Integrative review; identifying the evidence base for policymaking and analysis in health care.

AIM: The aim of this was to identify and synthesize the evidence underpinning the health policymaking process to inform the development of a health-related policy analysis framework. DESIGN: A mixed methods review using "Best Fit" Framework synthesis. DATA SOURCES: PUBMED and CINAHL+ databases for English language papers published between March 2013 - March 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Titles were screened, data abstracted and analysed by two authors at each stage. Findings from included studies were coded against six a priori categories which had been constructed through a preliminary literature review, consultation and consensus. RESULTS: Sixty-eight papers were included. There exists empirical support for six key domains which require to be addressed in the policymaking and analysis process: (1) Context; (2) Process; (3) Content; (4) Stakeholder Consultation; (5) Implementation; and (6) Evaluation. Failure to contextualize and integrate these six domains in problem identification, policy analysis, strategy and policy development, policy enactment and policy implementation is problematic. CONCLUSION: There is a need to test and refine the constructs linked to the policymaking cycle taking cognizance of the context where these are developed, implemented and evaluated. IMPACT: This review makes a novel contribution to the synthesis of evidence to inform the policymaking and analysis process. Findings illuminate the complexity of policymaking, the competing pressures involved and the importance of the local, national and international context. These findings have international relevance and provide empirical support for key criteria to guide those involved in context specific policymaking and/or the analysis of existing policy.

An overview of the outcomes and impact of specialist and advanced nursing and midwifery practice, on quality of care, cost and access to services: A narrative review.

OBJECTIVES: This paper presents the results of a systematic rapid review and narrative synthesis of the literature of the outcomes and impact of specialist and advanced nursing and midwifery practice regarding quality of care, cost and access to services. DESIGN: A rapid review was undertaken of the relevant national and international literature, regulatory and policy documents relating to the establishment and definition of nurses' and midwives' specialist and advanced practice roles. DATA SOURCES: A search of the Cumulative Index to the Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed (MEDLINE) was undertaken from 2012 to 2015. The study also included primary data collection on the perceived impact of specialist and advanced practice nursing and midwifery roles and enablers and barriers to these roles using semi-structured interviews. These are not included in this paper. REVIEW METHOD: To facilitate a systematic approach to searching the literature, the PICO framework, was adapted. RESULTS: The database search yielded 437 articles relevant to the analysis of specialist and advanced practice in relation to quality care, cost and access to services with additional articles added in a manual review of reference lists. In the final review a total of 86 articles were included as they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented in the 86 articles indicates that nursing and midwifery practitioners continue to be under-utilised despite the evidence that greater reliance on advanced nurse practitioners could improve accessibility of primary care services while also saving on cost. Results point to continued difficulties associated with accurate measurement of the impact of these roles on patient outcomes. This review demonstrates that there is a need for robust measurement of the impact of these roles on patient outcomes.