ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) through strategic, continuous engagement with decision-makers represents an approach to bridge research, policy and practice. The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA +), comprising research institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda and Germany, developed and implemented tailored IKT strategies as part of its multifaceted research on prevention and care of non-communicable diseases and road traffic injuries. The objective of this article is to describe the CEBHA + IKT approach and report on the development, implementation and monitoring of site-specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We draw on findings derived from the mixed method IKT evaluation (conducted in 2020-2021), and undertook document analyses and a reflective survey among IKT implementers. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. The authors used the TIDieR checklist to report results in a structured manner. RESULTS: Preliminary IKT evaluation data (33 interviews with researchers and stakeholders from policy and practice, and 31 survey responses), 49 documents, and eight responses to the reflective survey informed this article. In each of the five African CEBHA + countries, a site-specific IKT strategy guided IKT implementation, tailored to the respective national context, engagement aims, research tasks, and individuals involved. IKT implementers undertook a variety of IKT activities at varying levels of engagement that targeted a broad range of decision-makers and other stakeholders, particularly during project planning, data interpretation, and output dissemination. Throughout the project, the IKT teams continued to tailor IKT strategies informally and modified the IKT approach by responding to ad hoc engagements and involving non-governmental organisations, universities, and communities. Challenges to using systematic, formalised IKT strategies arose in particular with respect to the demand on time and resources, leading to the modification of monitoring processes. CONCLUSION: Tailoring of the CEBHA + IKT approach led to the inclusion of some atypical IKT partners and to greater responsiveness to unexpected opportunities for decision-maker engagement. Benefits of using systematic IKT strategies included clarity on engagement aims, balancing of existing and new strategic partnerships, and an enhanced understanding of research context, including site-specific structures for evidence-informed decision-making.
Subject(s)
Checklist , Translational Science, Biomedical , Humans , Data Accuracy , Document Analysis , EthiopiaABSTRACT
Persons with dementia have the right to equal inclusion in rehabilitation, including physical activity. However, the perspectives of persons with dementia are rarely integrated into decision-making related to physical activity programming, services, and supports. Here, we describe the participatory action research (PAR) approach used to develop the Dementia-Inclusive Choices for Exercise (DICE) toolkit, which aims to increase the quality and number of physical activity opportunities available to persons with dementia. The DICE Research Team included persons with dementia, a family care partner, exercise professionals, community and dementia service providers, health care professionals, and researchers who worked to: 1) Engage/maintain the Research Team; 2) Set/navigate ways of engagement; 3) Understand barriers to physical activity; 4) Prioritize the audience and actions; 5) Develop the toolkit; 6) Conduct usability testing; and 7) Implement and evaluate. Guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel, and informed by interviews, focus groups, and existing research, our PAR Team chose to prioritize training exercise providers; exercise providers can enable exercise for persons with dementia if they understand common changes with dementia and how to support persons with dementia in exercise. The content and format of the toolkit was co-developed: drafted by our Research Team, adapted through a stakeholder workshop, and refined through iterative development and usability testing. The product of our PAR process, the DICE toolkit, includes videos meant to destigmatize dementia, training modules and a training manual for exercise providers, a physical activity handout for persons with dementia, and wallet cards to help persons with dementia communicate their abilities, needs, and preferences. Our usability study indicated that the toolkit could be used by exercise providers and may improve attitudes about dementia. Our vision is that our co-developed DICE toolkit will empower exercise providers to improve physical activity opportunities and support for persons with dementia.
ABSTRACT
There has been much discussion about the overmedicalization of human experience and the problems incurred by overzealous action-oriented medical care. In this paper we describe the Aristotelean virtue of phronesis, or practical wisdom, and discuss how it can be developed by interested clinicians. We argue that becoming a phronimos requires conscious attention to one's practice by using feedback to continually improve. But there must also be judicious adherence to clinical practice guidelines and advocacy for people-as-patients at individual, community, and national levels.
Subject(s)
Clinical Decision-Making , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Primary Health Care , Decision MakingABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: With the introduction of stem cell engineering in dentistry, regenerative endodontics has emerged as a potential alternative to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) apexification in the management of necrotic immature permanent teeth. However, the utility of this modality in terms of cost-effectiveness has not yet been established. Therefore, we performed cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the dominant treatment modality that would influence decision making from the private payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed with a necrotic immature permanent tooth in a 7-y-old patient, followed over the lifetime using TreeAge Pro Healthcare 2022. Transition probabilities were estimated based on the existing literature. Costs were estimated based on United States health care, and cost-effectiveness was determined using Monte Carlo microsimulations. The model was validated internally by sensitivity analyses, and face validation was performed by an experienced endodontist and health economist. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, regenerative endodontics did not turn out to be a dominant treatment option as it was associated with an additional cost of USD$1,012 and fewer retained tooth-years (15.48 y). Likewise, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, regenerative endodontics was again dominated by apexification against different willingness-to-pay values. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, regenerative endodontic treatment was not cost-effective compared with apexification in the management of necrotic immature permanent teeth over an individual's lifetime. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: The study provides valuable insight regarding the cost valuation and cost-efficacy of regenerative endodontic treatment versus apexification in the management of necrotic immature permanent teeth, as this would aid in effective clinical decision making, allowing for the functional allocation of resources.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Patient values and preferences (PVP) are among multiple sources of information panelists synthesize when developing clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be critical for learning PVP; however, the methodology for engaging patients in CPG development is lacking. Deliberative engagement is effective for obtaining public views on complex topics that require people to consider ethics, values, and competing perspectives. OBJECTIVE: Elicit comprehensive understanding of PVP concerning oral analgesics for managing acute dental pain consecutive to toothache and simple and surgical dental extractions, with consideration of associated outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. METHODS: Multistage engagement involving 2 electronic surveys and a 90-min online small group deliberative engagement. Adults who have experienced acute dental pain deliberated about 3 hypothetical scenarios stratified according to expected pain intensity, completed a postdeliberation survey, and validated a PVP statement developed by researchers based on review of qualitative data from deliberations and quantitative data from surveys. RESULTS: Participants affirmed the PVP statement reflected their small group deliberations and their individual views. Most indicated that pain relief is critical to deciding which pain relief medicine they would want regardless of expected pain level. Most also identify as critical concerns about substance abuse or misuse, although many believe it unlikely that they will experience these outcomes over the brief prescription timeframe for acute dental pain. Participants identified agency in decision-making, consultation including "better communication" of options, and treatment actions tailored to life circumstances as key values. CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferred nonprescription and nonopioid pain relief options. As expected pain levels increased, more participants expressed willingness to accept opioids, but more also mentioned rescue analgesia as a third outcome critical to decision-making. Online deliberative method provided opportunities for obtaining informed perspectives. Guideline developers and policymakers may find online deliberations useful for eliciting PVP related to health outcomes. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: Study results informed the US Food and Drug Administration-funded clinical practice guideline on the management of acute dental pain. Findings may be a resource for clinicians in decision-making conversations with patients regarding expectations for pain relief and positive and negative outcomes of differing pain relief medications. Further research should pursue applicability of online deliberative engagement as a method to elicit patient values and preferences.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely decision-making in lung transplantation (LTx) programs is critical. The main objective of this study was to develop a mobile-based evidence-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) to enhance the management of lung transplant candidates. METHOD: An iterative participatory software development process was employed to develop the ImamLTx CDSS. This study was accomplished in three phases. First, required data and standard clinical workflow were identified according to the literature review and expert consensus. Second, a rule-based knowledge-based CDSS application was developed. In the third phase, this CDSS was evaluated. The evaluation was done using the standard Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ 18.3) and ten usability heuristics factors for user interface design. RESULTS: According to expert consensus, fifty-five data items were identified as essential data sets using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) formula. By integrating information flow in clinical practices with clinical protocols, more than 450 rules and 500 knowledge statements were extracted. This CDSS provides clinical decision support on an Android platform regarding inclusion and exclusion referral criteria, optimum transplant time based on the type of lung disease, findings of initial assessment, and the overall evaluation of lung transplant candidates. Evaluation results showed high usability ratings due to the fact provided accuracy and sensitivity of this lung transplant CDSS with the information quality domain receiving the highest score (6.305 from 7). CONCLUSION: Through a stepwise approach, the ImamLTx CDSS was developed to provide LTx programs with timely patient data access via a mobile platform. Our results suggest integration with existing workflow to support clinical decision-making and provide patient-specific recommendations.
Subject(s)
Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Lung Transplantation , Humans , Workflow , Translational Science, Biomedical , SoftwareABSTRACT
Knowledge translation (KT) is a set of activities or processes for synthesising, disseminating, and applying research evidence in decision-making for the benefit of society. For KT to be successful, it is paramount for researchers to play an active role in encouraging evidence uptake and use in decision-making. We carried out a mapping exercise and interviews with research cluster heads at Cochrane South Africa (CSA) of the KT activities and processes being implemented (or are planned for implementation). We organized the mapping and interview results according to the KT themes described in the Cochrane KT framework. The KT framework comprises six themes, namely, (i) prioritization and co-production of research evidence; (ii) building a sustainable infrastructure for knowledge translation; (iii) engaging with audiences for knowledge exchange or dialogue; (iv) packaging, communication and dissemination which entails disseminating research to users; (v) building audience capacity to use evidence or training activities; and (vi) advocacy or improving the culture of using evidence. Through the mapping exercise and interviews, we learned that CSA researchers excelled in implementing activities and processes linked to most of the KT themes, including producing different types of systematic reviews and providing reliable evidence for health decision-making. Cochrane South Africa (CSA) researchers are also involved in mentoring and training postgraduate students and various health decision-makers (e.g., health professionals, guideline panels and policy-makers). While they excel in the above-mentioned activities, "packaging, communication, and dissemination of research evidence" (theme iv) was identified as an area of improvement.
Subject(s)
Administrative Personnel , Translational Science, Biomedical , Humans , South Africa , Systematic Reviews as Topic , CommunicationABSTRACT
This commentary reviews the Scurr and colleagues' article published in International Journal of Health Policy and Management in February 2022 on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study." Schur adds to the current knowledge base by extending the stakeholder groups in deliberative dialogues (DD) to members of the affected community, a practice not commonly used in such DD strategies. Their study supports the inclusion of public participants in such dialogues, and offers practical guidelines for ways in which to accommodate these important participants. This commentary highlights the need to acknowledge diverse types of knowing into what is considered evidence and advocates for evidence to include a wide-ranging variety of sources including tacit knowledge via experience and ongoing learning.
Subject(s)
Community Participation , Health Policy , HumansABSTRACT
In their study of sustaining knowledge translation (KT) practices, Borst et al found that this process is an interplay of: (i) constructing and extending networks, (ii) creating contexts that support KT practices, and (iii) understanding how actors create, maintain, and disrupt institutions. Their article is an important contribution to the body of research promoting KT. In this commentary we reflect on the convergences and differences between the concepts of 'sustaining' and 'institutionalizing' KT, highlighting domains and processes related to the institutionalization, providing an analysis of KT landscape in Brazil and making a case for the need to increase countries' routine use of evidence.
Subject(s)
Translational Research, Biomedical , Translational Science, Biomedical , Humans , Policy , Policy Making , BrazilABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Clinically integrated teaching (CIT) is an effective approach for promoting evidence-based practice (EBP) competencies among medical students. Challenges towards the implementation of CIT in rehabilitation curricula include educators' different conceptualizations of EBP, the perceived complexity of EBP and the boundaries between the academic and the clinical setting. This study aimed to identify tailored strategies to implement in rehabilitation programs and their affiliated clinical sites to support the development of EBP competencies among students in occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT) and speech-language pathology (S-LP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nominal group technique (NGT) with stakeholders from three rehabilitation programs in Canada, offering the professional master's in OT and PT (n = 35 participants) and in S-LP (n = 8). RESULTS: The top two strategies identified in the OT/PT NGT were: 1) Developing a flexible definition of EBP that recognizes its complexity; 2) Providing clinicians with more access to the teaching content by pairing faculty with preceptors. The top two strategies identified in the S-LP NGT were: 1) Providing students with opportunities for decision-making with experienced clinicians; 2) Increasing interactions between faculty and preceptors using formal group meetings. CONCLUSION: Findings laid foundations for future integrated knowledge translation projects to collaboratively implement, and test identified strategies.
Rehabilitation professions including occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language pathology acknowledge the importance of evidence-based practice (EBP).Current challenges in the teaching of EBP among rehabilitation students include educators' different conceptualizations of EBP, the perceived complexity of EBP, and the boundaries between the academic and the clinical setting.This study shows that increasing interactions between faculty and preceptors, for instance through an online community of practice, constitutes a stakeholder-endorsed priority to advance EBP education in rehabilitation.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Most knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence. METHODS: This international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making. CONCLUSION: Researchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.
Subject(s)
Naturopathy , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Attitude of Health Personnel , Health Personnel , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Consolidation of the literature using systematic reviews is a critical way to advance a discipline and support evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. However, unique challenges exist that impact the conduct of systematic reviews in implementation science. In this commentary, we reflect on our combined experience to describe five key challenges unique to systematic reviews of primary implementation research. These challenges include (1) descriptors used in implementation science publications, (2) distinction between evidence-based interventions and implementation strategies, (3) assessment of external validity, (4) synthesis of implementation studies with substantial clinical and methodological diversity, and (5) variability in defining implementation 'success'. We outline possible solutions and highlight resources that can be used by authors of primary implementation research, as well as systematic review and editorial teams, to overcome the identified challenges and optimise the utility of future systematic reviews in implementation science.
Subject(s)
Implementation Science , Research Design , Humans , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
Background: Biological sex-related factors influence pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease processes that may affect the predictability of drug dosing and adverse effects, which may in turn have clinical consequences for patients' lives. Nonetheless, sex-related factors are not always taken into account in clinical trial design or clinical decision-making, for multiple reasons, including a paucity of studies that clearly and objectively study and measure sex-disaggregated and sex-related outcomes, as well as gaps in regulatory and policy structures for integrating these considerations. Objectives: To complete a narrative review and use a case study to understand available evidence, inform future research, and provide policy considerations that incorporate information on sex- and gender-related factors into clinician-facing resources. Methods: A comprehensive review of available literature was conducted using a sex- and gender-based analysis plus (SGBA Plus) approach to identify sex- and/or gender-disaggregated information for gilteritinib, a chemotherapeutic agent. Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to March 18, 2021. The information was then summarized and compared with the Canadian product monograph for this drug. Results: Of 311 records screened, 3 provided SGBA Plus information as a component of outcomes, rather than just as categories or demographic characteristics. Of these, 2 were case studies, and 1 was a clinical trial. No studies from the ClinicalTrials.gov database that were in progress at the time of this review provided details about sex-disaggregated outcomes. The Canadian product monograph did not include sex-disaggregated outcome data. Conclusions: The available evidence from clinical trials, other published literature, and guidance documents does not provide details about sex-disaggregated outcomes for gilteritinib. This paucity of available evidence may create a challenge for clinicians who are making decisions about the efficacy and safety of prescribed therapies in sex-specific populations that have not been well studied.
Contexte: Les facteurs liés au sexe biologique influencent les processus pharmacocinétiques, pharmacodynamiques et pathologiques, qui peuvent avoir une incidence sur la prévisibilité du dosage des médicaments et des effets indésirables. Ceci peut à son tour avoir des conséquences cliniques sur la vie des patients. Néanmoins, les facteurs liés au sexe ne sont pas toujours pris en compte dans la conception des essais cliniques ou la prise de décision clinique, et cela pour de nombreuses raisons notamment le manque d'études qui examinent et mesurent clairement et objectivement les résultats ventilés par sexe et liés au sexe ainsi que les lacunes dans les réglementations et structures politiques pour intégrer ces considérations. Objectifs: Mener un examen narratif et utiliser une étude de cas pour comprendre les preuves disponibles, éclairer les recherches futures et fournir des considérations politiques qui intègrent des informations sur les facteurs liés au sexe et au genre dans les ressources destinées aux cliniciens. Méthodes: Une revue complète de la littérature disponible a été réalisée à l'aide d'une analyse comparative fondée sur le sexe et le genre Plus (ACSG Plus) pour identifier les informations ventilées par sexe et/ou par genre pour le giltéritinib, un agent chimiothérapeutique. Des recherches systématiques ont été effectuées dans MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Wiley), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Ovid), Scopus et ClinicalTrials.gov, depuis la création de chaque base de données jusqu'au 18 mars 2021. Ces informations ont ensuite été résumées et comparées avec la monographie canadienne de produit pharmaceutique pour ce médicament. Résultats: Sur les 311 documents examinés, 3 ont fourni des informations ACSG Plus en tant que composante des résultats, plutôt que simplement en tant que catégories ou caractéristiques démographiques. Parmi ceux-ci, 2 étaient des études de cas et 1 était un essai clinique. Aucune étude de la base de données ClinicalTrials.gov en cours au moment de cette revue n'a fourni de détails sur les résultats ventilés par sexe. La monographie de produit canadienne ne comprenait pas de données sur les résultats ventilées par sexe. Conclusions: Les preuves disponibles issues d'essais cliniques, d'autres publications et de documents d'orientation ne fournissent pas de détails sur les résultats ventilés par sexe pour le giltéritinib. Ce manque d'éléments probants disponibles peut constituer un défi pour les cliniciens qui prennent des décisions sur l'efficacité et l'innocuité des thérapies prescrites chez des populations sexospécifiques qui n'ont pas été bien étudiées.
ABSTRACT
Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors' behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public.
Subject(s)
Health Services Research , Humans , Quebec , Reproducibility of Results , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Translation of research knowledge is critical to ensure transfusion medicine policies and practices reflect current evidence and so effectively support the health of blood donors and recipients, as well as ensuring ongoing blood supply. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators of knowledge translation (KT) among transfusion medicine researchers and determine what KT supports are needed. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was distributed by emailing corresponding authors of papers in four major blood journals, emailing grant recipients in the area of transfusion medicine, posting on social media, and through an international blood operator network. RESULTS: The final sample included 105 researchers. Participants had a positive orientation toward KT, with few perceiving KT as not relevant to their research or beneficial for their careers. However, many reported facing difficulties practicing KT due to time constraints, competing priorities, or lack of funds or resources. Fostering relationships with stakeholders was seen as a key facilitator of KT but a number of researchers expressed difficulties engaging and communicating with them. Collaboration opportunities, protected time for KT, and access to KT resources were some of the supports researchers felt were required to help their KT efforts. CONCLUSION: To minimize the knowledge to practice gap in transfusion medicine and ensure findings from research lead to improved outcomes, organizations need to support researchers in their KT efforts and facilitate interactions between researchers and research end-users.
Subject(s)
Transfusion Medicine , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Translational Science, Biomedical , Translational Research, Biomedical , Health PolicyABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to close the gap in frameworks for the use of evidence in the mental health policy agenda-setting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Agenda-setting is important because mental health remains a culturally sensitive and neglected issue in LMICs. Moreover, effective evidence-informed agenda-setting can help achieve, and sustain, the status of mental health as a policy priority in these low-resource contexts. A scoping 'review of reviews' of evidence-to-policy frameworks was conducted, which followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nineteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. A meta-framework was developed from analysis and narrative synthesis of these 19 reviews, which integrates the key elements identified across studies. It comprises the concepts of evidence, actors, process, context and approach, which are linked via the cross-cutting dimensions of beliefs, values and interests; capacity; power and politics; and trust and relationships. Five accompanying questions act as a guide for applying the meta-framework with relevance to mental health agenda-setting in LMICs. This is a novel and integrative meta-framework for mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs and, as such, an important contribution to this under-researched area. Two major recommendations are identified from the development of the framework to enhance its implementation. First, given the paucity of formal evidence on mental health in LMICs, informal evidence based on stakeholder experience could be better utilized in these contexts. Second, the use of evidence in mental health agenda-setting in LMICs would be enhanced by involving a broader range of stakeholders in generating, communicating and promoting relevant information.
Subject(s)
Developing Countries , Health Policy , Humans , Mental Health , Policy Making , PoliticsABSTRACT
The existence and availability of evidence on its own does not guarantee that the evidence will be demanded and used by decision and policy makers. Decision and policy-makers, especially in low-income settings, often confront ethical dilemmas about determining the best available evidence and its utilization. This dilemma can be in the form of conflict of evidence, scientific and ethical equipoise and competing evidence or interests. Consequently, decisions are made based on convenience, personal preference, donor requirements, and political and social considerations which can result in wastage of resources and inefficiency. To mitigate these challenges, the use of "Value- and Evidence-Based Decision Making and Practice" (VEDMAP) framework is proposed. This framework was developed by Joseph Mfutso-Bengo in 2017 through a desk review. It was pretested through a scoping study under the Thanzi la Onse (TLO) Project which assessed the feasibility and acceptability of using the VEDMAP as a priority setting tool for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Malawi. The study used mixed methods whereby it conducted a desk review to map out and benchmark normative values of different countries in Africa and HTA; focus group discussion and key informant interviews to map out the actual (practised) values in Malawi. The results of this review confirmed that the use of VEDMAP framework was feasible and acceptable and can bring efficiency, traceability, transparency and integrity in decision- policy making process and implementation.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Australia has achieved universal health insurance for its population since 1975 - a major step forward for increasing access to primary care (PC). Nevertheless, there are reports of several multi-layered challenges, including inequity, that persist. This analysis aims to undertake a scoping review of the success, explanatory factors, and challenges of Primary Health Care (PHC) in Australia guided by the World Health Organization (WHO)-defined key characteristics of good PC. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science using key terms related to PHC principles, attributes, system functioning and health care delivery modalities. We also used key PC terminologies used to assess key characteristics of good PC developed by WHO and key terms and attributes from Australia's health care landscape. We then integrated our search terms with the PHC Search Filters developed by Brown, L., et al. (2014). We restricted the search from 2013 to 2021. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed a quality check on the extracted data. We presented findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: We identified 112 articles on primary health care (PHC), represented from all Australian states and territories. Overall, Australian PHC has achieved comprehensiveness, access and coverage, quality of care, patient / person centeredness and service coordination indicators with exemplary evidence-base practice/knowledge translation and clinical decision-making practices at the PC settings. Yet, we identified complex and multilayered barriers including geographic and socio-economic berries and inequality, staff dissatisfaction/turn over, low adoption of person-centred care, inadequate sectoral collaboration, and inadequate infrastructure in rural and remote primary care units. Conclusion: Primary health care in Australia, which has evolved through major reforms, has been adapting to the complex health care needs of the socio-culturally diversified nation, and has achieved many of the PC attributes, including service diversity, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of care. Yet, there are persistent gaps in service delivery to socio-economically disadvantaged populations, including indigenous people, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations, and rural- and remote-residents. These challenges could be mitigated through system-wide and targeted policy-level intervention to further improve service delivery through effective and functional local health service coordination, sectoral integration, and improving health care providers' cultural competence.
Subject(s)
Emotions , Health Facilities , Humans , Australia , Health Personnel , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
A large number of freeway accident disposals are well-recorded by accident reports and surveillance videos, but it is not easy to get the emergency experience reused from past recorded accidents. To reuse emergency experience for better emergency decision-making, this paper proposed a knowledge-based experience transfer method to transfer task-level freeway accident disposal experience via multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithm with policy distillation. First, the Markov decision process is used to simulate the emergency decision-making process of multi-type freeway accident scene at the task level. Then, an adaptive knowledge transfer method named policy distilled multi-agent deep deterministic policy gradient (PD-MADDPG) algorithm is proposed to reuse experience from past freeway accident records to current accidents for fast decision-making and optimal onsite disposal. The performance of the proposed algorithm is evaluated on instantiated cases of freeway accidents that occurred on the freeway in Shaanxi Province, China. Aside from achieving better emergency decisions performance than various typical decision-making methods, the result shows decision maker with transferred knowledge owns 65.22%, 11.37%, 9.23%, 7.76% and 1.71% higher average reward than those without in the five studied cases, respectively. Indicating that the emergency experience transferred from past accidents contributes to fast emergency decision-making and optimal accident onsite disposal.