'If you want to go far, go together'-community-based behaviour change interventions to improve antibiotic use: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of the burden of infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria is linked to community-associated infections. This suggests that interventions set in community settings are needed. Currently there is a gap in understanding the potential of such interventions across all geographies. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the value of community-based behaviour change interventions to improve antibiotic use. These are any interventions or innovations to services intended to stimulate behaviour changes among the public towards correct antibiotic use, delivered in a community setting and online. METHODS: Systematic searches of studies published after 2001 were performed in several databases. Of 14 319 articles identified, 73 articles comprising quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Findings showed positive emerging evidence of the benefits of community-based behaviour change interventions to improve antibiotic use, with multifaceted interventions offering the highest benefit. Interventions that combine educational aspects with persuasion may be more effective than solely educational interventions. The review uncovered difficulties in assessing this type of research and highlights the need for standardized approaches in study design and outcomes measurements. There is emerging, but limited, indication on these interventions' cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers should consider the potential of community-based behaviour change interventions to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), complementing the clinical-based approaches. In addition to the direct AMR benefits, these could serve also as a means of (re)building trust, due to their inclusive participation leading to greater public ownership and use of community channels.

Family doctors' roles and perceptions on antibiotic consumption and antibiotic resistance in Romania: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health issue, bringing significant health burden and costs to societies. Increased antibiotic consumption (ABC) is linked to AMR emergence. Some of the known drivers of ABC are antibiotics over-prescription by physicians and their misuse by patients. Family doctors are recognised as important stakeholders in the control of ABC as they prescribe antibiotics and are considered a reliable source of medical information by patients. Therefore, it is important to explore their perceptions, especially in Romania, which has the highest ABC among European Union Member States. Furthermore, there is no published research exploring Romanian family doctors' perceptions regarding this phenomenon. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with data collection via semi-structured interviews among 12 family doctors. Manifest and latent content analysis was used to gain an in-depth understanding of their perceptions. Findings were mapped onto the domains of the Behaviour Change Wheel to facilitate a theory driven systematization and analysis. RESULTS: Two main subthemes emerged: i) factors affecting ABC and prescribing and ii) potential interventions to tackle ABC and antibiotic resistance. The factors were further grouped in those that related to the perceived behaviour of family doctors or patients as well as those that had to do with the various systems, local contexts and the COVID-19 pandemic. An overarching theme: 'family doctors in Romania see their role differently when it comes to antibiotic resistance and perceive the lack of patient education or awareness as one of the major drivers of ABC' was articulated. The main findings suggested that the perceived factors span across the capability, opportunity and motivational domains of the behaviour change wheel and could be addressed through a variety of interventions - some identified by the participants. Findings can also be viewed through cultural lenses which shed further light on the family doctor- patient dynamic when it comes to antibiotics use. CONCLUSION: Potential interventions to tackle identified factors emerged, revolving mostly on efforts to educate patients or the public. This exploratory research provides key perspectives and facilitates further research on potential interventions to successfully address AMR in Romania or similar settings.

PIPDeploy: Development and implementation of a gamified table top simulation exercise to strengthen national pandemic vaccine preparedness and readiness.

Successful emergency vaccination campaigns rely on effective deployment and vaccination plans. This applies to localised outbreaks as well as for pandemics. In the wake of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, analysis of the global Vaccine Deployment Initiative, through which the World Health Organization (WHO) donated pandemic influenza vaccines to countries in need, revealed that an absence of vaccine deployment plans in many countries significantly hindered vaccine deployment. Through the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2011, WHO is engaging in several capacity building activities to improve pandemic influenza preparedness and response and make provisions for access to vaccines and sharing of other benefits. The Framework calls for the development and exercise of operational plans for deployment of influenza vaccines to enhance pandemic preparedness. To this end, WHO has supported the development of PIPDeploy, an interactive, in-person table top simulation exercise to facilitate learning for emergency preparedness. It employs various game design elements including a game board, time pressure, leaderboards and teams to enhance participants' motivation. PIPDeploy formed part of five WHO Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Deployment Workshops attended by national-level managers responsible for pandemic influenza vaccine response predominantly in non-producing countries. The purpose of this study was to describe the features and application of PIPDeploy, and present findings of the evaluation of participants' experiences during the simulation involving a "hot wash" discussion and collection of quantitative data. The simulation's instructional approach was widely accepted by participants, who reported that the format was novel and engaging. They reflected on its utility for identifying gaps in their own vaccine deployment plans and regulatory frameworks for importation of vaccine products. All participants found the simulation relevant to their professional objectives. A range of other potential applications were suggested, including PIPDeploy's adaptation to sub-national contexts and to other epidemic diseases.

Framework for Managing the COVID-19 Infodemic: Methods and Results of an Online, Crowdsourced WHO Technical Consultation.

BACKGROUND: An infodemic is an overabundance of information-some accurate and some not-that occurs during an epidemic. In a similar manner to an epidemic, it spreads between humans via digital and physical information systems. It makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it. OBJECTIVE: A World Health Organization (WHO) technical consultation on responding to the infodemic related to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was held, entirely online, to crowdsource suggested actions for a framework for infodemic management. METHODS: A group of policy makers, public health professionals, researchers, students, and other concerned stakeholders was joined by representatives of the media, social media platforms, various private sector organizations, and civil society to suggest and discuss actions for all parts of society, and multiple related professional and scientific disciplines, methods, and technologies. A total of 594 ideas for actions were crowdsourced online during the discussions and consolidated into suggestions for an infodemic management framework. RESULTS: The analysis team distilled the suggestions into a set of 50 proposed actions for a framework for managing infodemics in health emergencies. The consultation revealed six policy implications to consider. First, interventions and messages must be based on science and evidence, and must reach citizens and enable them to make informed decisions on how to protect themselves and their communities in a health emergency. Second, knowledge should be translated into actionable behavior-change messages, presented in ways that are understood by and accessible to all individuals in all parts of all societies. Third, governments should reach out to key communities to ensure their concerns and information needs are understood, tailoring advice and messages to address the audiences they represent. Fourth, to strengthen the analysis and amplification of information impact, strategic partnerships should be formed across all sectors, including but not limited to the social media and technology sectors, academia, and civil society. Fifth, health authorities should ensure that these actions are informed by reliable information that helps them understand the circulating narratives and changes in the flow of information, questions, and misinformation in communities. Sixth, following experiences to date in responding to the COVID-19 infodemic and the lessons from other disease outbreaks, infodemic management approaches should be further developed to support preparedness and response, and to inform risk mitigation, and be enhanced through data science and sociobehavioral and other research. CONCLUSIONS: The first version of this framework proposes five action areas in which WHO Member States and actors within society can apply, according to their mandate, an infodemic management approach adapted to national contexts and practices. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and the related infodemic require swift, regular, systematic, and coordinated action from multiple sectors of society and government. It remains crucial that we promote trusted information and fight misinformation, thereby helping save lives.

The effectiveness of community-based social innovations for healthy ageing in middle- and high-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Community-based social innovations (CBSIs) are one type of intervention that may help to address the complex needs of ageing populations globally. The aim of this research was to assess evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CBSIs involving in such contexts. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of CBSIs for healthy ageing in middle- and high-income countries, including any CBSI that aimed to empower people aged 50 and over by motivating them to take initiative for their own health and wellbeing. The protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD 42016051622). A comprehensive search was conducted in 15 academic databases and advanced search in Google. We included published studies from 2000 onwards in any language. Exploratory meta-analysis was conducted for quantitative studies reporting similar outcomes, and qualitative studies were analysed using thematic analysis. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Searches yielded 13,262 unique hits, from which 44 papers met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Most studies reported interventions having positive impacts on participants, such as reduced depression, though the majority of studies were classified as being at medium or high risk of bias. There was no evidence on costs or cost-effectiveness and very little reporting of outcomes at an organization or system level. CBSIs have the potential for positive impacts, but with nearly half of studies coming from high-income urban settings (particularly the United Kingdom and the United States of America), there is a lack of generalizability of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our research highlights the need to improve reporting of CBSIs as complex interventions, and for improved conceptualization of these interventions to inform research and practice.

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work. METHODS: A total of 1386 projects were identified as 'public health research' by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000-2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis. RESULTS: In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as 'public health research' are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local 'unintended' impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels. CONCLUSIONS: Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

The National Institute for Health Research at 10 Years: An Impact Synthesis: 100 Impact Case Studies.

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funds and supports world-leading clinical and applied health and social care research, as well as research infrastructure in the NHS. Providing £1 billion of funding each year, NIHR aims to: drive the faster translation of new treatments, technologies and diagnostics to improve outcomes for health and care services; promote the wealth of the nation, including via inward investment from the health research community; pull basic science discoveries through into tangible benefits for patients and the public; and provide research evidence to support more effective and cost-effective NHS delivery. To mark its tenth anniversary, the Department of Health commissioned the Policy Research in Science and Medicine unit to consider the question: "What are the ways in which NIHR has benefited the health research landscape in the past ten years?" This study identifies and celebrates 100 examples of positive change resulting from NIHR's support of research. A synthesis of 100 case studies is provided, which highlights the benefits and wider impacts of research, capacity building, and other activities undertaken with NIHR's support since its creation in 2006. The study concludes with a reflection of how the NIHR has transformed R&D in and for the NHS and wider health service, and the people they serve. The study draws together---for the first time---examples of the breadth of NIHR's impacts in a single resource. It will be of interest to healthcare professionals involved in research, academics working in health and social care, and members of the public wishing to understand the value of research in the NHS and the wider health and care system.

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review for funding allocation, given its centrality to the modern system of science. From the available evidence, we can identify some conclusions around the effectiveness and burden of peer review. The strongest evidence around effectiveness indicates a bias against innovative research. There is also fairly clear evidence that peer review is, at best, a weak predictor of future research performance, and that ratings vary considerably between reviewers. There is some evidence of age bias and cronyism. Good evidence shows that the burden of peer review is high and that around 75% of it falls on applicants. By contrast, many of the efforts to reduce burden are focused on funders and reviewers/panel members. Conclusions: We suggest funders should acknowledge, assess and analyse the uncertainty around peer review, even using reviewers' uncertainty as an input to funding decisions. Funders could consider a lottery element in some parts of their funding allocation process, to reduce both burden and bias, and allow better evaluation of decision processes. Alternatively, the distribution of scores from different reviewers could be better utilised as a possible way to identify novel, innovative research. Above all, there is a need for open, transparent experimentation and evaluation of different ways to fund research. This also requires more openness across the wider scientific community to support such investigations, acknowledging the lack of evidence about the primacy of the current system and the impossibility of achieving perfection.