and -relevant evidence that is needed. However, there remain significant challenges both on the supply side, in terms of capacity for generation of policy-relevant knowledge such as HPSR, and on the demand side in terms of the demand for and use of evidence for policy decisions. This paper brings together elements from both sides to analyse institutional capacity for the generation of HPSR and the use of evidence (including HPSR) more broadly in LMICs. METHODS: The paper uses literature review methods and two survey instruments (directed at research institutions and Ministries of Health, respectively) to explore the types of institutional support required to enhance the generation and use of evidence. RESULTS: Findings from the survey of research institutions identified the absence of core funding, the lack of definitional clarity and academic incentive structures for HPSR as significant constraints. On the other hand, the survey of Ministries of Health identified a lack of locally relevant evidence, poor presentation of research findings and low institutional prioritisation of evidence use as significant constraints to evidence uptake. In contrast, improved communication between researchers and decision-makers and increased availability of relevant evidence were identified as facilitators of evidence uptake. CONCLUSION: The findings make a case for institutional arrangements in research that provide support for career development, collaboration and cross-learning for researchers, as well as the setting up of institutional arrangements and processes to incentivise the use of evidence among Ministries of Health and other decision-making institutions. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to build institutional capacity in HPSR through engaging multiple stakeholders in identifying and maintaining incentive structures, improving research (including HPSR) training, and developing stronger tools for synthesising non-traditional forms of local, policy-relevant evidence such as grey literature. Addressing challenges on both the supply and demand side can build institutional capacity in the research and policy worlds and support the enhanced uptake of high quality evidence in policy decisions.

Assessing the capacity of ministries of health to use research in decision-making: conceptual framework and tool.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to demand and use research is critical for governments if they are to develop policies that are informed by evidence. Existing tools designed to assess how government officials use evidence in decision-making have significant limitations for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); they are rarely tested in LMICs and focus only on individual capacity. This paper introduces an instrument that was developed to assess Ministry of Health (MoH) capacity to demand and use research evidence for decision-making, which was tested for reliability and validity in eight LMICs (Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Lebanon, Moldova, Pakistan, South Africa, Zambia). METHODS: Instrument development was based on a new conceptual framework that addresses individual, organisational and systems capacities, and items were drawn from existing instruments and a literature review. After initial item development and pre-testing to address face validity and item phrasing, the instrument was reduced to 54 items for further validation and item reduction. In-country study teams interviewed a systematic sample of 203 MoH officials. Exploratory factor analysis was used in addition to standard reliability and validity measures to further assess the items. RESULTS: Thirty items divided between two factors representing organisational and individual capacity constructs were identified. South Africa and Zambia demonstrated the highest level of organisational capacity to use research, whereas Pakistan and Bangladesh were the lowest two. In contrast, individual capacity was highest in Pakistan, followed by South Africa, whereas Bangladesh and Lebanon were the lowest. CONCLUSION: The framework and related instrument represent a new opportunity for MoHs to identify ways to understand and improve capacities to incorporate research evidence in decision-making, as well as to provide a basis for tracking change.

[Definition and adoption of a building code based on biological and ecological sustainability in the Local Health Authority 11 of Empoli (Tuscany Region, Central Italy): strengths and areas for improvement]. / Definizione e diffusione di un regolamento per l'edilizia bio-eco sostenibile nei comuni dell'ASL 11 di Empoli: punti di forza e criticità.

Built environment is an important social determinant of health, but nowadays local health authorities (LHAs) have lost their competences in the issuing of building permits, especially since a new legislation introduced the possibility of personal declaration of conformity. They are also usually excluded from the urban planning process. At the same time, in recent years construction of buildings has been developed with insufficient regard to environmental health requirements, proper exposure to sunlight and winds, comfort, building materials, consumption of resources, and waste production. To deal with these issues, an interdepartmental working group was set up under the direction of the Department of Prevention of the LHA of Empoli (Tuscany Region, Central Italy), with members of the Regional Environmental Protection Agency, along with experts of the 15 Municipalities included in the LHA territory and members of other local institutions. The objective of the Working Group was to define and propose as mandatory a set of rules for local governments aimed at regulating construction activities according to criteria of environmental sustainability, eco-efficiency, comfort, and healthiness of living areas, at the same time encouraging the responsible use of natural resources, the reduction of energy consumption and the use of renewable energy sources in order to place environmental safety and health at the heart of all building activities. Experts of six Municipalities joined the working group and the regulation framework was adopted (and made legally binding) in 8 out of 15 Municipalities, with an almost complete overlap with participation in the working group. The active participation of experts, whose work consists in examining municipal building, permits, and declarations, has therefore marked the difference in the transition from theory to practice. The level of know-how attained by the participants and their motivation and enthusiasm have been so relevant in the whole project that we think this procedure could be successfully used in other fields of inter-institutional activities.

Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In the past decades, various frameworks, methods, indicators, and tools have been developed to assess the needs as well as to monitor and evaluate (needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation; "NaME") health research capacity development (HRCD) activities. This systematic review gives an overview on NaME activities at the individual and organizational level in the past 10 years with a specific focus on methods, tools and instruments. Insight from this review might support researchers and stakeholders in systemizing future efforts in the HRCD field. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Additionally, the personal bibliographies of the authors were scanned. Two researchers independently reviewed the identified abstracts for inclusion according to previously defined eligibility criteria. The included articles were analysed with a focus on both different HRCD activities as well as NaME efforts. RESULTS: Initially, the search revealed 700 records in PubMed, two additional records in Google Scholar, and 10 abstracts from the personal bibliographies of the authors. Finally, 42 studies were included and analysed in depth. Findings show that the NaME efforts in the field of HRCD are as complex and manifold as the concept of HRCD itself. NaME is predominately focused on outcome evaluation and mainly refers to the individual and team levels. CONCLUSION: A substantial need for a coherent and transparent taxonomy of HRCD activities to maximize the benefits of future studies in the field was identified. A coherent overview of the tools used to monitor and evaluate HRCD activities is provided to inform further research in the field.

Applying a global justice lens to health systems research ethics: an initial exploration.

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches.

Vision 2020 measures University of New Mexico's success by health of its state.

The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center (UNMHSC) adopted a new Vision to work with community partners to help New Mexico make more progress in health and health equity than any other state by 2020. UNMHSC recognized it would be more successful in meeting communities' health priorities if it better aligned its own educational, research, and clinical missions with their needs. National measures that compare states on the basis of health determinants and outcomes were adopted in 2013 as part of Vision 2020 target measures for gauging progress toward improved health and health care in New Mexico. The Vision focused the institution's resources on strengthening community capacity and responding to community priorities via pipeline education, workforce development programs, community-driven and community-focused research, and community-based clinical service innovations, such as telehealth and "health extension." Initiatives with the greatest impact often cut across institutional silos in colleges, departments, and programs, yielding measurable community health benefits. Community leaders also facilitated collaboration by enlisting University of New Mexico educational and clinical resources to better respond to their local priorities. Early progress in New Mexico's health outcomes measures and state health ranking is a promising sign of movement toward Vision 2020.

Lessons Learned From Transitioning PEPFAR Track 1.0 Care and Treatment Programs: Case Studies in Financial Management Capacity Building in Zambia and Botswana.

In 2008, the United States government mandated transition of internationally managed HIV care and treatment programs to local country ownership. Three case studies illustrate the US Health Resources Services Administration's fiscal assessment and technical assistance (TA) processes to strengthen local organizations' capabilities to absorb and manage United States government funding. Review of initial, TA and follow-up reports reveal that the 1 Botswanan and 2 Zambian organizations closed 10 of 17 financial capacity gaps, with Health Resources Services Administration assisting on 2. Zambian organizations requested and absorbed targeted TA on the basis of the consultant's desk review, their finance staff revised fiscal policies and procedures, and accordingly trained other staff. In Botswana, delays in integrating recommendations necessitated on-site TA for knowledge building and role modeling. Organizational maturity may explain differences in responsiveness, ownership, and required TA approaches. Clarifying expectations of capacity building, funding agreement, and nonmonetary donor involvement can help new organizations determine and act on intervening actions.