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 .

Guidance on sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health in humanitarian and fragile settings: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Progress related to sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (SRMNCAH) has stalled. COVID-19, conflict and climate change threaten to reverse decades of progress and to ensure the health and well-being of vulnerable populations in humanitarian and fragile settings (HFS) going forward, there is a need for tailored guidance for women, children and adolescents (WCA). This review seeks to map and appraise current resources on SRMNCAH in HFS. METHODS: In line with the updated Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews framework, a manual literature review was conducted of global and regional guidance published between January 2008 and May 2023 from members of the Global Health Cluster, the Global Nutrition Cluster and the Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises. A content analysis was conducted. Scores were then calculated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II scoring tool and subsequently categorised as high quality or low quality. RESULTS: A total of 730 documents were identified. Of these, 141 met the selection criteria and were analysed. Available guidance for delivering SRMNCH services exists, which can inform policy and programming for the general population and WCA. Important gaps related to beneficiaries, health services and health system strengthening strategies were identified. CONCLUSION: The review revealed there is evidence-based guidance available to support interventions targeting WCA in HFS, including: pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, adolescents, newborns, small vulnerable newborns, stillbirths, refugees and internally displaced persons and WCA with disabilities. However, gaps related to beneficiaries, health services and health system strengthening strategies must be addressed in updated guidance that is created, disseminated and monitored in a standardised way that is mindful of the need to respond rapidly in HFS.

Immigrant women's and families' views and experiences of routine postnatal care: findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of postnatal care (PNC) is low and inequitable in many countries, and immigrant women may experience additional challenges to access and effective use. As part of a larger study examining the views of women, partners, and families on routine PNC, we analysed a subset of data on the specific experiences of immigrant women and families. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of a larger qualitative evidence synthesis. We searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, EBM-Reviews and grey literature for studies published until December 2019 with extractable qualitative data with no language restrictions. For this analysis, we focused on papers related to immigrant women and families. Two reviewers screened each study independently; inclusion was agreed by consensus. Data abstraction and quality assessment were carried out using a study-specific extraction form and established quality assessment tools. Study findings were identified using thematic analysis. Findings are presented by confidence in the finding, applying the GRADE-CERQual approach. FINDINGS: We included 44 papers, out of 602 full-texts, representing 11 countries where women and families sought PNC after immigrating. All but one included immigrants to high-income countries. Four themes were identified: resources and access, differences from home country, support needs, and experiences of care. High confidence study findings included: language and communication challenges; uncertainty about navigating system supports including transportation; high mental health, emotional, and informational needs; the impact of personal resources and social support; and the quality of interaction with healthcare providers. These findings highlight the importance of care experiences beyond clinical care. More research is also needed on the experiences of families migrating between low-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Immigrant families experience many challenges in getting routine PNC, especially related to language, culture, and communication. Some challenges may be mitigated by improving comprehensive and accessible information on available services, as well as holistic social support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139183.

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.

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.

Factors that influence the uptake of postnatal care from the perspective of fathers, partners and other family members: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Postnatal care (PNC) is a key component of maternity provision and presents opportunities for healthcare providers to optimise the health and well-being of women and newborns. However, PNC is often undervalued by parents, family members and healthcare providers. As part of a larger qualitative review exploring the factors that influence PNC uptake by relevant stakeholders, we examined a subset of studies highlighting the views of fathers, partners and family members of postpartum women. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework synthesis approach. We searched multiple databases and included studies with extractable qualitative data focusing on PNC utilisation. We identified and labelled a subset of articles reflecting the views of fathers, partners and other family members. Data abstraction and quality assessment were carried out using a bespoke data extraction form and established quality assessment tools. The framework was developed a priori based on previous research on the topic and adapted accordingly. Findings were assessed for confidence using the GRADE-CERQual approach and are presented by country income group. RESULTS: Of 12 678 papers identified from the original search, 109 were tagged as 'family members views' and, of these, 30 were eligible for this review. Twenty-nine incorporated fathers' views, 7 included the views of grandmothers or mothers-in-law, 4 incorporated other family member views and 1 included comothers. Four themes emerged: access and availability; adapting to fatherhood; sociocultural influences and experiences of care. These findings highlight the significant role played by fathers and family members on the uptake of PNC by women as well as the distinct concerns and needs of fathers during the early postnatal period. CONCLUSION: To optimise access to postnatal care, health providers should adopt a more inclusive approach incorporating flexible contact opportunities, the availability of more 'family-friendly' information and access to psychosocial support services for both parents.

Factors that influence the uptake of postnatal care among adolescent girls: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent pregnancy is associated with increased risk of maternal and child morbidity and mortality globally. Access to safe, appropriate and affordable antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care (PNC) is essential in mitigating this risk. PNC is an often undervalued, underused, and understudied component of the continuum of maternal health services; however, it provides an important opportunity for adolescent girls to have access to health information and resources as they navigate the transition to motherhood and/or recovery from childbirth. This qualitative evidence synthesis seeks to highlight the experiences and perspectives of adolescent girls and their partners in accessing and using routine PNC. METHODS: Papers were selected from a primary review on PNC where a global search of databases was conducted to identify studies with qualitative data focused on PNC utilisation. Within this primary review, a subset of studies focused on adolescents was tagged for subanalysis. A data extraction form drawing on an a priori framework was used to extract data from each study. Review findings were grouped across studies and mapped onto relevant themes, which were then adapted, as appropriate, to best reflect emergent themes from included studies. RESULTS: Of 662 papers identified for full text review, 15 were included in this review on adolescents' experiences. Fourteen review findings were mapped onto four themes including: resources and access, social norms, experiences of care, and tailored support needs. CONCLUSION: Improving uptake of PNC by adolescent girls requires multipronged approaches in improving availability of and access to adolescent-sensitive maternal health services and reducing feelings of shame and stigma in the postpartum period. Much should be done to address structural barriers to access, but tangible steps to improving the quality and responsiveness of available services can be taken immediately. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139183.

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Timing of neonatal mortality and severe morbidity during the postnatal period: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific neonatal mortality and severe morbidity during the postnatal period (1-28 days). INTRODUCTION: Despite significant focus on improving neonatal outcomes, many newborns continue to die or experience adverse health outcomes. While evidence on neonatal mortality and severe morbidity rates and causes are regularly updated, less is known on the specific timing of when they occur in the neonatal period. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies that reported on neonatal mortality daily in the first week; weekly in the first month; or day 1, days 2-7, and days 8-28. It also considered studies that reported on timing of severe neonatal morbidity. Studies that reported solely on preterm or high-risk infants were excluded, as these infants require specialized care. Due to the available evidence, mixed samples were included (eg, both preterm and full-term infants), reflecting a neonatal population that may include both low-risk and high-risk infants. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for published studies on December 20, 2019, and updated on May 10, 2021. Critical appraisal was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by 2 reviewers using a study-specific data extraction form. All conflicts were resolved through consensus or discussion with a third reviewer. Where possible, quantitative data were pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Where statistical pooling was not possible, findings were reported narratively. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies from 36 articles reported on relevant outcomes. Of the 48 studies that reported on timing of mortality, there were 6,760,731 live births and 47,551 neonatal deaths with timing known. Of the 34 studies that reported daily deaths in the first week, the highest proportion of deaths occurred on the first day (first 24 hours, 38.8%), followed by day 2 (24-48 hours, 12.3%). Considering weekly mortality within the first month (n = 16 studies), the first week had the highest mortality (71.7%). Based on data from 46 studies, the highest proportion of deaths occurred on day 1 (39.5%), followed closely by days 2-7 (36.8%), with the remainder occurring between days 8 and 28 (23.0%). In terms of causes, birth asphyxia accounted for the highest proportion of deaths on day 1 (68.1%), severe infection between days 2 and 7 (48.1%), and diarrhea between days 8 and 28 (62.7%). Due to heterogeneity, neonatal morbidity data were described narratively. The mean critical appraisal score of all studies was 84% (SD = 16%). CONCLUSION: Newborns experience high mortality throughout the entire postnatal period, with the highest mortality rate in the first week, particularly on the first day. Ensuring regular high-quality postnatal visits, particularly within the first week after birth, is paramount to reduce neonatal mortality and severe morbidity.

Timing of maternal mortality and severe morbidity during the postpartum period: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific maternal mortality and severe morbidity during the postpartum period. INTRODUCTION: Many women continue to die or experience adverse health outcomes in the postpartum period; however, limited work has explored the timing of when women die or present complications during this period globally. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies that reported on women after birth up to 6 weeks postpartum and included data on mortality and/or morbidity on the first day, days 2-7, and days 8-42. Studies that reported solely on high-risk women (eg, those with antenatal or intrapartum complications) were excluded, but mixed population samples were included (eg, low-risk and high-risk women). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for published studies on December 20, 2019, and searches were updated on May 11, 2021. Critical appraisal was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by at least 2 reviewers using a study-specific data extraction form. Quantitative data were pooled, where possible. Identified studies were used to obtain the summary estimate (proportion) for each time point. Maternal mortality was calculated as the maternal deaths during a given period over the total number of maternal deaths known during the postpartum period. For cause-specific analysis, number of deaths due to a specific cause was the numerator, while the total number of women who died due to the same cause in that period was the denominator. Random effects models were run to pool incidence proportion for relative risk of overall maternal deaths. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to country income classification and by date (ie, data collection before or after 2010). Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were reported narratively. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies reported on maternal outcomes from 17 reports, all reporting on mixed populations. Most maternal deaths occurred on the first day (48.9%), with 24.5% of deaths occurring between days 2 and 7, and 24.9% occurring between days 8 and 42. Maternal mortality due to postpartum hemorrhage and embolism occurred predominantly on the first day (79.1% and 58.2%, respectively). Most deaths due to postpartum eclampsia and hypertensive disorders occurred within the first week (44.3% on day 1 and 37.1% on days 2-7). Most deaths due to infection occurred between days 8 and 42 (61.3%). Due to heterogeneity, maternal morbidity data are described narratively, with morbidity predominantly occurring within the first 2 weeks. The mean critical appraisal score across all included studies was 85.9% (standard deviation = 13.6%). CONCLUSION: Women experience mortality throughout the entire postpartum period, with the highest mortality rate on the first day. Access to high-quality care during the postpartum period, including enhanced frequency and quality of postpartum assessments during the first 42 days after birth, is essential to improving maternal outcomes and to continue reducing maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020187341.

Factors that influence uptake of routine postnatal care: Findings on women's perspectives from a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Effective postnatal care is important for optimal care of women and newborns-to promote health and wellbeing, identify and treat clinical and psychosocial concerns, and to provide support for families. Yet uptake of formal postnatal care services is low and inequitable in many countries. As part of a larger study examining the views of women, partners, and families requiring both routine and specialised care, we analysed a subset of data on the views and experiences of women related to routine postnatal care. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis, using a framework analysis approach. We included studies published up to December 2019 with extractable qualitative data, with no language restriction. We focused on women in the general population and their accounts of routine postnatal care utilization. We searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, EBM-Reviews, and grey literature. Two reviewers screened each study independently; inclusion was agreed by consensus. Data abstraction and scientific quality assessment were carried out using a study-specific extraction form and established quality assessment tools. The analysis framework was developed a priori based on previous knowledge and research on the topic and adapted. Due to the number of included texts, the final synthesis was developed inductively from the initial framework by iterative sampling of the included studies, until data saturation was achieved. Findings are presented by high versus low/middle income country, and by confidence in the finding, applying the GRADE-CERQual approach. FINDINGS: Of 12,678 papers, 512 met the inclusion criteria; 59 articles were sampled for analysis. Five themes were identified: access and availability; physical and human resources; external influences; social norms; and experience of care. High confidence study findings included the perceived low value of postnatal care for healthy women and infants; concerns around access and quality of care; and women's desire for more emotional and psychosocial support during the postnatal period. These findings highlight multiple missed opportunities for postnatal care promotion and ensuring continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that influence women's utilization of postnatal care are interlinked, and include access, quality, and social norms. Many women recognised the specific challenges of the postnatal period and emphasised the need for emotional and psychosocial support in this time, in addition to clinical care. While this is likely a universal need, studies on mental health needs have predominantly been conducted in high-income settings. Postnatal care programmes and related research should consider these multiple drivers and multi-faceted needs, and the holistic postpartum needs of women and their families should be studied in a wider range of settings. REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered in the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews: CRD42019139183.

Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before.

BACKGROUND: Due to the explosion in rapid reviews in the literature during COVID-19, their utility in universal health coverage and in other routine situations, there is now a need to document and further advance the application of rapid review methods, particularly in low-resource settings where a scarcity of resources may preclude the production of a full systematic review. This is the introductory article for a series of articles to further the discussion of rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making. MAIN BODY: The series of papers builds on a practical guide on the conduct and reporting of rapid reviews that was published in 2019. The first paper provides an evaluation of a rapid review platform that was implemented in four centers in low-resource settings, the second paper presents approaches to tailor the methods for decision-makers through rapid reviews, the third paper focuses on selecting different types of rapid review products, and the fourth pertains to reporting the results from a rapid review. CONCLUSION: Rapid reviews have a great potential to inform universal health coverage and global health security interventions, moving forward, including preparedness and response plans to future pandemics. This series of articles will be useful for both researchers leading rapid reviews, as well as decision-makers using the results from rapid reviews.

Paper 1: Demand-driven rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: lessons from Lebanon, Ethiopia, and South Africa on researchers and policymakers' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews have emerged as an approach to provide contextualized evidence in a timely and efficient manner. Three rapid review centers were established in Ethiopia, Lebanon, and South Africa through the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, to stimulate demand, engage policymakers, and produce rapid reviews to support health policy and systems decision-making. This study aimed to assess the experiences of researchers and policymakers engaged in producing and using rapid reviews for health systems strengthening and decisions towards universal health coverage (UHC). METHODS: Using a case study approach with qualitative research methods, experienced researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with respondents from each center (n = 16). The topics covered included the process and experience of establishing the centers, stimulating demand for rapid reviews, collaborating between researchers and policymakers, and disseminating and using rapid reviews for health policies and interventions and the potential for sustaining and institutionalizing the services. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Major themes interacted and contributed to shape the experiences of stakeholders of the rapid review centers, including the following: organizational structural arrangements of the centers, management of their processes as input factors, and the rapid reviews as the immediate policy-relevant outputs. The engagement process and the rapid review products contributed to a final theme of impact of the rapid review centers in relation to the uptake of evidence for policy and systems decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of policymakers and researchers of the rapid review centers determined the uptake of evidence. The findings of this study can inform policymakers, health system managers, and researchers on best practices for demanding, developing and using rapid reviews to support decision- and policymaking, and implementing the universal healthcare coverage agenda.

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.

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.

Enhancing quality midwifery care in humanitarian and fragile settings: a systematic review of interventions, support systems and enabling environments.

INTRODUCTION: Women and children bear a substantial burden of the impact of conflict and instability. The number of people living in humanitarian and fragile settings (HFS) has increased significantly over the last decade. The provision of essential maternal and newborn healthcare by midwives is crucial everywhere, especially in HFS. There is limited knowledge about the interventions, support systems and enabling environments that enhance midwifery care in these settings. The aim of this paper is to identify the factors affecting an enabling environment for midwives in HFS and to explore the availability and effectiveness of support systems for midwives. METHODS: A structured systematic review was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed primary research articles published between 1995 and 2020. RESULTS: In total, 24 papers were included from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Sudan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Uganda and Liberia. There were two broad themes: (1) the facilitators of, and barriers to, an enabling environment, and (2) the importance of effective support systems for midwives. Facilitators were: community involvement and engagement and an adequate salary, incentives or benefits. Barriers included: security and safety concerns, culture and gender norms and a lack of infrastructure and supplies. Support systems were: education, professional development, supportive supervision, mentorship and workforce planning. CONCLUSION: More efforts are needed to develop and implement quality midwifery services in HFS. There is an urgent need for more action and financing to ensure better outcomes and experiences for all women, girls and families living in these settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226323.