The emergence and regression of political priority for refugee integration into the Jordanian health system: an analysis using the Kingdon's multiple streams model.

BACKGROUND: The prolonged presence of Syrian refugees in Jordan has highlighted the need for sustainable health service delivery models for refugees. In 2012, the Jordanian government adopted a policy that granted Syrian refugees access, free of charge, to the national health system. However since 2012, successive policy revisions have limited refugee access. This paper seeks to understand factors that initially put refugee integration into the health system on the policy agenda, as well as how these same factors later affected commitment to sustain the policy. METHODS: This paper draws on data from a document review of 197 peer-reviewed and grey literature publications, a media analysis of newspaper articles retrieved from four officially recognized newspapers in Jordan, and 33 semi-structured key informant interviews. We used Kingdon's Multiple Streams Model - a well-established tool for analyzing policy adoption - to understand how political priority developed for integration of refugees into the health system. RESULTS: We find that several factors helped bring attention to the issue, namely concerns over infectious disease transmission to host communities, high rates of chronic conditions among the refugee population and the increasingly urban and dispersed nature of refugees. At the outset of the conflict, the national mood was receptive to refugees. Politicians and government officials quickly recognized the crisis as an opportunity to secure material and technical support from the international humanitarian community. At the same time, global pressures for integrating refugees into national health systems helped move the integration agenda forward in Jordan and the region more broadly. Since 2012, there were several modifications to the policy that signal profound changes in national views around the continued presence of Syrian refugees in the country, as well as reduced external financial support which has undermined the sustainability of the policy. CONCLUSION: This case study underscores the dynamic nature of policymaking and the challenge of sustaining government commitment to the right to health among refugees. Our analysis has important implications for advocates seeking to advance and maintain momentum for the integration of refugees into national health systems.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Public health effects of travel-related policies on the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. DESIGN: Policy mapping and systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. CONCLUSION: Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.

Health-related articles on Syria before and after the start of armed conflict: a scoping review for The Lancet-American University of Beirut Commission on Syria.

INTRODUCTION: Armed conflict may influence the size and scope of research in Arab countries. We aimed to assess the impact of the 2011 Syrian conflict on health articles about Syria published in indexed journals. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review on Syrian health-related articles using seven electronic databases. We included clinical, biomedical, public health, or health system topics published between 1991 and 2017. We excluded animal studies and studies conducted on Syrian refugees. We used descriptive and social network analyses to assess the differences in rates, types, topics of articles, and authorship before and after 2011, the start of the Syrian conflict. RESULTS: Of 1138 articles, 826 (72.6%) were published after 2011. Articles published after 2011 were less likely to be primary research; had a greater proportion reporting on mental health (4.6% vs. 10.0%), accidents and injuries (2.3% vs. 18.8%), and conflict and health (1.7% vs. 7.8%) (all p < 0.05); and a lower proportion reporting on child and maternal health (8.1 to 3.6%, p = 0.019). The proportion of research articles reporting no funding increased from 1.1 to 14.6% (p < 0.01). While international collaborations increased over time, the number of articles with no authors affiliated to Syrian institutions overtook those with at least one author affiliation to a Syrian institution for the first time in 2015. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of armed conflict on health scholarship in Syria. The Syrian conflict was associated with a change in the rates, types, and topics of the health-related articles, and authors' affiliations. Our findings have implications for the prioritization of research funding, development of inclusive research collaborations, and promoting the ethics of conducting research in complex humanitarian settings.

Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and types of conflict of interest (COI) disclosed by authors of primary studies of health policy and systems research (HPSR). DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data extraction. We conducted descriptive analyses. SETTING: We collected data from papers published in 2016 in 'health policy and service journals' category in Web of Science database. PARTICIPANTS: We included primary studies (eg, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, qualitative studies) of HPSR published in English in 2016 peer-reviewed health policy and services journals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported COI disclosures including whether authors reported COI or not, form in which COI disclosures were provided, number of authors per paper who report any type of COI, number of authors per paper who report specific types and subtypes of COI. RESULTS: We included 200 eligible primary studies of which 132 (66%) included COI disclosure statements of authors. Of the 132 studies, 19 (14%) had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI and the most frequently reported type was individual financial COI (n=15, 11%). None of the authors reported individual intellectual COIs or personal COIs. Financial and individual COIs were reported more frequently compared with non-financial and institutional COIs. CONCLUSION: A low percentage of HPSR primary studies included authors reporting COI. Non-financial or institutional COIs were the least reported types of COI.

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

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

Health care workers in conflict and post-conflict settings: Systematic mapping of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are essential for the delivery of health care services in conflict areas and in rebuilding health systems post-conflict. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically identify and map the published evidence on HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings. Our ultimate aim is to inform researchers and funders on research gap on this subject and support relevant stakeholders by providing them with a comprehensive resource of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mapping of the literature. We included a wide range of study designs, addressing any type of personnel providing health services in either conflict or post-conflict settings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and built two interactive systematic maps organized by country, study design and theme. RESULTS: Out of 13,863 identified citations, we included a total of 474 studies: 304 on conflict settings, 149 on post-conflict settings, and 21 on both conflict and post-conflict settings. For conflict settings, the most studied counties were Iraq (15%), Syria (15%), Israel (10%), and the State of Palestine (9%). The most common types of publication were opinion pieces in conflict settings (39%), and primary studies (33%) in post-conflict settings. In addition, most of the first and corresponding authors were affiliated with countries different from the country focus of the paper. Violence against health workers was the most tackled theme of papers reporting on conflict settings, while workforce performance was the most addressed theme by papers reporting on post-conflict settings. The majority of papers in both conflict and post-conflict settings did not report funding sources (81% and 53%) or conflicts of interest of authors (73% and 62%), and around half of primary studies did not report on ethical approvals (45% and 41%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic mapping provides a comprehensive database of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale that is often needed to inform policies and strategies on effective workforce planning and management and in reducing emigration. It can also be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps to direct future primary research, and knowledge clusters.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update. OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines. METHODS: We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way. RESULTS: Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders' input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises' outputs. CONCLUSIONS: This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review. We searched Medline and CINAHL databases in addition to Cochrane website and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 31 articles reporting on 29 studies: seven proposed approaches for prioritization and 25 conducted prioritization exercises (three studies did both). The included studies addressed the following fields: clinical (n = 19; 66%), public health (n = 10; 34%), and health policy and systems (n = 8; 28%), with six studies (21%) addressing more than one field. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Twenty-eight studies (97%) involved or proposed involving stakeholders in the priority-setting process. These 28 studies referred to twelve stakeholder categories, most frequently to health care providers (n = 24; 86%) and researchers (n = 21; 75%). A common framework of 25 prioritization criteria was derived, clustered in 10 domains. CONCLUSION: We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context.

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines. METHODS: We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing for reproducibility. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study. RESULTS: Our search captured 33,339 unique citations out of which we identified 10 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development. All of the identified approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics but none on prioritizing recommendation questions or outcomes. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%) and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. The most frequently reported criteria were the health burden of disease which was included in all of the approaches, practice variation (8 out of 10, 80%), and impact on health outcomes (7 out of 10, 70%). Two of the identified approaches stood out as being comprehensive and detailed. CONCLUSIONS: We described 10 prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines. There is a need to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the identified approaches and to develop standardized and validated priority setting tools.

Quality, safety and performance management in primary health care: from scoping review to research priority setting and implementation plan in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

INTRODUCTION: Strong primary health care (PHC) leads to better health outcomes, improves health equity and accelerates progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The Astana Declaration on PHC emphasised the importance of quality care to achieve UHC. A comprehensive understanding of the quality paradigm of PHC is critical, yet it remains elusive in countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). This study used a multistep approach to generate a policy-relevant research agenda for strengthening quality, safety and performance management in PHC in the EMR. METHODS: A multistep approach was adopted, encompassing the following steps: scoping review and generation of evidence and gap maps, validation and ranking exercises, and development of an approach for research implementation. We followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting scoping reviews and a method review of the literature to build the evidence and gap maps. For the validation and ranking exercises, we purposively sampled 55 high-level policy-makers and stakeholders from selected EMR countries. We used explicit multicriteria for ranking the research questions emerging from the gap maps. The approach for research implementation was adapted from the literature and subsequently tailored to address the top ranked research question. RESULTS: The evidence and gap maps revealed limited production of research evidence in the area of quality, safety and performance management in PHC by country and by topic. The priority setting exercises generated a ranked list of 34 policy-relevant research questions addressing quality, safety and performance management in PHC in the EMR. The proposed research implementation plan involves collaborative knowledge generation with policy-makers along with knowledge translation and impact assessment. CONCLUSION: Study findings can help inform and direct future plans to generate, disseminate and use research evidence to enhance quality, safety and performance management in PHC in EMR and beyond. Study methodology can help bridge the gap between research and policy-making.

Health Care Workers in the setting of the "Arab Spring": a scoping review for the Lancet-AUB Commission on Syria.

BACKGROUND: "Health Care Workers in Conflict Areas" emerged as one of the priority themes for a Lancet Commission addressing health in conflict. The objective of our study was to conduct a scoping review on health workers in the setting of the Syrian conflict, addressing four topics of interest: violence against health care workers, education, practicing in conflict setting, and migration. METHODS: Considering the likelihood of scarcity of data, we broadened the scope of the scoping review to include indirect evidence on health care workers from other countries affected by the "Arab Spring". We electronically searched six electronic databases. We conducted descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers. We also used the results of this scoping review to build an evidence gap map. RESULTS: Out of the 11 165 identified citations, 136 met our eligibility criteria. The majority of the articles tackled the issue of violence against health care workers (63%) followed by practicing in conflict setting (19%), migration (17%) and education (10%). Countries in focus of most articles were: Syria (35%), Iraq (33%), and Bahrain (29%). News, editorials, commentaries and opinion pieces made up 81% of all included papers, while primary studies made up only 9%. All the primary studies identified in this review were conducted on Iraq. Most of the articles about violence against health care workers were on Bahrain, followed by Syria and Iraq. The first and corresponding authors were most frequently affiliated with institutions from non-Arab countries (79% and 79% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Research evidence on health care workers in the setting of the "Arab Spring" is scarce. This review and the gap map can inform the research agendas of funders and researchers working in the field of health care workers in conflict setting. More well-designed primary studies are needed to inform the decisions of policymakers and other interested parties.

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. RESULTS: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. CONCLUSION: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR. METHODS: We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the 'Health Policy and Services' (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal's characteristics. RESULTS: We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals' characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.

Health research institutional mapping: an Eastern Mediterranean Regional perspective.

BACKGROUND: Research-conducive environments are mandatory for planning, implementing and translating research findings into evidence-informed health policies. AIM: This study aimed at comprehensive situation analysis of health research institutions in the Region. METHODS: We collected data on: institutional characteristics, research scope, capacity building, ethics, governance and resources. RESULTS: We contacted 575 institutions, of which, 223 (38.8%) responded, indicating that they conducted population research (82%). Reported studies were mostly in medicine, public health and epidemiology, while reported capacity building mainly focused on scientific writing (20.6%), research proposal writing (18%) and quantitative research methods (17%). Most institutions reported having collaborating partners (82%) - predominantly national (77%). Sixty-four percent of institutions received their own funding, with 48% reporting always having access to national databases. CONCLUSION: Governments in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and international funding agencies are called upon to support health research production through increasing allocated support and capacity building in health research.

Public health journals' requirements for authors to disclose funding and conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Public health journals need to have clear policies for reporting the funding of studies and authors' personal financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures. This study aims to assess the policies of public health journals on reporting of study funding and the disclosure of authors' COIs. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of "Public, Environmental & Occupational Health" journals. Teams of two researchers abstracted data in duplicate and independently using REDCap software. RESULTS: Of 173 public health journals, 155 (90%) had a policy for reporting study funding information. Out of these, a majority did not require reporting of the phase of the study for which funding was received (88%), nor the types of funding sources (87%). Of the 173 journals, 163 (94%) had a policy requiring disclosure of authors' COI. However, the majority of these journals did not require financial conflicts of interest disclosures relating to institutions (75%) nor to the author's family members (90%) while 56% required the disclosure of at least one form of non-financial COI. CONCLUSIONS: The policies of the majority of public health journals do not require the reporting of important details such as the role of the funder, and non-financial COI. Journals and publishers should consider revising their editorial policies to ensure complete and transparent reporting of funding and COI.