Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). METHODS: Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. RESULTS: We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Climate finance opportunities for health and health systems.

Climate change poses significant risks to health and health systems, with the greatest impacts in low- and middle-income countries - which are least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. The Conference of Parties 28 at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference led to agreement on the need for holistic and equitable financing approaches to address the climate and health crisis. This paper provides an overview of existing climate finance mechanisms - that is, multilateral funds, voluntary market-based mechanisms, taxes, microlevies and adaptive social protection. We discuss these approaches' potential use to promote health, generate additional health sector resources and enhance health system sustainability and resilience, and also explore implementation challenges. We suggest that public health practitioners, policy-makers and researchers seize the opportunity to leverage climate funding for better health and sustainable, climate-resilient health systems. Emphasizing the wider benefits of investing in health for the economy can help prioritize health within climate finance initiatives. Meaningful progress will require the global community acknowledging the underlying political economy challenges that have so far limited the potential of climate finance to address health goals. To address these challenges, we need to restructure financing institutions to empower communities at the frontline of the climate and health crisis and ensure their needs are met. Efforts from global and national level stakeholders should focus on mobilizing a wide range of funding sources, prioritizing co-design and accessibility of financing arrangements. These stakeholders should also invest in rigorous monitoring and evaluation of initiatives to ensure relevant health and well-being outcomes are addressed.

Le changement climatique fait peser des risques considérables sur la santé et les systèmes de santé, affectant principalement les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire ­ alors qu'ils contribuent le moins aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Lors de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique de 2023, la 28e Conférence des Parties a abouti à un accord sur la nécessité d'adopter des approches de financement équitables et holistiques pour résoudre la crise climatique et sanitaire. Le présent document offre un aperçu des dispositifs de financement climatique existants ­ à savoir des fonds multilatéraux, des mécanismes de marché volontaires, des micro-taxes et une protection sociale adaptative. Nous évoquons la possibilité de recourir à ces approches en vue de promouvoir la santé, de générer des ressources supplémentaires pour le secteur de la santé et de renforcer la viabilité et la résilience des systèmes de santé; nous nous intéressons également aux défis que représente leur mise en œuvre. Nous suggérons que les professionnels de la santé publique, les responsables politiques et les chercheurs profitent de cette occasion pour obtenir des fonds climatiques afin d'améliorer la santé et de développer des systèmes de santé durables et adaptés au changement climatique. Souligner tout l'intérêt, pour l'économie, d'investir dans la santé peut aider à inscrire la santé en priorité dans les initiatives de financement climatique. Réaliser des progrès significatifs implique que la communauté internationale prenne conscience des enjeux sous-jacents en matière d'économie politique, enjeux qui ont jusqu'à présent limité le potentiel du financement climatique dans l'atteinte des objectifs de santé. Pour y remédier, nous devons restructurer les institutions financières afin d'accroître l'autonomie des communautés en première ligne face à la crise climatique et sanitaire, et de faire en sorte que leurs besoins soient satisfaits. Les efforts des parties prenantes à l'échelle nationale et mondiale doivent porter sur la mobilisation d'un large éventail de sources de financement, en mettant l'accent sur la conception conjointe et l'accessibilité des modalités financières. Ces parties prenantes doivent en outre investir dans un suivi étroit et une évaluation rigoureuse des initiatives pour veiller à obtenir des résultats pertinents en termes de santé et de bien-être.

El cambio climático plantea riesgos importantes para la salud y los sistemas sanitarios, con mayores impactos en los países de ingresos bajos y medios, que son los menos responsables de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. La 28.ª Conferencia de las Partes en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático de 2023 condujo a un acuerdo sobre la necesidad de enfoques de financiación holísticos y equitativos para abordar la crisis climática y sanitaria. Este documento ofrece una visión general de los mecanismos de financiación climática existentes, es decir, los fondos multilaterales, los mecanismos voluntarios basados en el mercado, los impuestos, los microimpuestos y la protección social adaptable. Analizamos el uso potencial de estos enfoques para promover la salud, generar recursos adicionales para el sector sanitario y mejorar la sostenibilidad y la resiliencia de los sistemas sanitarios. Sugerimos que los profesionales de la salud pública, los responsables de formular las políticas y los investigadores aprovechen la oportunidad de utilizar la financiación climática para mejorar la salud y los sistemas sanitarios sostenibles y resilientes al cambio climático. Destacar los beneficios más amplios de invertir en salud para la economía puede ayudar a priorizar la salud dentro de las iniciativas de financiación climática. Para lograr avances significativos será necesario que la comunidad mundial reconozca los problemas de economía política subyacentes que hasta ahora han limitado el potencial de la financiación para abordar los objetivos de salud. Para superar estos desafíos, necesitamos reestructurar las instituciones financieras para empoderar a las comunidades que se encuentran en primera línea de la crisis climática y sanitaria y asegurar que se satisfacen sus necesidades. Los esfuerzos de las partes interesadas a nivel mundial y nacional deben centrarse en movilizar una gran variedad de fuentes de financiación y priorizar el diseño conjunto y la accesibilidad de los acuerdos de financiación. Estas partes interesadas también deben invertir en la supervisión y evaluación rigurosas de las iniciativas para garantizar que se abordan los resultados pertinentes en materia de salud y bienestar.

Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials.

BACKGROUND: When deciding whether to implement an intervention, decision-makers typically have questions on feasibility and acceptability and on factors affecting implementation. Descriptions of programme implementation and of policies and systems are rich sources of information for these questions. However, this information is often not based on empirical data collected using explicit methods. To use the information in unconventional source materials in syntheses or other decision support products, we need methods of assessing their strengths and limitations. This paper describes the development and content of the Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool, a new tool to assess the strengths and limitations of these sources. METHODS: We developed the ACE tool in four stages: first, we examined existing tools to identify potentially relevant assessment criteria. Second, we drew on these criteria and team discussions to create a first draft of the tool. Third, we obtained feedback on the draft from potential users and methodologists, and through piloting the tool in evidence syntheses. Finally, we used this feedback to iteratively refine the assessment criteria and to improve our guidance for undertaking the assessment. RESULTS: The tool is made up of 11 criteria including the purpose and context of the source; the completeness of the information presented; and the extent to which evidence is provided to support the findings made. Users are asked to indicate whether each of the criteria have been addressed. On the basis of their judgements for each criterion, users then make an overall assessment of the limitations of the source, ranging from no or very minor concerns to serious concerns. These assessments can then facilitate appropriate use of the evidence in decision support products. CONCLUSIONS: Through focussing on unconventional source materials, the ACE tool fills an important gap in the range of tools for assessing the strengths and limitations of policy-relevant evidence and supporting evidence-informed decision-making.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Demand for rapid evidence-based syntheses to inform health policy and systems decision-making has increased worldwide, including in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To promote use of rapid syntheses in LMICs, the WHO's Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR) created the Embedding Rapid Reviews in Health Systems Decision-Making (ERA) Initiative. Following a call for proposals, four LMICs were selected (Georgia, India, Malaysia and Zimbabwe) and supported for 1 year to embed rapid response platforms within a public institution with a health policy or systems decision-making mandate. METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed. RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.

Strategies to adapt and implement health system guidelines and recommendations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based health system guidelines are pivotal tools to help outline the important financial, policy and service components recommended to achieve a sustainable and resilient health system. However, not all guidelines are readily translatable into practice and/or policy without effective and tailored implementation and adaptation techniques. This scoping review mapped the evidence related to the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, LILACS (VHL Regional Portal), and Web of Science databases in late August 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature and reference lists of potentially relevant reviews. All findings were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were included in the final set of papers. Common strategies were identified for adapting and implementing health system guidelines, related barriers and enablers, and indicators of success. The most common types of implementation strategies included education, clinical supervision, training and the formation of advisory groups. A paucity of reported information was also identified related to adaptation initiatives. Barriers to and enablers of implementation and adaptation were reported across studies, including the need for financial sustainability. Common approaches to evaluation were identified and included outcomes of interest at both the patient and health system level. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review suggest several themes in the literature and identify a need for future research to strengthen the evidence base for improving the implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. The findings can serve as a future resource for researchers seeking to evaluate implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines. Our findings also suggest that more effort may be required across research, policy and practice sectors to support the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines to local contexts and health system arrangements in low- and middle-income countries.

Collaboration between health system decision makers and professional researchers to coproduce knowledge, a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature uses different terms and approaches to the collaboration between researchers and health system decision-makers in the research process. In 2012, the World Health Organisation proposed to "Embed research within decision-making processes". Yet, important contributions use other terms and perspectives for the same issue. This scoping review aimed to identify these terms, approaches, their application and eventual influence on the utilization of evidence. METHODS: We searched papers published between January 2000 and February 2019 in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese in the databases of PubMed, Scielo, Google Scholar and EBSCOhost, thus accessing MedicLatina, MEDLINE Complete and eBook Collection. Our main inclusion criterion was the participation of health personnel in non-clinical research activities. We considered three domains for in depth analysis: Definition, name and description of the participation of decision makers and health staff; Forms of collaboration and actual/effective participation of health staff in research; Eventual influence on the utilization of research results. RESULTS: We identified 607 articles and selected 74 for full text analysis. Nineteen different terms are currently used in twelve countries to describe the participation of health decision-makers and staff in research activities. Most publications refer to Integrated Knowledge Translation or Embedded Research, and were published in Canada and the United Kingdom. Forty-five papers discuss the participation of health staff in research activities; 20 leading the whole process and 21 as collaborators. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the different terms and approaches to the close collaboration of health staff and decision-makers with professional researchers is essential to promote its effective application and influence on the utilization of evidence. Yet, it is also necessary to insist in their co-participation throughout the whole investigation process as a relevant way to improve research results uptake, strengthen health systems and advance towards universal health coverage.

Measures to strengthen primary health-care systems in low- and middle-income countries.

Primary health care offers a cost-effective route to achieving universal health coverage (UHC). However, primary health-care systems are weak in many low- and middle-income countries and often fail to provide comprehensive, people-centred, integrated care. We analysed the primary health-care systems in 20 low- and middle-income countries using a semi-grounded approach. Options for strengthening primary health-care systems were identified by thematic content analysis. We found that: (i) despite the growing burden of noncommunicable disease, many low- and middle-income countries lacked funds for preventive services; (ii) community health workers were often under-resourced, poorly supported and lacked training; (iii) out-of-pocket expenditure exceeded 40% of total health expenditure in half the countries studied, which affected equity; and (iv) health insurance schemes were hampered by the fragmentation of public and private systems, underfunding, corruption and poor engagement of informal workers. In 14 countries, the private sector was largely unregulated. Moreover, community engagement in primary health care was weak in countries where services were largely privatized. In some countries, decentralization led to the fragmentation of primary health care. Performance improved when financial incentives were linked to regulation and quality improvement, and community involvement was strong. Policy-making should be supported by adequate resources for primary health-care implementation and government spending on primary health care should be increased by at least 1% of gross domestic product. Devising equity-enhancing financing schemes and improving the accountability of primary health-care management is also needed. Support from primary health-care systems is critical for progress towards UHC in the decade to 2030.

Les soins de santé primaires offrent l'itinéraire le plus économique vers une couverture maladie universelle (CMU). Pourtant, les systèmes dont ils dépendent demeurent fragiles dans de nombreux pays à faible et moyen revenu. La plupart du temps, ils sont incapables de fournir un modèle de soins intégral, intégré et centré sur la personne. Nous avons donc analysé les systèmes de soins de santé primaires dans 20 pays à faible et moyen revenu en adoptant une approche partiellement basée sur la réalité. Les options de renforcement des systèmes de soins de santé primaires ont été identifiées par le biais d'une analyse de contenu thématique. Nous avons constaté que: (i) malgré le fardeau de plus en plus lourd des maladies non transmissibles, nombre de pays à faible et moyen revenu ne possédaient pas les fonds suffisants pour assurer des services de prévention; (ii) les professionnels de santé au sein des communautés manquaient fréquemment de ressources, de soutien et de formation; (iii) les frais non remboursables dépassaient 40% des dépenses de santé dans la moitié des pays étudiés, ce qui entraîne des inégalités; et enfin, (iv) les régimes d'assurance maladie étaient entravés par la fragmentation des systèmes publics et privés, le sous-financement, la corruption et la piètre mobilisation des travailleurs informels. Dans 14 pays, le secteur privé n'était pratiquement soumis à aucune réglementation. Par ailleurs, l'engagement communautaire dans les soins de santé primaires était dérisoire dans les États où les services étaient majoritairement privatisés. Dans certains pays, la décentralisation avait débouché sur une fragmentation des soins de santé primaires. Les performances se révélaient meilleures lorsque des avantages financiers avaient trait à la réglementation et à l'amélioration de la qualité, et l'implication était forte au sein de la communauté. Le processus d'élaboration des politiques devrait être accompagné des ressources nécessaires pour l'instauration d'un système de soins de santé primaires, et les gouvernements devraient accroître leurs dépenses en la matière d'au moins 1% du produit intérieur brut. Il est également impératif de définir des régimes de financement favorisant l'équité et de promouvoir la fiabilité de la gestion des soins de santé primaires. La contribution des systèmes de soins de santé primaires est essentielle à la progression vers une CMU à l'horizon 2030.

La atención primaria de salud brinda una vía rentable para lograr la cobertura sanitaria universal (CSU). Sin embargo, los sistemas de atención primaria de salud son deficientes en muchos países de ingresos medios y bajos y con frecuencia no ofrecen una atención integral y centrada en las personas. Se analizaron los sistemas de atención primaria de salud en 20 países de ingresos medios y bajos mediante un enfoque semifundamentado. Se determinaron las alternativas para fortalecer los sistemas de atención primaria de salud por medio de un análisis de contenido temático. Se concluyó que: i) a pesar de la creciente carga de las enfermedades no transmisibles, muchos países de ingresos medios y bajos no disponían de fondos para los servicios preventivos; ii) con frecuencia los profesionales sanitarios de la comunidad carecían de recursos, de apoyo y de capacitación; iii) los gastos directos superaban el 40 % del gasto total en salud en la mitad de los países analizados, lo que afectaba a la equidad; y iv) los planes de seguro médico presentaban dificultades debido a la fragmentación de los sistemas públicos y privados, la falta de financiamiento, la corrupción y la escasa participación de los trabajadores informales. La mayor parte del sector privado de 14 países no estaba regulado. Además, la participación de la comunidad en la atención primaria de salud era muy reducida en los países donde los servicios estaban privatizados en gran medida. Por otra parte, la descentralización de la atención primaria de salud causó la fragmentación de la misma en algunos países. La rentabilidad mejoró cuando los incentivos financieros se vincularon con la regulación y el mejoramiento de la calidad, además de que la participación de la comunidad fue significativa. La formulación de las políticas debería contar con el apoyo de recursos suficientes para prestar los servicios de atención primaria de salud y el gasto público en atención primaria de salud debería aumentar por lo menos en un 1 % del producto interno bruto. Asimismo, es necesario elaborar planes de financiamiento que aumenten la equidad y mejoren la rendición de cuentas de la gestión de la atención primaria de salud. El apoyo de los sistemas de atención primaria de salud es fundamental para avanzar hacia la CSU de aquí a 2030.

Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches.

BACKGROUND: Embedded approaches to implementation research (IR), whereby health system decision-makers participate actively in the research process, are gaining traction as effective approaches to optimise the delivery of health programmes and policies. However, the evidence base on the processes and effectiveness of such collaborative research remains inchoate. Standardised approaches to evaluate these initiatives are needed to identify core elements of 'embeddedness', unveil the underlying pathways of change, and assess contribution to evidence uptake in decision-making and overall outcomes of effect. The framework presented in this paper responds to this need, designed to guide the systematic evaluation of embedded IR. METHODS: This evaluation framework for embedded IR approaches is based on the experience of a joint initiative by the Pan American Health Organization/Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, which has supported 19 IR grants in 10 Latin American and Caribbean countries from 2014 to 2017. The conceptualisation of this framework drew on various sources of information, including empirical evidence and conceptual insights from the literature, interviews with content experts, and a prospective evaluation of the 2016 cohort that included semi-structured key informant interviews, document analysis, and a research team survey to examine key aspects of embedded research. RESULTS: We developed a widely applicable conceptual framework to guide the evaluation of embedded IR in various contexts. Focused on uncovering how this collaborative research approach influences programme improvement, it outlines expected processes and intermediate outcomes. It also highlights constructs with which to assess 'embeddedness' as well as critical contextual factors. The framework is intended to provide a structure by which to systematically examine such embedded research initiatives, proposing three key stages of evidence-informed decision-making - co-production of evidence, engagement with research, and enactment of programme changes. CONCLUSION: Rigorous evaluation of embedded IR is needed to build the evidence on its processes and effectiveness in influencing decision-making. The evaluation framework presented here addresses this gap with consideration of the complexity of such efforts. Its applicability to similar initiatives is bolstered by virtue of being founded on real-world experience; its potential to contribute to a nuanced understanding of embedded IR is significant.

Provision of postpartum care to women giving birth in health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-sectional study using Demographic and Health Survey data from 33 countries.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum care has the potential to avert a substantial proportion of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. There is a crucial gap in understanding the quality of postpartum care for women giving birth in health facilities in low- and middle-income settings. This is particularly the case in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where the levels of maternal and neonatal mortality are highest globally despite rapid increases in facility-based childbirth. This study estimated the percentage of women receiving a postpartum health check following childbirth in a health facility in SSA and examined the determinants of receiving such check. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) conducted in 33 SSA countries between 2000-2016. We estimated the percentage of women receiving a postpartum check by a health professional while in the childbirth facility and the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for each country. We analyzed determinants of receiving such checks using logistic regression of the pooled data. The analysis sample included 137,218 women whose most recent live birth in the 5- year period before the survey took place in a health facility. Of this pooled sample, 65.7% of women were under 30 years of age, 85.9% were currently married, and 57% resided in rural areas. Across countries, the median percentage of women who reported receiving a check was 71.7%, ranging from 26.6% in Eswatini (Swaziland) to 94.4% in Burkina Faso. The most fully adjusted model showed that factors from all four conceptual categories (obstetric/neonatal risk factors, care environment, and women's sociodemographic and child-related characteristics) were significant determinants of receiving a check. Women with a cesarean section had a significantly higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.88 (95% CI 1.72-2.05, p < 0.001) of receiving a check. Women giving birth in lower-level public facilities had lower odds of receiving a check (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98, p = 0.002) compared to those in public hospitals, as did women attended by a nurse/midwife (compared to doctor/nonphysician clinician) (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.78, p < 0.001). This study was limited by the accuracy of the respondent's recall of the provider, timing, and receipt of postpartum checks. The outcome of interest was measured using three slightly different question sets across the 33 included countries. CONCLUSIONS: The suboptimal levels of postpartum checks in health facilities in many of the included SSA countries partially reflect the lack of importance given to postpartum care in the global discourse on essential interventions and quality improvement in maternal health. Addressing disparities in access to both facility-based childbirth and good-quality postpartum care in SSA is critical to addressing stalling declines in maternal mortality and morbidity.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Embedding implementation research to enhance health policy and systems: a multi-country analysis from ten settings in Latin America and the Caribbean.

BACKGROUND: Progress towards universal health coverage requires health policies and systems that are informed by contextualised and actionable research. Many challenges impede the uptake of evidence to enhance health policy implementation and the coverage, quality, efficiency and equity of health systems. To address this need, we developed an innovative model of implementation research embedded in real-world policy and programme cycles and led directly by policy-makers and health systems decision-makers. The approach was tested in ten settings in Latin America and the Caribbean, supported under a common funding and capacity strengthening initiative. The present study aims to analyse ten embedded implementation research projects in order to identify barriers and facilitators to embedding research into policy and practice as well as to assess the programme, policy and systems improvements and the cross-cutting lessons in conducting research embedded in real-world policy and systems decision-making. METHODS: The multi-country analysis is based on the triangulation of data collected via three methods, namely (1) document review, (2) an electronic questionnaire and (3) in-depth interviews with decision-makers. Data from the document review was charted and narratively synthesised. Data from the questionnaire was used to assess three characteristics of the decision-maker's participation in embedded research, namely (1) level of engagement in different stages of research; (2) extent to which their capacities to conduct and use research were developed; and (3) the level of confidence in undertaking implementation research activities. Interview data was analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: The main barriers to effective delivery or scale-up of health interventions identified in the research projects were inadequate financing, fragmentation of healthcare services and information systems, limited capacity of health system stakeholders, insufficient time, cultural factors, and a lack of information. Decision-makers' experience in embedded research showed strong engagement in protocol development, moderate engagement in data collection and low engagement in data analysis. The in-depth interviews identified 17 facilitators and 8 barriers to embedding research into policy and systems. The principal facilitating factors were actionability of findings, relevance of research and engagement of decision-makers, whereas the main barriers were time and political processes. In Argentina, the research led to the development of new monitoring indicators to improve the implementation of the perinatal health policy, while in Chile, empirical findings supported the establishment of a training programme on reproductive rights, targeted to municipal health facilities. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-country analysis contributes to the evidence base for the embedded research approach to support health policy and systems decisions-making. Embedding research into policy and practice stimulates the relevance and applicability of research, while promoting decision-makers' engagement and likelihood to use research evidence in policy-making and health systems strengthening.

Fostering access to and use of contextualised knowledge to support health policy-making: lessons from the Policy Information Platform in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Contextualising evidence to inform policy-making is increasingly recognised as key to developing and implementing effective health policies. Creating a one-stop shop for evidence is an approach that can facilitate timely access to the best evidence to inform policy decisions. We report outcomes after implementation of the Policy Information Platform (PIP), a pilot one-stop evidence repository in Nigeria designed to alleviate barriers to accessing policy-relevant knowledge. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved five phases, namely (1) consultation with Nigerian policy-makers to identify priority policy issues, areas of health policy information needs, and challenges and capacity constraints in accessing evidence for policy-making; (2) a stakeholder engagement workshop to formally launch the PIP; (3) extraction of data and other information from scientific articles, policy briefs, evaluation reports, grey literature and health policy documents relevant to policy-making in Nigeria (identified by Google and PubMed searches and by examination of websites of relevant Nigerian government ministries, agencies and parastatals), for use in developing the PIP website; (4) promotion of the PIP in national and state health policy meetings; and (5) evaluation of the PIP using a stakeholder survey questionnaire distributed via email and critical appraisal of the grey literature included in the PIP using the authority, accuracy, coverage, objectivity, date and significance (AACODS) checklist. RESULTS: Priority policy areas identified by policy-makers were disease control and prevention, population health issues and health administration. Challenges identified by policy-makers were a lack of adequate capacity to access policy-relevant evidence and transform the evidence into policy. Policy-makers suggested using systematic reviews, policy briefs and rapid response mechanisms and involving policy-makers in research as ways of increasing evidence uptake for policy. A total of 126 policy-relevant, peer-reviewed scientific articles, 85 health policy documents and 201 policy-relevant grey literature documents were selected for inclusion in the PIP. Of the 195 individuals contacted via email to evaluate the PIP, 31 (15.9%) provided a response. Respondents noted that the PIP facilitated access to information based on local evidence and context-sensitive data. Barriers identified included lack of knowledge about the PIP and limited capacity of end-users to use the data compiled in the platform. CONCLUSION: An easily accessible one-stop shop of policy-relevant evidence can considerably improve policy-makers' access to evidence for use in policy-making and practice.

Using narratives to impact health policy-making: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is increased interest in using narratives or storytelling to influence health policies. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on the use of narratives to impact the health policy-making process. METHODS: Eligible study designs included randomised studies, non-randomised studies, process evaluation studies, economic studies, qualitative studies, stakeholder analyses, policy analyses, and case studies. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), WHO Global Health Library, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and Google Scholar databases were searched. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We synthesised the findings narratively and presented the results stratified according to the following stages of the policy cycle: (1) agenda-setting, (2) policy formulation, (3) policy adoption, (4) policy implementation and (5) policy evaluation. Additionally, we presented the knowledge gaps relevant to using narrative to impact health policy-making. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, and included case studies (n = 15), participatory action research (n = 1), documentary analysis (n = 1) and biographical method (n = 1). The majority were of very low methodological quality. In addition, none of the studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of the narrative-based interventions. Findings suggest that narratives may have a positive influence when used as inspiration and empowerment tools to stimulate policy inquiries, as educational and awareness tools to initiate policy discussions and gain public support, and as advocacy and lobbying tools to formulate, adopt or implement policy. There is also evidence of undesirable effects of using narratives. In one case study, narrative use led to widespread insurance reimbursement of a therapy for breast cancer that was later proven to be ineffective. Another case study described how the use of narrative inappropriately exaggerated the perceived risk of a procedure, which led to limiting its use and preventing a large number of patients from its benefits. A third case study described how optimistic 'cure' or 'hope' stories of children with cancer were selectively used to raise money for cancer research that ignored the negative realities. The majority of included studies did not provide information on the definition or content of narratives, the theoretical framework underlying the narrative intervention or the possible predictors of the success of narrative interventions. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence base precludes any robust inferences about the impact of narrative interventions on health policy-making. We discuss the implications of the findings for research and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID = CRD42018085011 ).

Embedding research to improve program implementation in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In the last 10 years, implementation research has come to play a critical role in improving the implementation of already-proven health interventions by promoting the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based strategies into routine practice. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research and the Pan American Health Organization implemented a program of embedded implementation research to support health programs in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in 2014-2015. A total of 234 applications were received from 28 countries in the Americas. The Improving Program Implementation through Embedded Research (iPIER) scheme supported 12 implementation research projects led by health program implementers from nine LAC countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Saint Lucia. Through this experience, we learned that the "insider" perspective, which implementers bring to the research proposal, is particularly important in identifying research questions that focus on the systems failures that often manifest in barriers to implementation. This paper documents the experience of and highlights key conclusions about the conduct of embedded implementation research. The iPIER experience has shown great promise for embedded research models that place implementers at the helm of implementation research initiatives.

Enhancing evidence informed policymaking in complex health systems: lessons from multi-site collaborative approaches.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing interest worldwide to ensure evidence-informed health policymaking as a means to improve health systems performance. There is a need to engage policymakers in collaborative approaches to generate and use knowledge in real world settings. To address this gap, we implemented two interventions based on iterative exchanges between researchers and policymakers/implementers. This article aims to reflect on the implementation and impact of these multi-site evidence-to-policy approaches implemented in low-resource settings. METHODS: The first approach was implemented in Mexico and Nicaragua and focused on implementation research facilitated by communities of practice (CoP) among maternal health stakeholders. We conducted a process evaluation of the CoPs and assessed the professionals' abilities to acquire, analyse, adapt and apply research. The second approach, called the Policy BUilding Demand for evidence in Decision making through Interaction and Enhancing Skills (Policy BUDDIES), was implemented in South Africa and Cameroon. The intervention put forth a 'buddying' process to enhance demand and use of systematic reviews by sub-national policymakers. The Policy BUDDIES initiative was assessed using a mixed-methods realist evaluation design. RESULTS: In Mexico, the implementation research supported by CoPs triggered monitoring by local health organizations of the quality of maternal healthcare programs. Health programme personnel involved in CoPs in Mexico and Nicaragua reported improved capacities to identify and use evidence in solving implementation problems. In South Africa, Policy BUDDIES informed a policy framework for medication adherence for chronic diseases, including both HIV and non-communicable diseases. Policymakers engaged in the buddying process reported an enhanced recognition of the value of research, and greater demand for policy-relevant knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The collaborative evidence-to-policy approaches underline the importance of iterations and continuity in the engagement of researchers and policymakers/programme managers, in order to account for swift evolutions in health policy planning and implementation. In developing and supporting evidence-to-policy interventions, due consideration should be given to fit-for-purpose approaches, as different needs in policymaking cycles require adapted processes and knowledge. Greater consideration should be provided to approaches embedding the use of research in real-world policymaking, better suited to the complex adaptive nature of health systems.