A closer look at the international health regulations capacities in Lebanon: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: Lebanon ratified the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) in 2007, and since then, it has been facing complex political deadlocks, financial deterioration, and infectious disease emergencies. We aimed to understand the IHR capacities' scores of Lebanon in comparison to other countries, the IHR milestones and activities in Lebanon, the challenges of maintaining the IHR capacities, the refugee crisis's impact on the development of these capacities; and the possible recommendations to support the IHR performance in Lebanon. METHODS: We used a mixed-method design. The study combined the use of secondary data analysis of the 2020 State Party Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR) submissions and qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine key informants. The analysis of the data generated was based on inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: According to SPAR, Lebanon had levels of 4 out of 5 (≤ 80%) in 2020 in the prevention, detection, response, enabling functions, and operational readiness capacities, pertaining that the country was functionally capable of dealing with various events at the national and subnational levels. Lebanon scored more than its neighboring countries, Syria, and Jordan, which have similar contexts of economic crises, emergencies, and refugee waves. Despite this high level of commitment to meeting IHR capacities, the qualitative findings demonstrated several gaps in IHR performance as resource shortage, governance, and political challenges. The study also showed contradictory results regarding the impact of refugees on IHR capacities. Some key informants agreed that the Syrian crisis had a positive impact, while others suggested the opposite. Whether refugees interfere with IHR development is still an area that needs further investigation. CONCLUSION: The study shows that urgent interventions are needed to strengthen the implementation of the IHR capacities in Lebanon. The study recommends 1) reconsidering the weight given to IHR capacities; 2) promoting governance to strengthen IHR compliance; 3) strengthening the multisectoral coordination mechanisms; 4) reinforcing risk communication strategies constantly; 5) mobilizing and advancing human resources at the central and sub-national levels; 6) ensuring sustainable financing; 7) integrating refugees and displaced persons in IHR framework and its assessment tools; 8) acknowledging risk mapping as a pre-requisite to a successful response; and 9) strengthening research on IHR capacities in Lebanon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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

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

Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge management (KM) emerged as a strategy to promote evidence-informed decision-making. This scoping review aims to map existing KM tools and mechanisms used to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in the WHO European Region and identify knowledge gaps. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Open Grey. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and conducted narrative analysis of the included studies and categorized studies according to KM type and phase. RESULTS: Out of 9541 citations identified, we included 141 studies. The KM tools mostly assessed are evidence networks, surveillance tools, observatories, data platforms and registries, with most examining KM tools in high-income countries of the WHO European region. Findings suggest that KM tools can identify health problems, inform health planning and resource allocation, increase the use of evidence by policymakers and stimulate policy discussion. CONCLUSION: Policymakers and funding agencies are called to support capacity-building activities, and future studies to strengthen KM in the WHO European region particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. An updated over-arching strategy to coordinate KM activities in the WHO European region will be useful in these efforts.

Domains and processes for institutionalizing evidence-informed health policy-making: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization. METHODS: We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers. RESULTS: We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the "process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become-over time-a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making". The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes. CONCLUSIONS: This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership?

BACKGROUND: Strong Global South (GS) health research leadership, itself both dependent on and a requisite for strong health research systems, is essential to generate locally relevant research and ensure that evidence is translated into policy and practice. Strong GS health research systems and leadership are important for health development and in turn for strong health systems. However, many GS countries struggle to produce research and to improve performance on widely used research metrics measuring productivity and reflecting leadership. Drawing on literature from a rapid review, this viewpoint paper considers the barriers to GS health research leadership and proposes strategies to address these challenges. FINDINGS: GS researchers and institutions face numerous barriers that undermine health research leadership potential. Barriers internal to the GS include researcher-level barriers such as insufficient mentorship, limited financial incentives and time constraints. Institutional barriers include limited availability of resources, restrictive and poorly developed research infrastructures, weak collaboration and obstructive policies and procedures. Structural barriers include political will, politicization of research and political instability. External barriers relate to the nature and extent of Global North (GN) activities and systems and include allocation and distribution of funding and resources, characteristics and focus of GN-GS research collaborations, and publication and information dissemination challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthening GS health research leadership requires acknowledgement of the many barriers, and adoption of mitigating measures by a range of actors at the institutional, national, regional and global levels. Particularly important are leadership capacity development integrating researcher, institutional and systems initiatives; new GN-GS partnership models emphasizing capacity exchange and shared leadership; supporting GS research communities to set, own and drive their research agendas; addressing biases against GS researchers; ensuring that GS institutions address their internal challenges; enhancing South-South collaborations; diversifying research funding flow to the GS; and learning from models that work. The time has come for a firm commitment to improving localization of research leadership, supported by adequate funding flow, to ensure strong and sustainable research systems and leadership in and from the GS. Just as the humanitarian donor and aid community adopted the Grand Bargain commitment to improve funding flow through local and national responders in times of crisis, we strongly urge the global health research community to adopt a Grand Bargain for research leadership.

Development of a STandard reporting guideline for Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP): context and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual. METHODS: We will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use. DISCUSSION: Our protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP. Registration We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network. ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84 ).

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

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

Application of the eHealth Literacy Model in Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly being adopted globally to address various public health issues. DHIs can be categorized according to four main types of technology: mobile based, web based, telehealth, and electronic health records. In 2006, Norman and Skinner introduced the eHealth literacy model, encompassing six domains of skills and abilities (basic, health, information, scientific, media, and computer) needed to effectively understand, process, and act on health-related information. Little is known about whether these domains are assessed or accounted for in DHIs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how DHIs assess and evaluate the eHealth literacy model, describe which health conditions are addressed, and which technologies are used. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature on DHIs, based on randomized controlled trial design and reporting the assessment of any domain of the eHealth literacy model. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. A duplicate selection and data extraction process was performed; we charted the results according to the country of origin, health condition, technology used, and eHealth literacy domain. RESULTS: We identified 131 unique DHIs conducted in 26 different countries between 2001 and 2020. Most DHIs were conducted in English-speaking countries (n=81, 61.8%), delivered via the web (n=68, 51.9%), and addressed issues related to noncommunicable diseases (n=57, 43.5%) or mental health (n=26, 19.8%). None of the interventions assessed all six domains of the eHealth literacy model. Most studies focused on the domain of health literacy (n=96, 73.2%), followed by digital (n=19, 14.5%), basic and media (n=4, 3%), and information and scientific literacy (n=1, 0.7%). Of the 131 studies, 7 (5.3%) studies covered both health and digital literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Although many selected DHIs assessed health or digital literacy, no studies comprehensively evaluated all domains of the eHealth literacy model; this evidence might be overlooking important factors that can mediate or moderate the effects of these interventions. Future DHIs should comprehensively assess the eHealth literacy model while developing or evaluating interventions to understand how and why interventions can be effective.

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

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

The crucible of COVID-19: what the pandemic is teaching us about health research systems.

The global health crisis created by COVID-19 is providing valuable insights into the strengths of our health research system and, perhaps even more clearly, displaying its weaknesses. Much of what is being shown so plainly in the current context is not truly new. We are being reminded that health research systems are slow and noisy as well as that there is a desire for research to inform decision-making, that researchers are great collaborators, and that the walls we are so quick to erect between health research and health practice are unhelpful facades. It is our hope that the clarity with which these issues are being demonstrated by COVID-19 might provide the impetus to address these challenges and seize these opportunities to improve our health research system, for the benefit for communities facing COVID-19 now, and for the benefit of us all in facing the further health challenges that are sure to come.

Amplifying the role of knowledge translation platforms in the COVID-19 pandemic response.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents the worst public health crisis in recent history. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenged by many factors, including scientific uncertainties, scarcity of relevant research, proliferation of misinformation and fake news, poor access to actionable evidence, time constraints, and weak collaborations among relevant stakeholders. Knowledge translation (KT) platforms, composed of organisations, initiatives and networks supporting evidence-informed policy-making, can play an important role in providing relevant and timely evidence to inform pandemic responses and bridge the gap between science, policy, practice and politics. In this Commentary, we highlight the emerging roles of KT platforms in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also reflect on the lessons learned from the efforts of a KT platform in a middle-income country to inform decision-making and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lessons learned can be integrated into strengthening the role, structures and mandates of KT platforms as hubs for trustworthy evidence that can inform policies and practice during public health crises and in promoting their integration and institutionalisation within the policy-making processes.

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

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

Defining and classifying public health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of the determinants of health has caused a shift towards understanding health from a holistic perspective as well as increased recognition of public health's contributions to the health of the population. Several frameworks exist to conceptualise healthcare systems, highlighting the stark contrast of frameworks unique to public health systems. The objectives of this study were to define public health systems and assess differences between healthcare systems and public health systems within established health systems frameworks. METHODS: A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted. Databases searched included EBSCOhost, OVID, Scholars Portal, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Health Systems Evidence. Data extraction, coding and analysis followed a best-fit framework analysis method. Initial codes were based on a current leading health systems and policy classification scheme - health systems arrangements (governance, financial and delivery arrangements). RESULTS: A total of 5933 unique documents were identified and 67 were included in the analysis. Definitions of public health and public health systems varied significantly as did their roles and functions across jurisdictions. Public health systems arrangements generally followed those of health systems, with the addition of partnerships (community and inter-sectoral) and communication playing a larger role in public health. A public health systems framework and conceptualisation of how public health currently fits within health systems are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Public health systems are unique and vital entities within health systems. In addition to examining how public health and public health systems have been defined within the literature, this review suggests that establishing the scope of public health is crucial to understanding its role within the larger health system and adds to the discourse around the relationship between public health, healthcare and population health. More broadly, this study addresses an important gap in understanding public health systems and provides conceptual and practical contributions as well as areas for future research.

Lessons learned from descriptions and evaluations of knowledge translation platforms supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation (KT) platforms are organisations, initiatives and networks that focus on supporting evidence-informed policy-making at least in part about the health-system arrangements that determine whether the right programmes, services and products get to those who need them. Many descriptions and evaluations of KT platforms in low- and middle-income countries have been produced but, to date, they have not been systematically reviewed. METHODS: We identified potentially relevant studies through a search of five electronic databases and a variety of approaches to identify grey literature. We used four criteria to select eligible empirical studies. We extracted data about seven characteristics of included studies and about key findings. We used explicit criteria to assess study quality. In synthesising the findings, we gave greater attention to themes that emerged from multiple studies, higher-quality studies and different contexts. RESULTS: Country was the most common jurisdictional focus of KT platforms, EVIPNet the most common name and high turnover among staff a common infrastructural feature. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues were the activities/outputs that were the most extensively studied and viewed as helpful, while rapid evidence services were the next most studied but only in a single jurisdiction. None of the summative evaluations used a pre-post design or a control group and, with the exception of the evaluations of the influence of briefs and dialogues on intentions to act, none of the evaluations achieved a high quality score. CONCLUSIONS: A large and growing volume of research evidence suggests that KT platforms offer promise in supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries. KT platforms should consider as next steps expanding their current, relatively limited portfolio of activities and outputs, building bridges to complementary groups, and planning for evaluations that examine 'what works' for 'what types of issues' in 'what types of contexts'.

A scoping review of the uses and institutionalisation of knowledge for health policy in low- and middle-income countries.

There is growing interest in how different forms of knowledge can strengthen policy-making in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems. Additionally, health policy and systems researchers are increasingly aware of the need to design effective institutions for supporting knowledge utilisation in LMICs. To address these interwoven agendas, this scoping review uses the Arskey and O'Malley framework to review the literature on knowledge utilisation in LMIC health systems, using eight public health and social science databases. Articles that described the process for how knowledge was used in policy-making, specified the type of knowledge used, identified actors involved (individual, organisation or professional), and were set in specific LMICs were included. A total of 53 articles, from 1999 to 2016 and representing 56 countries, were identified. The majority of articles in this review presented knowledge utilisation as utilisation of research findings, and to a lesser extent routine health system data, survey data and technical advice. Most of the articles centered on domestic public sector employees and their interactions with civil society representatives, international stakeholders or academics in utilising epistemic knowledge for policy-making in LMICs. Furthermore, nearly all of the articles identified normative dimensions of institutionalisation. While there is some evidence of how different uses and institutionalisation of knowledge can strengthen health systems, the evidence on how these processes can ultimately improve health outcomes remains unclear. Further research on the ways in which knowledge can be effectively utilised and institutionalised is needed to advance the collective understanding of health systems strengthening and enhance evidence-informed policy formulation.

The use of evidence in decision making by hospital managers in Lebanon: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge synthesis products have emerged as support agents for decision making in clinical practice and policy. However, their use for evidence-informed decision making remains limited in health care management especially in low- and middle-income countries. This study assesses the use of evidence by middle and senior managers in Lebanese hospitals. METHODS: This multihospital cross-sectional study used a self-administered web survey of middle and senior managers. Hospitals were purposively selected, and data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Hospital participation rate was 25%, while adjusted managers' response rate was 44.8%. Prevalence of using evidence was 70%, while prevalence of evidence-seeking behavior was 90%. Evidence was mainly used in design of policies, protocols, and procedures; nursing issues; or procurement decisions. Facilitators for evidence-informed decision making included upper management support and organizational culture, whereas limited resources such as funding, time, and training hindered use of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that utilization of evidence was comparable with that of high-income countries. Training and continuous education were crucial for advancing evidence-informed decision making among hospital managers. However, neither the quality nor the sources of evidence used for decision making were assessed in this study. Future studies should assess the quality and sources of evidence utilized in decision making.