Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 52
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD001174, 2019 12 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31858588

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Health professionals sometimes do not use the best evidence to treat their patients, in part due to unconscious acts of omission and information overload. Reminders help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know, or by presenting information in a different and more accessible format. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper are defined as information given to the health professional with each patient or encounter, provided on paper, in which no computer is involved in the production or delivery of the reminder. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper are relatively cheap interventions, and are especially relevant in settings where electronic clinical records are not widely available and affordable. This review is one of three Cochrane Reviews focused on the effectiveness of reminders in health care. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the effectiveness of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper in changing professional practice and improving patient outcomes. 2. To explore whether a number of potential effect modifiers influence the effectiveness of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 5 December 2018. We searched grey literature, screened individual journals, conference proceedings and relevant systematic reviews, and reviewed reference lists and cited references of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and non-randomised trials assessing the impact of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention (compared with usual care) or added to one or more co-interventions as a multicomponent intervention (compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component) on professional practice or patients' outcomes. We also included randomised and non-randomised trials comparing manually-generated reminders with other quality improvement (QI) interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data independently. We extracted the primary outcome as defined by the authors or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes in each study. We then calculated the median percentage improvement and interquartile range across the included studies that reported improvement related outcomes, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 63 studies (41 cluster-randomised trials, 18 individual randomised trials, and four non-randomised trials) that met all inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven studies reported usable data (64 comparisons). The studies were mainly located in North America (42 studies) and the UK (eight studies). Fifty-four studies took place in outpatient/ambulatory settings. The clinical areas most commonly targeted were cardiovascular disease management (11 studies), cancer screening (10 studies) and preventive care (10 studies), and most studies had physicians as their target population (57 studies). General management of a clinical condition (17 studies), test-ordering (14 studies) and prescription (10 studies) were the behaviours more commonly targeted by the intervention. Forty-eight studies reported changes in professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes (e.g. compliance with guidelines recommendations), 16 reported those changes measured as continuous process-of-care outcomes (e.g. number of days with catheters), eight reported dichotomous patient outcomes (e.g. mortality rates) and five reported continuous patient outcomes (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure). Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper probably improve professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes) compared with usual care (median improvement 8.45% (IQR 2.54% to 20.58%); 39 comparisons, 40,346 participants; moderate certainty of evidence) and may make little or no difference to continuous process-of-care outcomes (8 comparisons, 3263 participants; low certainty of evidence). Adding manually-generated paper reminders to one or more QI co-interventions may slightly improve professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes (median improvement 4.24% (IQR -1.09% to 5.50%); 12 comparisons, 25,359 participants; low certainty of evidence) and probably slightly improve professional practice measured as continuous outcomes (median improvement 0.28 (IQR 0.04 to 0.51); 2 comparisons, 12,372 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Compared with other QI interventions, manually-generated reminders may slightly decrease professional practice measured as process adherence outcomes (median decrease 7.9% (IQR -0.7% to 11%); 14 comparisons, 21,274 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether manually-generated reminders delivered on paper, compared with usual care or with other QI intervention, lead to better or worse patient outcomes (dichotomous or continuous), as the certainty of the evidence is very low (10 studies, 13 comparisons). Reminders added to other QI interventions may make little or no difference to patient outcomes (dichotomous or continuous) compared with the QI alone (2 studies, 2 comparisons). Regarding resource use, studies reported additional costs per additional point of effectiveness gained, but because of the different currencies and years used the relevance of those figures is uncertain. None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably lead to small to moderate increases in outcomes related to adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single QI intervention. It is uncertain whether reminders should be added to other QI intervention already in place in the health system, although the effects may be positive. If other QI interventions, such as patient or computerised reminders, are available, they should be preferred over manually-generated reminders, but under close evaluation in order to decrease uncertainty about their potential effect.

2.
Rev Med Chil ; 147(5): 602-611, 2019 May.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31859892

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) promote better quality and equity in health care and potentially they could improve patients' outcomes. However, their implementation is hindered by a number of factors including some related to health care professionals. AIM: To assess the perceptions and attitudes of primary care physicians regarding CPGs developed by the Chilean Ministry of Health in the context of the Health Sector Reform. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An adaptation of the survey "Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes towards Clinical Practice Guidelines" was sent to 1,264 primary care physicians in Chile and answered completely by 354. The analysis assessed the attitudes towards CPG, their use in primary care and their relationship with socio demographic features of respondents. RESULTS: Eighty two percent of respondents reviewed the flowcharts of the guidelines, 85% consulted their online version. The classification of evidence levels and the strength of recommendations generated a high level of confidence with the guidelines in 70 and 64% of respondents. Eighty five percent considered that CPG could help to standardize clinical practice. The most relevant barrier hindering CPG use was the lack of a brief, simple and easy to access format in 63% of respondents. The three dimensions of the theory of planned behavior (attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) were associated with a greater frequency of guideline use. A higher age and not being Chilean were associated with a lower frequency of use. CONCLUSIONS: The identified factors associated with CPG use should be considered in future guideline design.


Assuntos
Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Médicos de Atenção Primária/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Padrões de Prática Médica/normas , Atenção Primária à Saúde/normas , Adulto , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Chile , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/normas , Fidelidade a Diretrizes/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Médicos de Atenção Primária/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Inquéritos e Questionários
3.
Artigo em Espanhol, Português | PAHO-IRIS | ID: phr-51082

RESUMO

[EXTRACTO]. El enfoque de que la formulación de políticas debe fundamentarse en la evidencia —es decir, que las decisiones en cuanto a las políticas deben sustentarse en el uso sistemático y transparente de datos científicos— atrajo mucha atención internacional en los primeros años del milenio. El movimiento fue incentivado por el Informe mundial sobre el conocimiento orientado a mejorar la salud del 2004 y las declaraciones de las Cumbres Ministeriales sobre Investigación en Salud, celebradas en Ciudad de México en el 2005 y en Bamako (Malí) en el 2008 y convocadas ambas por la Organización Mundial de la Salud. De manera más reciente, en la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible, de las Naciones Unidas, se presentaron 17 objetivos para el desarrollo mundial, en los cuales las políticas fundamentadas en la investigación desempeñarán un papel clave...


[EXTRACTO]. A estratégia de formulação de políticas informadas por evidências – na qual as decisões políticas são informadas pelo uso sistemático e transparente de evidências – foi objeto de grande atenção internacional no início do milênio. O movimento foi impulsionado pelo Relatório mundial sobre conhecimentos para melhorar a saúde de 2004 e pelas declarações emitidas nas Reuniões de Cúpula Ministerial de Pesquisa em Saúde na Cidade do México em 2005 e em Bamaco, Mali, em 2008, ambas convocadas pela Organização Mundial da Saúde. Mais recentemente, a Agenda 2030 das Nações Unidas para o desenvolvimento sustentável formulou 17 objetivos para o desenvolvimento global, e as políticas informadas por pesquisa serão essenciais...


Assuntos
Sistemas de Saúde , Saúde Pública , Política Informada por Evidências , Américas , Sistemas de Saúde , Saúde Pública , Política Informada por Evidências
4.
Medwave ; 19(2): e7605, 2019 Mar 28.
Artigo em Espanhol, Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31075091

RESUMO

Introduction: Sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, are an important public health problem. Every day, over one million persons become infected with a sexually transmitted infection (STI). Health systems are searching for solutions to improve sex education and change the sexual behavior of people in order to prevent them. In public health, digital interventions based on mobile health technologies (M-health), especially those based on mobile phones, might be a crucial tool for the prevention of STIs and HIV. This systematic will review and summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of mobile phone-based interventions for the prevention of STIs and HIV. Methods and analysis: The protocol was designed and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). The protocol will include randomized controlled trials that assess the effect of interventions based on mobile phones for the prevention of STIs/HIV. The interventions of interest will be those targeting mobile phone users and should consist of providing information by mobile phone through any function or application that can be used or sent to, and that has been designed to educate, promote or modify sexual behaviors and prevent STIs, including HIV. The data sources to identify these studies will be the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE and MEDLINE. The risk of bias will be assessed using the tool recommended by Cochrane. Finally, a meta-analysis will be done and data will be presented following the GRADE method. Ethics and dissemination: This research was exempted by the Ethics Committee of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (ID 171128002). Trial registration number: CRD42018099008.


Assuntos
Telefone Celular , Educação Sexual/métodos , Doenças Sexualmente Transmissíveis/prevenção & controle , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Infecções por HIV/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
5.
Rev. méd. Chile ; 147(5): 602-611, mayo 2019. tab, graf
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS-Express | ID: biblio-1014269

RESUMO

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) promote better quality and equity in health care and potentially they could improve patients' outcomes. However, their implementation is hindered by a number of factors including some related to health care professionals. Aim: To assess the perceptions and attitudes of primary care physicians regarding CPGs developed by the Chilean Ministry of Health in the context of the Health Sector Reform. Material and Methods: An adaptation of the survey "Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes towards Clinical Practice Guidelines" was sent to 1,264 primary care physicians in Chile and answered completely by 354. The analysis assessed the attitudes towards CPG, their use in primary care and their relationship with socio demographic features of respondents. Results: Eighty two percent of respondents reviewed the flowcharts of the guidelines, 85% consulted their online version. The classification of evidence levels and the strength of recommendations generated a high level of confidence with the guidelines in 70 and 64% of respondents. Eighty five percent considered that CPG could help to standardize clinical practice. The most relevant barrier hindering CPG use was the lack of a brief, simple and easy to access format in 63% of respondents. The three dimensions of the theory of planned behavior (attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) were associated with a greater frequency of guideline use. A higher age and not being Chilean were associated with a lower frequency of use. Conclusions: The identified factors associated with CPG use should be considered in future guideline design.

7.
Implement Sci ; 13(Suppl 1): 4, 2018 01 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29384080

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual's relevance component. METHODS: We developed the relevance component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual relevance component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application. RESULTS: When applying CERQual, we define relevance as the extent to which the body of data from the primary studies supporting a review finding is applicable to the context (perspective or population, phenomenon of interest, setting) specified in the review question. In this paper, we describe the relevance component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess relevance in the context of a review finding. This guidance outlines the information required to assess relevance, the steps that need to be taken to assess relevance and examples of relevance assessments. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of relevance in the context of the CERQual approach. Assessing the relevance component requires consideration of potentially important contextual factors at an early stage in the review process. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Confiabilidade dos Dados , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Editoração/normas , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Intervalos de Confiança , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa
8.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 97: 59-69, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29223325

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This article provides reviewers with guidance on methods for identifying and processing evidence to understand intervention implementation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Strategies, tools, and methods are applied to the systematic review process to illustrate how process and implementation can be addressed using quantitative, qualitative, and other sources of evidence (i.e., descriptive textual and nonempirical). RESULTS: Reviewers can take steps to navigate the heterogeneity and level of uncertainty present in the concepts, measures, and methods used to assess implementation. Activities can be undertaken in advance of a Cochrane quantitative review to develop program theory and logic models that situate implementation in the causal chain. Four search strategies are offered to retrieve process and implementation evidence. Recommendations are made for addressing rigor or risk of bias in process evaluation or implementation evidence. Strategies are recommended for locating and extracting data from primary studies. The basic logic is presented to assist reviewers to make initial review-level judgments about implementation failure and theory failure. CONCLUSION: Although strategies, tools, and methods can assist reviewers to address process and implementation using quantitative, qualitative, and other forms of evidence, few exemplar reviews exist. There is a need for further methodological development and trialing of proposed approaches.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Confiabilidade dos Dados , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa
10.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 97: 70-78, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29242095

RESUMO

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method evidence from process evaluations. Despite a proliferation of methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, less attention has focused on how to integrate these syntheses within intervention effectiveness reviews. In this article, we report updated guidance from the group on approaches, methods, and tools, which can be used to integrate the findings from quantitative studies evaluating intervention effectiveness with those from qualitative studies and process evaluations. We draw on conceptual analyses of mixed methods systematic review designs and the range of methods and tools that have been used in published reviews that have successfully integrated different types of evidence. We outline five key methods and tools as devices for integration which vary in terms of the levels at which integration takes place; the specialist skills and expertise required within the review team; and their appropriateness in the context of limited evidence. In situations where the requirement is the integration of qualitative and process evidence within intervention effectiveness reviews, we recommend the use of a sequential approach. Here, evidence from each tradition is synthesized separately using methods consistent with each tradition before integration takes place using a common framework. Reviews which integrate qualitative and process evaluation evidence alongside quantitative evidence on intervention effectiveness in a systematic way are rare. This guidance aims to support review teams to achieve integration and we encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.


Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Pesquisa Biomédica , Assistência à Saúde , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa
11.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 97: 39-48, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29248725

RESUMO

This paper updates previous Cochrane guidance on question formulation, searching, and protocol development, reflecting recent developments in methods for conducting qualitative evidence syntheses to inform Cochrane intervention reviews. Examples are used to illustrate how decisions about boundaries for a review are formed via an iterative process of constructing lines of inquiry and mapping the available information to ascertain whether evidence exists to answer questions related to effectiveness, implementation, feasibility, appropriateness, economic evidence, and equity. The process of question formulation allows reviewers to situate the topic in relation to how it informs and explains effectiveness, using the criterion of meaningfulness, appropriateness, feasibility, and implementation. Questions related to complex questions and interventions can be structured by drawing on an increasingly wide range of question frameworks. Logic models and theoretical frameworks are useful tools for conceptually mapping the literature to illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon of interest. Furthermore, protocol development may require iterative question formulation and searching. Consequently, the final protocol may function as a guide rather than a prescriptive route map, particularly in qualitative reviews that ask more exploratory and open-ended questions.


Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Tomada de Decisões , Assistência à Saúde , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa
12.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 97: 49-58, 2018 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29247700

RESUMO

The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group develops and publishes guidance on the synthesis of qualitative and mixed-method implementation evidence. Choice of appropriate methodologies, methods, and tools is essential when developing a rigorous protocol and conducting the synthesis. Cochrane authors who conduct qualitative evidence syntheses have thus far used a small number of relatively simple methods to address similarly written questions. Cochrane has invested in methodological work to develop new tools and to encourage the production of exemplar reviews to show the value of more innovative methods that address a wider range of questions. In this paper, in the series, we report updated guidance on the selection of tools to assess methodological limitations in qualitative studies and methods to extract and synthesize qualitative evidence. We recommend application of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews to assess confidence in qualitative synthesized findings. This guidance aims to support review authors to undertake a qualitative evidence synthesis that is intended to be integrated subsequently with the findings of one or more Cochrane reviews of the effects of similar interventions. The review of intervention effects may be undertaken concurrently with or separate to the qualitative evidence synthesis. We encourage further development through reflection and formal testing.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Confiabilidade dos Dados , Análise de Dados , Tomada de Decisões , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa
13.
Int J Equity Health ; 16(1): 208, 2017 12 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29197403

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an 'equity lens' to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity. The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into 'friendly front end' summaries for policy makers. METHODS: The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a "stakeholder panel" was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity. The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings. RESULTS: Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series . CONCLUSIONS: This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.


Assuntos
Equidade em Saúde , Prioridades em Saúde , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Pesquisa Médica Translacional , Pessoal Administrativo , Política de Saúde , Humanos
14.
Rev. méd. Chile ; 145(11): 1429-1436, nov. 2017. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS-Express | ID: biblio-902463

RESUMO

Background A number of attributes of recommendations included in clinical guidelines influence their implementation in clinical practice. Aim To assess the association between those attributes and the uptake of recommendations included in four Clinical Guidelines of the Chilean Ministry of Health. Material and Methods The compliance with recommendations was assessed auditing a random sample of 1,547 electronic medical records of patients with four selected clinical conditions (hypertension, diabetes, depression and asthma) in three primary care centers. Nine evaluators judged the presence or absence of six attributes in each recommendation (restrictive/prescriptive, complexity, trialability, actionability, observability, flexibility). We compared the degree of uptake of recommendations with the presence of these attributes. Results The compliance with recommendations was highly variable, with a median of 51% and ranging from 0 to 98%. There was an association between the uptake of recommendations and the presence of three of the above mentioned attributes. There was a higher implementation of restrictive rather than prescriptive recommendations, of rigid rather than flexible recommendations and those recommendations susceptible to be experimented first. Conclusions We have identified three attributes associated with the implementation of recommendations included in four primary care clinical guidelines. These findings could be useful for the guidelines development process in the Chilean national guidelines program.

15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011084, 2017 09 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28891235

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: One target of the Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve "universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all". A fundamental concern of governments in striving for this goal is how to finance such a health system. This concern is very relevant for low-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on financial arrangements, and informing refinements in the framework for financial arrangements presented in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language, or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of financial arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment, or financial burden of patients, e.g. out-of-pocket payment, catastrophic disease expenditure) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 reviews and included 15 in this overview, on: collection of funds (2 reviews), insurance schemes (1 review), purchasing of services (1 review), recipient incentives (6 reviews), and provider incentives (5 reviews). The reviews were published between 2008 and 2015; focused on 13 subcategories; and reported results from 276 studies: 115 (42%) randomised trials, 11 (4%) non-randomised trials, 23 (8%) controlled before-after studies, 51 (19%) interrupted time series, 9 (3%) repeated measures, and 67 (24%) other non-randomised studies. Forty-three per cent (119/276) of the studies included in the reviews took place in low- and middle-income countries. Collection of funds: the effects of changes in user fees on utilisation and equity are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether aid delivered under the Paris Principles (ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability) improves health outcomes compared to aid delivered without conforming to those principles (very low-certainty evidence). Insurance schemes: community-based health insurance may increase service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether social health insurance improves utilisation of health services or health outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Purchasing of services: it is uncertain whether increasing salaries of public sector healthcare workers improves the quantity or quality of their work (very low-certainty evidence). Recipient incentives: recipient incentives may improve adherence to long-term treatments (low-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether they improve patient outcomes. One-time recipient incentives probably improve patient return for start or continuation of treatment (moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve return for tuberculosis test readings (low-certainty evidence). However, incentives may not improve completion of tuberculosis prophylaxis, and it is uncertain whether they improve completion of treatment for active tuberculosis. Conditional cash transfer programmes probably lead to an increase in service utilisation (moderate-certainty evidence), but their effects on health outcomes are uncertain. Vouchers may improve health service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Introducing a restrictive cap may decrease use of medicines for symptomatic conditions and overall use of medicines, may decrease insurers' expenditures on medicines (low-certainty evidence), and has uncertain effects on emergency department use, hospitalisations, and use of outpatient care (very low-certainty evidence). Reference pricing, maximum pricing, and index pricing for drugs have mixed effects on drug expenditures by patients and insurers as well as the use of brand and generic drugs. Provider incentives: the effects of provider incentives are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence), including: the effects of provider incentives on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians or outpatient referrals from primary to secondary care, incentives for recruiting and retaining health professionals to serve in remote areas, and the effects of pay-for-performance on provider performance, the utilisation of services, patient outcomes, or resource use in low-income countries. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Research based on sound systematic review methods has evaluated numerous financial arrangements relevant to low-income countries, targeting different levels of the health systems and assessing diverse outcomes. However, included reviews rarely reported social outcomes, resource use, equity impacts, or undesirable effects. We also identified gaps in primary research because of uncertainty about applicability of the evidence to low-income countries. Financial arrangements for which the effects are uncertain include external funding (aid), caps and co-payments, pay-for-performance, and provider incentives. Further studies evaluating the effects of these arrangements are needed in low-income countries. Systematic reviews should include all outcomes that are relevant to decision-makers and to people affected by changes in financial arrangements.


Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento/economia , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/economia , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Honorários e Preços , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Seguro Saúde , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/normas , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/economia , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/normas
16.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011083, 2017 09 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28901005

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Who receives care and when: queuing strategies and antenatal care to groups of mothers. Who provides care: lay health workers for caring for people with hypertension, lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or infectious diseases, lay health workers to deliver community-based neonatal care packages, midlevel health professionals for abortion care, social support to pregnant women at risk, midwife-led care for childbearing women, non-specialist providers in mental health and neurology, and physician-nurse substitution. Coordination of care: hospital clinical pathways, case management for people living with HIV and AIDS, interactive communication between primary care doctors and specialists, hospital discharge planning, adding a service to an existing service and integrating delivery models, referral from primary to secondary care, physician-led versus nurse-led triage in emergency departments, and team midwifery. Where care is provided: high-volume institutions, home-based care (with or without multidisciplinary team) for people living with HIV and AIDS, home-based management of malaria, home care for children with acute physical conditions, community-based interventions for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services for youth, and decentralised HIV care. Information and communication technology: mobile phone messaging for patients with long-term illnesses, mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments, mobile phone messaging to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy, women carrying their own case notes in pregnancy, interventions to improve childhood vaccination. Quality and safety systems: decision support with clinical information systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. Complex interventions (cutting across delivery categories and other health system arrangements): emergency obstetric referral interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of strategies have been evaluated for improving delivery arrangements in low-income countries, using sound systematic review methods in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. These reviews have assessed a range of outcomes. Most of the available evidence focuses on who provides care, where care is provided and coordination of care. For all the main categories of delivery arrangements, we identified gaps in primary research related to uncertainty about the applicability of the evidence to low-income countries, low- or very low-certainty evidence or a lack of studies.


Assuntos
Assistência à Saúde/métodos , Assistência à Saúde/organização & administração , Países em Desenvolvimento , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/organização & administração , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Procedimentos Clínicos , Humanos , Tecnologia da Informação , Local de Trabalho/normas
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011085, 2017 09 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28895125

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.


Assuntos
Governança Clínica/organização & administração , Países em Desenvolvimento , Política de Saúde , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/organização & administração , Governança Clínica/legislação & jurisprudência , Participação da Comunidade , Revelação , Pessoal de Saúde/normas , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Determinação de Necessidades de Cuidados de Saúde , Política Organizacional , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011086, 2017 09 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28895659

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories - strategies targeting:1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.


Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Pessoal de Saúde/educação , Implementação de Plano de Saúde/métodos , Programas Nacionais de Saúde/organização & administração , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências , Implementação de Plano de Saúde/organização & administração , Humanos , Determinação de Necessidades de Cuidados de Saúde , Cultura Organizacional , Cooperação do Paciente , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Procedimentos Desnecessários
19.
Artigo em Inglês | PAHO-IRIS | ID: phr-33967

RESUMO

Informing the health policymaking process with the best available scientific evidence has become relevant to health systems globally. Knowledge Translation Platforms (KTP), such as the World Health Organization’s Evidence Informed Policy Networks (EVIPNet), are a recognized strategy for linking research to action. This report describes the experience of implementing EVIPNet in Chile, from its objectives, organizational structure, strategy, activities, and main outputs, to its evolution over the course of its first year. Lessons learned are also covered. Of the activities initiated by EVIPNet-Chile, the Rapid Response Service proved to be a good starting point for engaging policymakers. Capacity building workshops and policy dialogues with relevant stakeholders were also successful. Additionally, EVIPNet-Chile developed a model for engaging academic institutions in policymaking through a network focused on preparing evidence briefs. A number of challenges, such as changing methods for producing rapid evidence syntheses, were also identified. This KTP implementation model located in a Ministry of Health could contribute to the development of similar initiatives in other health systems.


Fundamentar o processo de formulação de políticas de saúde com as melhores evidências científicas disponíveis tornou-se indispensável nos sistemas de saúde em todo o mundo. As plataformas de tradução de conhecimento, como as Redes de Políticas Informadas por Evidências (EVIPNet) da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), são parte de uma estratégia comprovada para vincular a pesquisa à ação. Este informe descreve a experiência de implantação da EVIPNet no Chile: dos objetivos, estrutura organizacional, estratégia, atividades e principais resultados à evolução ao longo do primeiro ano de atividade. As lições aprendidas são também apresentadas. Das atividades iniciadas pela EVIPNet-Chile, o Serviço de Resposta Rápida mostrou ser um bom ponto de partida para atrair a participação dos formuladores de políticas. Os seminários de capacitação e os colóquios sobre políticas com os interessados relevantes renderam bons resultados. Além disso, a EVIPNet-Chile elaborou um modelo para atrair a participação das instituições acadêmicas na formulação de políticas com uma rede dedicada ao preparo de resumos de evidências. Um dos muitos desafios identificados é modificar os métodos para produzir sínteses rápidas de evidências. Este modelo de implantação da plataforma de tradução de conhecimento sediado em um ministério da saúde poderia contribuir para a elaboração de iniciativas semelhantes em outros sistemas de saúde.


Para los sistemas de salud a nivel mundial se ha vuelto cada vez más importante contar con la mejor evidencia disponible como información para el proceso de formulación de políticas de salud. Las plataformas de traducción del conocimiento, como la Red de Políticas Informadas por la Evidencia (EVIPNet, por su sigla en inglés) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, son estrategias reconocidas para vincular la investigación a la acción. En este informe se describe la experiencia de la utilización de EVIPNet en Chile, sus objetivos, estructura orgánica, estrategia, actividades y resultados principales de su evolución en el curso de su primer año. Se incluyen asimismo las enseñanzas extraídas. De las actividades iniciadas por EVIPNet en Chile, el servicio de respuesta rápida resultó ser un buen punto de partida para interesar a los responsables de las políticas. También fueron exitosos los talleres que se llevaron a cabo sobre creación de capacidades y los diálogos de política con los interesados directos pertinentes. Además, EVIPNet en Chile elaboró un modelo para invitar a instituciones académicas a participar en el proceso de formulación de políticas por medio de una red centrada en la preparación de resúmenes de datos científicos. Se encontraron también varios retos, como el cambio de métodos para producir síntesis rápidas de datos científicos. Este modelo de aplicación de plataformas de traducción del conocimiento, ubicado en un Ministerio de Salud, podría contribuir al desarrollo de iniciativas similares en otros sistemas de salud.


Assuntos
Políticas, Planejamento e Administração em Saúde , Políticas Públicas de Saúde , Formulação de Políticas , Sistemas de Saúde , Chile , Políticas , Políticas Públicas de Saúde
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA