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.

From knowledge production to knowledge translation: Waterpipe tobacco control research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) rates in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) are the highest worldwide, particularly among young people. Although fiscal policies to curb tobacco use have been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), implementation has been suboptimal. The Eastern Mediterranean Consortium on the Economics of Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking (ECON-WTS) was formed in response to this need to produce knowledge on the economics of WTS in the EMR and apply a comprehensive Knowledge translation (KT) framework. The KT framework comprised priority setting, evidence synthesis, knowledge translation, and knowledge uptake. In this article, we discuss the approaches followed in applying the KT framework to WTS control, providing examples and noting challenges and lessons learned where possible.

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.

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.

Exploring the diverse definitions of 'evidence': a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically collect and analyse diverse definitions of 'evidence' in both health and social sciences, and help users to correctly use the term 'evidence' and rethink what is the definition of 'evidence' in scientific research. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Definitions of evidence in the health sciences and social sciences were included. We have excluded the definition of evidence applied in the legal field, abstracts without full text, documents not published in either Chinese or English and so on. We established a multidisciplinary working group and systematically searched five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, EBSCO, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and the Chinese Science Citation Database from their inception to 26 February 2022. We also searched websites and reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. Six reviewers working in pairs, independently, selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted information. Any differences were discussed in pairs, and if there was disagreement, it was resolved via discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted document characteristics, the original content for the definitions of 'evidence', assessed definitions as either intensional or extensional, and any citations for the given definition. RESULTS: Forty-nine documents were finally included after screening, and 68 definitions were obtained. After excluding duplicates, a total of 54 different definitions of 'evidence' were identified. There were 42 intensional definitions and 12 extensional definitions. The top three definiens were 'information', 'fact' and 'research/study'. The definition of 'evidence' differed between health and social sciences. The term 'research' appeared most frequently in the definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of 'evidence' has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars and decision-makers in health and social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no widely recognised and accepted definition in scientific research. Given the wide use of the term, we need to think about whether, or under what circumstances, a standardised, clear, meaningful and widely applicable definition of 'evidence' might be helpful.

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.

Exploring patient perspectives: A qualitative inquiry into healthcare perceptions, experiences and satisfaction in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: Patient perspectives have received increasing importance within health systems over the past four decades. Measures of patient experience and satisfaction are commonly used. However, these measures do not capture all the information that is available through engaging with patients. An improved understanding of the various types of patient perspectives and the distinctions between them is needed. The lack of such knowledge limits the usefulness of including patient perspectives as components within pay-for-performance initiatives. This study aimed to explore patient perspectives on hospital care in Lebanon. It also aimed to contribute insights that may improve the national pay-for-performance initiative and to the knowledge on engaging patients towards person-centered health systems. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group discussions with persons recently discharged after hospitalization under the coverage of the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health. This study was implemented in 2017 and involved 42 participants across eight focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the information provided by participants. RESULTS: Five overall themes supported by 17 categories were identified, capturing the meaning of the participants' perspectives: health is everything; being turned into second class citizens; money and personal connections make all the difference; wanting to be treated with dignity and respect; and tolerating letdown, for the sake of right treatment. The most frequently prioritized statement in a ranking exercise regarding patient satisfaction was regular contact with the patient's doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives include more than what is traditionally incorporated in measures of patient satisfaction and experience. Patient valuing of health and their perceptions on each of the health system, and access and quality of care should also be taken into account. Hospital pay-for-performance initiatives can be made more responsive through a broader consideration of these perspectives. More broadly, health systems would benefit from wider engagement of patients. We propose a framework relating patient perspectives to value-based healthcare and health system performance.

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.

An effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial of phone-based tobacco cessation interventions in the Lebanese primary healthcare system: protocol for project PHOENICS.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use remains the leading cause of preventable disease, disability, and death in the world. Lebanon has an exceptionally high tobacco use burden. The World Health Organization endorses smoking cessation advice integrated into primary care settings as well as easily accessible and free phone-based counseling and low-cost pharmacotherapy as standard of practice for population-level tobacco dependence treatment. Although these interventions can increase access to tobacco treatment and are highly cost-effective compared with other interventions, their evidence base comes primarily from high-income countries, and they have rarely been evaluated in low- and middle-income countries. Recommended interventions are not integrated as a routine part of primary care in Lebanon, as in other low-resource settings. Addressing this evidence-to-practice gap requires research on multi-level interventions and contextual factors for implementing integrated, scalable, and sustainable cessation treatment within low-resource settings. METHODS: The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of promising multi-component interventions for implementing evidence-based tobacco treatment in primary healthcare centers within the Lebanese National Primary Healthcare Network. We will adapt and tailor an existing in-person smoking cessation program to deliver phone-based counseling to smokers in Lebanon. We will then conduct a three-arm group-randomized trial of 1500 patients across 24 clinics comparing (1) ask about tobacco use; advise to quit; assist with brief counseling (AAA) as standard care; (2) ask; advise; connect to phone-based counseling (AAC); and (3) AAC + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). We will also evaluate the implementation process to measure factors that influence implementation. Our central hypothesis is that connecting patients to phone-based counseling with NRT is the most effective alternative. This study will be guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework, supported by Proctor's framework for implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: The project addresses the evidence-to-practice gap in the provision of tobacco dependence treatment within low-resource settings by developing and testing contextually tailored multi-level interventions while optimizing implementation success and sustainability. This research is significant for its potential to guide the large-scale adoption of cost-effective strategies for implementing tobacco dependence treatment in low-resource settings, thereby reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05628389, Registered 16 November 2022.

Digital health in fragile states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: A scoping review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Conflict, fragility and political violence, that are taking place in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region have devastating effects on health. Digital health technologies can contribute to enhancing the quality, accessibility and availability of health care services in fragile and conflict-affected states of the MENA region. To inform future research, investments and policy processes, this scoping review aims to map out the evidence on digital health in fragile states in the MENA region. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. We conducted descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and thematic analysis of the key findings of included studies categorized by targeted primary users of different digital health intervention. RESULTS: Out of the 10,724 articles identified, we included 93 studies. The included studies mainly focused on digital health interventions targeting healthcare providers, clients and data services, while few studies focused on health systems or organizations managers. Most of the included studies were observational studies (49%). We identified no systematic reviews. Most of the studies were conducted in Lebanon (32%) followed by Afghanistan (13%) and Palestine (12%). The first authors were mainly affiliated with institutions from countries outside the MENA region (57%), mainly United Kingdom and United States. Digital health interventions provided a platform for training, supervision, and consultation for health care providers, continuing education for medical students, and disease self-management. The review also highlighted some implementation considerations for the adoption of digital health such as computer literacy, weak technological infrastructure, and privacy concerns. CONCLUSION: This review showed that digital health technologies can provide promising solutions in addressing health needs in fragile and conflict-affected states. However, rigorous evaluation of digital technologies in fragile settings and humanitarian crises are needed to inform their design and deployment.

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.

Developing Capacity in Dissemination and Implementation Research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Evaluation of a Training Workshop.

As the demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research grows globally, there is a need for D&I capacity building in regions where D&I science is underrepresented. The Workshop on Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (WONDIRH) was aimed for participants in the Eastern Mediterranean region to (1) appreciate the complex process of bridging research and practice in a variety of real-world settings, and (2) develop research that balances rigor with relevance and employs study designs and methods appropriate for the complex processes involved in D&I. The present exploratory study investigates participants' satisfaction with the workshop, the enhancement of their self-rated confidence in D&I skills, as well as their intention to apply the learned content into practice. The workshop included four weekly 90-min virtual interactive training sessions in conjunction with open access content from the National Cancer Institute Training Institute in Implementation and Dissemination Research in Cancer (TIDIRC). We applied a one-group pre-post design for the evaluation of workshop. Participants were invited to self-rate their confidence in D&I competencies (15 items, pre and post workshop). At the end of the workshop, participants additionally were asked to rate their satisfaction (5 items, 1-5 scales), and their intention to apply the learned content into practice (4 items, 1-5 scales). Of the 77 workshop participants, 34 completed the evaluation. Confidence improved between pre- and post-workshop assessments in all 15 self-rated D&I competencies. Respondents were generally satisfied with the workshop (mean satisfaction range 3.82-4.26 across the 5 items) and endorsed intentions to apply workshop topics (mean intention range 4.03-4.35 across the 4 items). This initial workshop demonstrated the ability to attract and engage participants to enhance their confidence in D&I research competencies and skills and to build capacity in D&I research. Future efforts should consider offering targeted training for researchers at different stages and to clearly articulate learning objectives. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00067-y.

Characterising performance information use in the primary healthcare systems of El Salvador, Lebanon and Malawi: multiple qualitative case study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Governments in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and official development assistance agencies use a variety of performance measurement and management approaches to improve the performance of healthcare systems. The effectiveness of such approaches is contingent on the extent to which managers and care providers use performance information. To date, major knowledge gaps exist about the contextual factors that contribute, or not, to performance information use by primary healthcare (PHC) decision-makers in LMICs. This study will address three research questions: (1) How do decision-makers use performance information, and for what purposes? (2) What are the contextual factors that influence the use or non-use of performance information? and (3) What are the proximal outcomes reported by PHC decision-makers from performance information use? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We present the protocol of a theory-driven, qualitative study with a multiple case study design to be conducted in El Salvador, Lebanon and Malawi.Data sources include semi structured in-depth interviews and document review. Interviews will be conducted with approximately 60 respondents including PHC system decision-makers and providers. We follow an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that draws on health policy and systems research, public administration, organisational science and health service research. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis to explore how respondents use performance information or not, and for what purposes as well as barriers and facilitators of use. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethical boards of the participating universities approved the protocol presented here. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and global health conferences.

Baseline Assessment of Health Research Systems in Saudi Arabia: Harnessing Efforts and Mobilizing Actions.

Major transformations are taking place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to achieve the 2030 vision for the health sector. A key component in strengthening the health system is a strong research governance strategy that can support the decision-making process by providing timely and accurate evidence that reflects local context and needs. This paper sought to better understand governance structures and policies for health research systems and support clusters so that they function effectively. This paper outlines the findings of an in-depth baseline assessment of existing health research efforts, activities, and plans of eight research clusters in the KSA and identifies key gaps and strengths in health research governance and capabilities. A cross-sectional design was used to survey research clusters in KSA. A six-part survey was developed to better understand the research clusters' health research governance and capacities. The survey was sent to all KSA clusters and was completed in a group setting during meetings. Findings clearly show strong efforts to support research governance initiatives in health clusters in KSA. While some clusters are more advanced than others, there are plenty of opportunities to share knowledge and combine efforts to help achieve the goals set out for KSA health transformation. This baseline assessment also reflects the first attempt of its kind to understand the KSA experience and provide much-needed lessons on country-wide efforts to support the health system given the trickling effect of this sector on all others, enhancing and advancing national growth.

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.

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 ).

Preventing Unintentional Injuries in School-Aged Children: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Unintentional injuries constitute the leading causes of death and long-term disabilities among children aged 5 to 15 years. We aimed to systematically review published literature on interventions designed to prevent unintentional injuries among school-aged children. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO and screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. The focus of included studies was on primary prevention measures. Two reviewers collected data on type of study design, setting, population, intervention, types of injuries, outcomes assessed, and statistical results. RESULTS: Of 30 179 identified studies, 117 were included in this review. Most of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and addressed traffic-related injuries. Evidence from included studies reveals that multicomponent educational interventions may be effective in improving safety knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in school-aged children mainly when coupled with other approaches. Laws/legislation were shown to be effective in increasing cycle helmet use and reducing traffic-related injury rates. Findings reveal the relevance of infrastructure modification in reducing falls and improving pedestrian safety among children. CONCLUSIONS: Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of unintentional injury prevention interventions on injury, hospitalizations, and mortality rates and the impact of laws and legislation and infrastructure modification on preventing unintentional injuries among school-aged children.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area. METHODS: We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts. RESULTS: Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was 'researchers/academia' (n=17, 77%) followed by 'healthcare providers' (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was 'health burden' (n=12, 80%), followed by 'availability of resources' (n=11, 73%). CONCLUSION: We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

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.

Examining and Contextualizing Approaches to Establish Policy Support Organizations - A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: In response to worldwide calls for the need to support evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM), more countries are increasingly interested in enhancing their efforts to use research to inform policy-making. In order to inform the efforts of those asked to lead the support of EIPM, our aim is to develop a conceptual framework to guide the process of establishing a policy support organization (PSO). METHODS: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS). We conducted a two steps literature review. In the second step, we systematically searched OVID EMBASE, PsychInfo, HealthStar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Science Abstract, Health Systems Evidence, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases for documents reporting the establishment of PSOs and the contextual factors influencing the process of establishing these organizations. We assessed the eligibility of the retrieved articles and synthesized the findings iteratively. RESULTS: We included 52 documents in the synthesis. Our findings suggest that a PSO establishment process has four interconnected stages: awareness, development, assessment, and maturation. The process of establishing a PSO is iterative and influenced by political, research and health systems contextual factors, which determine the availability of the resources and the trust between researchers and policy-makers. The contextual factors have an impact on each other, and the challenges that arise from one factor can be mitigated by other factors. CONCLUSION: For those interested in establishing a PSO, our framework provides a road map for identifying the most appropriate starting point and the factors that might influence the establishment process. Leaders of such PSOs can use our findings to expand or refine their scope of work. Given that this framework focuses only on PSOs in the health sector, an important next step for research would be to include other sectors from social systems and identify any additional insight that can enhance our framework.