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.

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.

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.

Conceptual framework for systemic capacity strengthening for health policy and systems research.

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is critical in developing health systems to better meet the health needs of their populations. The highly contextualised nature of health systems point to the value of local knowledge and the need for context-embedded HPSR. Despite such need, relatively few individuals, groups or organisations carry out HPSR, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Greater effort is required to strengthen capacity for, and build the field of, HPSR by capturing the multilevel and nuanced representation of HPSR across contexts. No comprehensive frameworks were found that inform systemic HPSR capacity strengthening. Existing literature on capacity strengthening for health research and development tends to focus on individual-level capacity with less attention to collective, organisational and network levels. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for systemic capacity strengthening for HPSR, uniquely drawing attention to the blurred boundaries and amplification potential for synergistic capacity strengthening efforts across the individual, organisational and network levels. Further, it identifies guiding values and principles that consciously acknowledge and manage the power dynamics inherent to capacity strengthening work. The framework was developed drawing on available literature and was peer-reviewed by the Board and Thematic Working Groups of Health Systems Global. While the framework focuses on HPSR, it may provide a useful heuristic for systemic approaches to capacity strengthening more generally; facilitate its mainstreaming within organisations and networks and help maintain a focused approach to, and structure repositories of resources on, capacity strengthening.

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.

Funding for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean region: amount, source and key determinants.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the current state of funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) on a national level across the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), and to examine the key factors influencing funding for HPSR in the region. METHODS: A multistep approach was employed, involving a documentation review, secondary data analysis and key informant interviews with 30 stakeholders from five countries in the EMR. Findings are presented narratively (and where applicable as percentages). RESULTS: National funding for research and development (R&D) in general, and for health research in particular, has been low in comparative terms and lagging behind at the global scale, while funding for HPSR has been lacking on a national level. None of the 22 EMR countries studied had explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR. Analysis of funding sources of 1821 published HPSR articles in the EMR (2010-2019) showed that the most notable source was external/international grants (45.6%), followed by university/academia (35.1%), and government (9.5%). Although HPSR publications have been increasing over time, this still falls short of the scale needed for strengthening health systems and informing current transformations in the region. Findings from the interviews identified several factors influencing investment in or funding for HPSR in the EMR. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the EMR's policy priorities are related to health systems, however our research finds that overall investment in health research and HPSR is still low, with limited recognition of the importance of HPSR in the EMR.

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.

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.

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.

Using narratives to impact health policy-making: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is increased interest in using narratives or storytelling to influence health policies. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on the use of narratives to impact the health policy-making process. METHODS: Eligible study designs included randomised studies, non-randomised studies, process evaluation studies, economic studies, qualitative studies, stakeholder analyses, policy analyses, and case studies. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), WHO Global Health Library, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and Google Scholar databases were searched. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We synthesised the findings narratively and presented the results stratified according to the following stages of the policy cycle: (1) agenda-setting, (2) policy formulation, (3) policy adoption, (4) policy implementation and (5) policy evaluation. Additionally, we presented the knowledge gaps relevant to using narrative to impact health policy-making. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, and included case studies (n = 15), participatory action research (n = 1), documentary analysis (n = 1) and biographical method (n = 1). The majority were of very low methodological quality. In addition, none of the studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of the narrative-based interventions. Findings suggest that narratives may have a positive influence when used as inspiration and empowerment tools to stimulate policy inquiries, as educational and awareness tools to initiate policy discussions and gain public support, and as advocacy and lobbying tools to formulate, adopt or implement policy. There is also evidence of undesirable effects of using narratives. In one case study, narrative use led to widespread insurance reimbursement of a therapy for breast cancer that was later proven to be ineffective. Another case study described how the use of narrative inappropriately exaggerated the perceived risk of a procedure, which led to limiting its use and preventing a large number of patients from its benefits. A third case study described how optimistic 'cure' or 'hope' stories of children with cancer were selectively used to raise money for cancer research that ignored the negative realities. The majority of included studies did not provide information on the definition or content of narratives, the theoretical framework underlying the narrative intervention or the possible predictors of the success of narrative interventions. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence base precludes any robust inferences about the impact of narrative interventions on health policy-making. We discuss the implications of the findings for research and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID = CRD42018085011 ).

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of essential health benefits package within primary health care settings in low-income and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: One of the key requirements for achieving universal health coverage is the proper design and implementation of essential health benefits package (EHPs). We systematically reviewed the evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EHPs within primary health care settings in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: We searched multiple databases and the gray literature. Two reviewers completed independently and in duplicate data selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. We synthesized the findings according to the following health systems arrangement levels: governance, financial, and delivery arrangements. RESULTS: Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. At the governance level, key reported barriers were insufficient policymaker-implementer interactions, limited involvement of consumers and stakeholders, sub-optimal primary health care network arrangement, poor marketing and promotion of package, and insufficient coordination with community network. The key reported facilitator was the presence of a legal policy framework for package implementation. At the financial level, barriers included delays and inadequate remunerations to health care providers while facilitators included government and donor commitments to financing of package and flexibility in exploring new funding mechanisms. At the delivery level, barriers included inadequate supervision, poor facility infrastructure, limited availability of equipment and supplies, and shortages of workers. Facilitators included proper training and management of workforce, availability of female health workers, presence of clearly defined packages, and continuum of care, including referrals to promote comprehensive service delivery. CONCLUSION: We identified a set of barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed to ensure proper implementation of EHPs within primary health care settings.

Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: rising up to the global challenge through institutionalising partnerships with governments and communities.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development covers a wide range of interrelated goals, including poverty eradication and economic growth, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and peace for all people by 2030. Policy decisions to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) need to be informed by policy-relevant evidence co-designed and co-produced with the pertinent stakeholders, taking into consideration local and political contexts. Universities are uniquely placed to lead the cross-sectoral implementation of the SDGs and advance the 2030 agenda. This commentary provides the case for building, strengthening and institutionalising university partnerships with governments and communities to achieve the SDGs. The authors call for a change in mindsets and culture in both academia and government, and invite both parties to start the dialogue if we are to rise up to the global challenge.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation, uptake and sustainability of community-based health insurance schemes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Community-based health insurance (CBHI) has evolved as an alternative health financing mechanism to out of pocket payments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in areas where government or employer-based health insurance is minimal. This systematic review aimed to assess the barriers and facilitators to implementation, uptake and sustainability of CHBI schemes in LMICs. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases and grey literature. We included both quantitative and qualitative studies written in English language and published after year 1992. Two reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to complete study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. We synthesized the findings based on thematic analysis and categorized according to the ecological model into individual, interpersonal, community and systems levels. RESULTS: Of 15,510 citations, 51 met the eligibility criteria. Individual factors included awareness and understanding of the concept of CBHI, trust in scheme and scheme managers, perceived service quality, and demographic characteristics, which influenced enrollment and sustainability. Interpersonal factors such as household dynamics, other family members enrolled in the scheme, and social solidarity influenced enrollment and renewal of membership. Community-level factors such as culture and community involvement in scheme development influenced enrollment and sustainability of scheme. Systems-level factors encompassed governance, financial and delivery arrangement. Government involvement, accountability of scheme management, and strong policymaker-implementer relation facilitated implementation and sustainability of scheme. Packages that covered outpatient and inpatient care and those tailored to community needs contributed to increased enrollment. Amount and timing of premium collection was reported to negatively influence enrollment while factors reported as threats to sustainability included facility bankruptcy, operating on small budgets, rising healthcare costs, small risk pool, irregular contributions, and overutilization of services. At the delivery level, accessibility of facilities, facility environment, and health personnel influenced enrollment, service utilization and dropout rates. CONCLUSION: There are a multitude of interrelated factors at the individual, interpersonal, community and systems levels that drive the implementation, uptake and sustainability of CBHI schemes. We discuss the implications of the findings at the policy and research level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID = CRD42015019812 ).