An evaluation of the evidence brief for policy development process in WHO EVIPNet Europe countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence briefs for policy (EBPs) represent a potentially powerful tool for supporting evidence-informed policy-making. Since 2012, WHO Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe has been supporting Member States in developing EBPs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of developing EBPs in Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia. METHODS: We used a rapid appraisal approach, combining semi-structured interviews and document review, guided by the Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation framework. Interviews were conducted with a total of 20 individuals familiar with the EBP process in the three study countries. Data were analysed thematically, and emerging themes were related back to the MRC framework components (implementation, mechanisms of impact, and context). We also reflected on the appropriateness of this evaluation approach for EVIPNet teams without evaluation research expertise to conduct themselves. RESULTS: The following themes emerged as important to the EBP development process: how the focus problem is prioritized, who initiates this process, EBP team composition, EBP team leadership, availability of external support in the process, and the culture of policy-making in a country. In particular, the EBP process seemed to be supported by early engagement of the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders as initiators, clear EBP team roles and expectations, including a strong leader, external support to strengthen EBP team capacity and cultural acceptance of the necessity of evidence-informed policy-making. Overall, the evaluation approach was considered feasible by the EBP teams and captured rich qualitative data, but may be limited by the absence of external reviewers and long lag times between the EBP process and the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This process occurs in a complex system and must be conceptualized in each country and each EBP project in a way that fits local policy-making culture, priorities, leadership and team styles, roles and available resources. The use of a rapid appraisal approach, combining qualitative interviews and document review, is a feasible method of process evaluation for EVIPNet member countries.

[Mapping of research protocols, publications, and collaborations on COVID-19 in Latin America and the CaribbeanMapeamento de protocolos de pesquisa, publicações e colaborações sobre COVID-19 na América Latina e no Caribe]. / Mapeo de protocolos de investigación, publicaciones y colaboraciones sobre la COVID-19 en América Latina y el Caribe.

Objective: To map research protocols, publications, and collaborations on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) developed in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Methods: Included were research protocols registered in international platforms and research publications containing populations, data, or authors from LAC. The source of information for protocols was primarily the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization; for publications, specific electronic databases and repositories pertaining to COVID-19 were used. The search for publications was conducted up to 11 November; the search for protocols, up to 30 November 2020 (both dates inclusive). Data was extracted from protocols using standardized variables from the ICTRP, and from publications following pre-established criteria. Results: Among the protocols, 63.0% were therapeutic studies, 10% focused on prevention, and 45% were collaborative; 64% of the protocols received no funding from industry; 23% of the publications were not peer-reviewed and 23% were collaborative in nature. The most frequent study designs were systematic reviews and cross-sectional studies; 47.1% of studies were conducted in health facilities and 22% in community settings; 38.0% focused on diagnosis and 27.9% on prognosis. A qualitative synthesis was performed by line of care and approach strategies. Conclusions: There was an increase in the number of collaborative research studies relative to earlier studies and in protocols not funded by industry. The proposed research agenda was covered in large part as the pandemic unfolded.

Objetivo: Mapear protocolos de pesquisa, publicações e colaborações sobre a doença causada pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19, na sigla em inglês) desenvolvidos na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC). Métodos: Foram incluídos protocolos registrados em plataformas internacionais e publicações de pesquisas que consideraram população, dados e autores da ALC. A fonte de informação para os protocolos foi principalmente a Plataforma Internacional de Registros de Ensaios Clínicos (ICTRP, na sigla em inglês) da Organização Mundial da Saúde. Para as publicações, foram utilizadas bases de dados eletrônicas e repositórios específicos sobre COVID-19. As publicações foram pesquisadas até 11 de novembro, e os protocolos, até 30 de novembro de 2020 (inclusive). As informações dos protocolos foram extraídas de acordo com variáveis padronizadas da plataforma ICTRP e das publicações, segundo critérios pré-estabelecidos. Resultados: Dos protocolos, 63% eram estudos sobre terapias, 10% sobre prevenção e 45% eram colaborativos. Em relação ao financiamento, 64% dos protocolos não vieram da indústria. Em relação às publicações, 23% eram sem revisão por pares e 23% eram colaborativas. Os delineamentos mais frequentes foram revisões sistemáticas e estudos transversais; 47,1% foram realizados em serviços de saúde e 22% no âmbito comunitário; 38,0% focaram no diagnóstico e 27,9% no prognóstico. Realizou-se uma síntese qualitativa segundo a linha de cuidado e as estratégias de abordagem. Conclusões: Observou-se um aumento no número de pesquisas colaborativas (em comparação com estudos anteriores) e de protocolos não financiados pela indústria. A agenda de pesquisa proposta foi coberta, em grande parte, à medida que a pandemia progredia.

Assessing the impact of knowledge communication and dissemination strategies targeted at health policy-makers and managers: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The use of research evidence as an input for health decision-making is a need for most health systems. There are a number of approaches for promoting evidence use at different levels of the health system, but knowledge of their effectiveness is still scarce. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge communication and dissemination interventions, strategies or approaches targeting policy-makers and health managers. METHODS: This overview of systematic reviews used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a predefined and published protocol. A comprehensive electronic search of 13 databases and a manual search in four websites were conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and effectiveness statements were developed, informed by the evidence identified. RESULTS: We included 27 systematic reviews. Three studies included only a communication strategy, while eight only included dissemination strategies, and the remaining 16 included both. None of the selected reviews provided "sufficient evidence" for any of the strategies, while four provided some evidence for three communication and four dissemination strategies. Regarding communication strategies, the use of tailored and targeted messages seemed to successfully lead to changes in the decision-making practices of the target audience. Regarding dissemination strategies, interventions that aimed at improving only the reach of evidence did not have an impact on its use in decisions, while interventions aimed at enhancing users' ability to use and apply evidence had a positive effect on decision-making processes. Multifaceted dissemination strategies also demonstrated the potential for changing knowledge about evidence but not its implementation in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions targeting health managers and policy-makers, as well as the mechanisms required for achieving impact. More studies are needed that are informed by theoretical frameworks or specific tools and using robust methods, standardized outcome measures and clear descriptions of the interventions. We found that passive communication increased access to evidence but had no effect on uptake. Some evidence indicated that the use of targeted messages, knowledge-brokering and user training was effective in promoting evidence use by managers and policy-makers.

Barriers to implementing guideline recommendations to improve childbirth care: a rapid review of evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential barriers to the implementation of the National Childbirth Guidelines in Brazil based on the best available global evidence. METHOD: A rapid review of evidence was performed in six databases in March/April 2019. Secondary studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese with a focus on barriers of any nature relating to the implementation of the Guidelines were retrieved. RESULTS: Twenty-three documents (21 reviews and two practice guides) were included in the review. The barriers identified were grouped into 52 meaning categories and then reorganized into nine thematic clusters: delivery and childbirth care model, human resource management, knowledge and beliefs, gender relations, health care service management, attitudes and behaviors, communication, socioeconomic conditions, and political interests. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that combined approaches may be required to address different barriers to the implementation of the Guidelines. For successful implementation, it is essential to engage health care leaders, professionals, and users in the effort to change the delivery and childbirth care model. Also necessary is the development of intersectoral initiatives to improve the socioeconomic conditions of women and families and to curtail gender inequalities.

Evaluation of the performance and achievements of the WHO Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) Europe.

BACKGROUND: The Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) is one of the key mechanisms introduced by WHO to reduce the research-to-policy gap. EVIPNet Europe was launched in 2012. We evaluated the performance and achievements of EVIPNet Europe with the overall aims (1) to inform future developments and strategic planning of EVIPNet Europe and (2) to contribute to the evidence base for organisational knowledge translation activities by sharing the lessons learnt. METHODS: The evaluation covered the WHO Secretariat of EVIPNet Europe and its 21 member countries, from its inception to mid-2018. A mixed methods design was used to assess changes in three domains, including triangulation of quantitative and qualitative methods, based on the EVIPNet Europe Monitoring & Evaluation framework and theory of change. Data were collected between August and October 2018. Data collection comprised documentary review, social media analysis, online country evaluation, key informant interviews and validated tools. Two case studies were also developed. RESULTS: The evaluation showed promising results as well as lessons to guide the future development of EVIPNet in the WHO European Region and other regions of the world. EVIPNet Europe appears to be filling a niche in promoting the capacity of Network member countries for evidence-informed policy-making. There is evidence that EVIPNet Europe's capacity-building programme of work is improving knowledge and skills at the individual level. There has been an increase in activity and outputs since its establishment and evidence has been used to inform new policies in some member countries. However, the speed at which member countries are developing or publishing products varies greatly and no formalised knowledge translation platforms have yet been created. Financial and human resources are limited and staff turnover is a cause for concern, both at the WHO Secretariat and country team levels. CONCLUSIONS: Six years since the launch of EVIPNet Europe, the Network has grown quickly, is clearly valued and has had some successes. However, more work and support are needed if it is to achieve its vision of a Europe in which high-quality, context-sensitive evidence routinely informs health decision-making processes that ultimately serve to strengthen health outcomes across the Region.

[Barriers to implementing guideline recommendations to improve childbirth care: rapid review of evidenceObstáculos a la aplicación de las recomendaciones para la atención del parto normal: revisión rápida de evidencia]. / Barreiras à implementação de recomendações para assistência ao parto normal: revisão rápida de evidências.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential barriers to the implementation of the National Childbirth Guidelines in Brazil based on the best available global evidence. METHOD: A rapid review of evidence was performed in six databases in March/April 2019. Secondary studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese with a focus on barriers of any nature relating to the implementation of the Guidelines were retrieved. RESULTS: Twenty-three documents (21 reviews and two practice guides) were included in the review. The barriers identified were grouped into 52 meaning categories and then reorganized into nine thematic clusters: delivery and childbirth care model, human resource management, knowledge and beliefs, gender relations, health care service management, attitudes and behaviors, communication, socioeconomic conditions, and political interests. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that combined approaches may be required to address different barriers to the implementation of the Guidelines. For successful implementation, it is essential to engage health care leaders, professionals, and users in the effort to change the delivery and childbirth care model. Also necessary is the development of intersectoral initiatives to improve the socioeconomic conditions of women and families and to curtail gender inequalities.

OBJETIVO: Identificar los posibles obstáculos a la aplicación de las recomendaciones formuladas en las Directrices Nacionales para la Atención del Parto Normal en Brasil a partir de la mejor evidencia disponible a nivel mundial. MÉTODOS: En marzo/abril de 2019 se llevó a cabo una revisión rápida de seis bases de datos. Se seleccionaron estudios secundarios publicados en español, inglés o portugués sobre los obstáculos de cualquier tipo que pudieran estar relacionados con la aplicación de las recomendaciones contenidas en las Directrices. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 23 documentos (21 revisiones sistemáticas y 2 guías de práctica clínica). Los obstáculos identificados se agruparon en 52 categorías con base en su semejanza de significado y luego se reorganizaron en nueve grupos temáticos: modelo de atención del parto, gestión de recursos humanos, creencias y conocimientos, relaciones de género, gestión de servicios de salud, actitudes y comportamientos, comunicación, condiciones socioeconómicas e intereses políticos. CONCLUSIONES: La aplicación de las Directrices puede requerir enfoques combinados para hacer frente a diferentes obstáculos. La participación de los administradores y los trabajadores de la salud en el proceso de cambio del modelo de atención del parto, así como la participación de los usuarios, son fundamentales para que la aplicación de las Directrices sea satisfactoria. Además, se necesitan medidas intersectoriales para mejorar las condiciones socioeconómicas de las mujeres y las familias y para combatir las desigualdades entre los géneros.

[Implementation of the National Childbirth Guidelines in Brazil: barriers and trategiesObstáculos y estrategias para la aplicación de las Directrices Nacionales para el Parto Normal en el Brasil]. / Barreiras e estratégias para implementação de Diretrizes Nacionais do Parto Normal no Brasil.

The present report describes the process and results obtained with a knowledge translation project developed in three stages to identify barriers to the National Childbirth Guidelines in Brazil as well strategies for effective implementation. The Improving Programme Implementation through Embedded Research (iPIER) model and the Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools provided the methodological framework for the project. In the first stage, the quality of the Guidelines was evaluated and the barriers preventing implementation of the recommendations were identified through review of the global evidence and analysis of contributions obtained in a public consultation process. In the second stage, an evidence synthesis was used as basis for a deliberative dialogue aimed at prioritizing the barriers identified. Finally, a second evidence synthesis was presented in a new deliberative dialogue to discuss six options to address the prioritized barriers: 1) promote the use of multifaceted interventions; 2) promote educational interventions for the adoption of guidelines; 3) perform audits and provide feedback to adjust professional practice; 4) use reminders to mediate the interaction between workers and service users; 5) enable patient-mediated interventions; and 6) engage opinion leaders to promote the use of guidelines. The processes and results associated with each stage were documented and formulated to inform a review and update of the Guidelines and the development of an implementation plan for the recommendations. An effective implementation of the Guidelines is relevant to improve the care provided during labor and childbirth in Brazil.

En este informe se presentan los procesos y resultados de un proyecto de traducción de conocimiento desarrollado en tres etapas para identificar los obstáculos y las estrategias para la aplicación efectiva de las Directrices Nacionales para el Parto Normal en el Brasil. El marco metodológico adoptado comprendió la iniciativa iPIER (Improving Program Implementation through Embedded Research) y las herramientas SUPPORT para políticas basadas en evidencia. En la primera etapa se evaluó la calidad de las Directrices y se identificaron los obstáculos a la aplicación de las recomendaciones, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia mundial y el análisis de las contribuciones obtenidas mediante una consulta pública. En la segunda etapa, una síntesis de la evidencia sirvió de base para un diálogo deliberativo para la priorización de los obstáculos. Por último, una nueva síntesis de la evidencia sirvió de base para un segundo diálogo deliberativo y presentó seis opciones para hacer frente a los obstáculos priorizados: 1) fomentar el uso de estrategias de intervención polifacéticas; 2) promover intervenciones educativas para mejorar el uso de directrices sanitarias; 3) realizar auditorías y proporcionar retroalimentación para la adecuación de la práctica profesional; 4) utilizar recordatorios para mediar en la interacción entre profesionales y usuarios; 5) permitir intervenciones mediadas por el paciente; y 6) incluir a líderes de opinión para fomentar el uso de directrices sanitarias. Se documentaron y presentaron los procesos y resultados de cada etapa del proyecto para fundamentar la actualización de las Directrices y la elaboración de un plan de aplicación de las recomendaciones. La aplicación efectiva de las Directrices es importante para mejorar la atención del parto y el nacimiento en el Brasil.

Implementation of national childbirth guidelines in Brazil: barriers and strategies.

The present report describes the process and results obtained with a knowledge translation project developed in three stages to identify barriers to the Implementation of the National Guidelines for Normal Childbirth in Brazil, as well strategies for effective implementation. The Improving Programme Implementation through Embedded Research (iPIER) model and the Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials (SUPPORT) tools provided the methodological framework for the project. In the first stage, the quality of the Guidelines was evaluated and the barriers preventing implementation of the recommendations were identified through review of the global evidence and analysis of contributions obtained in a public consultation process. In the second stage, an evidence synthesis was used as the basis for a deliberative dialogue aimed at prioritizing the barriers identified. Finally, a second evidence synthesis was presented in a new deliberative dialogue to discuss six options to address the prioritized barriers: 1) promote the use of multifaceted interventions; 2) promote educational interventions for the adoption of guidelines; 3) perform audits and provide feedback to adjust professional practice; 4) use reminders to mediate the interaction between workers and service users; 5) enable patient-mediated interventions; and 6) engage opinion leaders to promote use of the Guidelines. The processes and results associated with each stage were documented and formulated to inform a review and update of the Guidelines and the development of an implementation plan for the recommendations. Effective implementation of the Guidelines is important for improving the care provided during labor and childbirth in Brazil.

En este informe se presentan los procesos y resultados de un proyecto de traducción de conocimiento desarrollado en tres etapas para identificar los obstáculos y las estrategias para la aplicación efectiva de las Directrices Nacionales para el Parto Normal en el Brasil. El marco metodológico adoptado comprendió la iniciativa iPIER (Improving Program Implementation through Embedded Research) y las herramientas SUPPORT para políticas basadas en evidencia. En la primera etapa se evaluó la calidad de las Directrices y se identificaron los obstáculos a la aplicación de las recomendaciones, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia mundial y el análisis de las contribuciones obtenidas mediante una consulta pública. En la segunda etapa, una síntesis de la evidencia sirvió de base para un diálogo deliberativo para la priorización de los obstáculos. Por último, una nueva síntesis de la evidencia sirvió de base para un segundo diálogo deliberativo y presentó seis opciones para hacer frente a los obstáculos priorizados: 1) fomentar el uso de estrategias de intervención polifacéticas; 2) promover intervenciones educativas para mejorar el uso de directrices sanitarias; 3) realizar auditorías y proporcionar retroalimentación para la adecuación de la práctica profesional; 4) utilizar recordatorios para mediar en la interacción entre profesionales y usuarios; 5) permitir intervenciones mediadas por el paciente; y 6) incluir a líderes de opinión para fomentar el uso de directrices sanitarias. Se documentaron y presentaron los procesos y resultados de cada etapa del proyecto para fundamentar la actualización de las Directrices y la elaboración de un plan de aplicación de las recomendaciones. La aplicación efectiva de las Directrices es importante para mejorar la atención del parto y el nacimiento en el Brasil.

Risk factors for chronic kidney disease of non-traditional causes: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential associations between chronic kidney disease of uncertain or non-traditional etiology (CKDnT) and agrochemicals, heat stress, heavy metals, and other factors identified in the literature in any region of the world and at any time. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the most frequent exposures suspected to be possible causes of CKDnT. A search was conducted of PubMed, LILACS, World Wide Science electronic databases, among other sources. Only medium- and high-quality studies were included. The synthesis of evidence included a narrative synthesis, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews and 61 primary studies were included. Results of the meta-analysis suggest that exposure to agrochemicals and working in agriculture increase the risk of CKDnT, but this only reached significance for working in agriculture. When cross-sectional studies were excluded, agrochemical exposure became significant. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the existing evidence and the precautionary principle, it is important to implement preventive measures to mitigate the damage caused by CKDnT to both agricultural workers and their communities (i.e., improvement of working conditions, cautious management of agrochemicals, etc.). More high-quality research is needed to measure impact and to build the evidence base.

Oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in non-facility birth settings.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the single leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Most of the deaths associated with PPH occur in resource-poor settings where effective methods of prevention and treatment - such as oxytocin - are not accessible because many births still occur at home, or in community settings, far from a health facility. Likewise, most of the evidence supporting oxytocin effectiveness comes from hospital settings in high-income countries, mainly because of the need of well-organised care for its administration and monitoring. Easier methods for oxytocin administration have been developed for use in resource-poor settings, but as far as we know, its effectiveness has not been assessed in a systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin provided in non-facility birth settings by any way in the third stage of labour to prevent PPH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished or ongoing randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the administration of oxytocin with no intervention, or usual/standard care for the management of the third stage of labour in non-facility birth settings were considered for inclusion.Quasi-randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled trials published in abstract form only were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using an agreed data extraction form. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included one cluster-randomised trial conducted in four rural districts in Ghana that randomised 28 community health officers (CHOs) (serving 2404 potentially eligible pregnant women) to the intervention group and 26 CHOs (serving 3515 potentially eligible pregnant women) to the control group. Overall, the trial had a high risk of bias. CHOs delivered the intervention in the experimental group (injection of 10 IU (international units) of oxytocin in the thigh one minute following birth using a prefilled, auto-disposable syringe). In the control group, CHOs did not provide this prophylactic injection to the women they observed. CHOs had no midwifery skills and did not in any way manage the birth. All other CHO activities (outcome measurement, data collection, and early treatment and referral when necessary) were identical across the control and oxytocin CHOs.Although only one of the nine cases of severe PPH (blood loss greater or equal to 1000 mL) occurred in the oxytocin group, the effect estimate for this outcome was very imprecise and it is uncertain whether the intervention prevents severe PPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.30; 1570 women (very low-quality evidence)). Similarly, because of the lack of cases of severe maternal morbidity (e.g. uterine rupture) and maternal deaths, it was not possible to obtain effect estimates for those outcomes (both very low-quality evidence).Oxytocin compared with the control group decreased the incidence of PPH (> 500 mL) in both our unadjusted (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81; 1569 women) and adjusted (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; 1174 women (both low-quality evidence)) analyses. There was little or no difference between the oxytocin and control groups on the rates of transfer or referral of the mother to a healthcare facility (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.56; 1586 women (low-quality evidence)), stillbirths (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.40; 2006 infants (low-quality evidence)); andearly infant deaths (0 to three days) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.07; 1969 infants (low-quality evidence)). There were no cases of needle-stick injury or any other maternal major or minor adverse event or unanticipated harmful event. There were no cases of oxytocin use during labour.There were no data reported for some of this review's secondary outcomes: manual removal of placenta, maternal anaemia, neonatal death within 28 days, neonatal transfer to health facility for advanced care, breastfeeding rates. Similarly, the women's or the provider's satisfaction with the intervention was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain if oxytocin administered by CHO in non-facility settings compared with a control group reduces the incidence of severe PPH (>1000 mL), severe maternal morbidity or maternal deaths. However, the intervention probably decreases the incidence of PPH (> 500 mL).The quality of the one trial included in this review was limited because of the risk of attrition and recruitment biases related to limitations in the follow-up of pregnant women in both arms of the trials and some baseline imbalance on the size of babies at birth. Additionally, there was serious imprecision of the effect estimates for most of the primary outcomes mainly because of the size of the trial, very few or no events and CIs around both relative and absolute estimates of effect that include both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm.Although the trial presented data both for primary and secondary outcomes, it seemed to be underpowered to detect differences in the primary outcomes that are the ones more relevant for making judgments about the potential applicability of the intervention in other settings (especially severe PPH).Therefore, taking into account the extreme setting where the intervention was implemented, the limited role of the CHO in the trial and the lack of power for detecting effects on primary (relevant) outcomes, the applicability of the evidence found seems to be rather limited.Further well-executed and adequately-powered randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of using oxytocin in pre-filled injection devices or other new delivery systems (spray-dried ultrafine formulation of oxytocin) on severe PPH are urgently needed. Likewise, other important outcomes like possible adverse events and acceptability of the intervention by mothers and other community stakeholders should also be assessed.

What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice? METHODS: This rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of 'shortcuts' are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers. CONCLUSIONS: Greater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice.

[Interventions to improve access to health services by indigenous peoples in the Americas]. / Intervenciones para mejorar el acceso a los servicios de salud de los pueblos indígenas en las Américas.

OBJECTIVE: Synthesize evidence on effectiveness of interventions designed to improve access to health services by indigenous populations. METHODS: Review of systematic reviews published as of July 2015, selecting and analyzing only studies in the Region of the Americas. The bibliographic search encompassed MEDLINE, Lilacs, SciELO, EMBASE, DARE, HTA, The Cochrane Library, and organization websites. Two independent reviewers selected studies and analyzed their methodological quality. A narrative summary of the results was produced. RESULTS: Twenty-two reviews met the inclusion criteria. All selected studies were conducted in Canada and the United States of America. The majority of the interventions were preventive, to surmount geographical barriers, increase use of effective measures, develop human resources, and improve people's skills or willingness to seek care. Topics included pregnancy, cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes, substance abuse, child development, cancer, mental health, oral health, and injuries. Some interventions showed effectiveness with moderate or high quality studies: educational strategies to prevent depression, interventions to prevent childhood caries, and multicomponent programs to promote use of child safety seats. In general, results for chronic non-communicable diseases were negative or inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions do exist that have potential for producing positive effects on access to health services by indigenous populations in the Americas, but available studies are limited to Canada and the U.S. There is a significant research gap on the topic in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Interventions that facilitate sustainable jobs and have a positive impact on workers' health: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To identify interventions that facilitate sustainable jobs and have a positive impact on the health of workers in health sector workplaces. METHODS: This overview utilized systematic review methods to synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews and economic evaluations. A comprehensive search was conducted based on a predefined protocol, including specific inclusion criteria. To be classified as "sustainable," interventions needed to aim (explicitly or implicitly) to 1) have a positive impact on at least two key dimensions of the integrated framework for sustainable development and 2) include measures of health impact. Only interventions conducted in, or applicable to, health sector workplaces were included. RESULTS: Fourteen systematic reviews and no economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria for the overview. The interventions that had a positive impact on health included 1) enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations; 2) use of the "degree of experience rating" feature of workers' compensation; 3) provision of flexible working arrangements that increase worker control and choice; 4) implementation of certain organizational changes to shift work schedules; and 5) use of some employee participation schemes. Interventions with negative impacts on health included 1) downsizing/restructuring; 2) temporary and insecure work arrangements; 3) outsourcing/home-based work arrangements; and 4) some forms of task restructuring. CONCLUSIONS: What is needed now is careful implementation, in health sector workplaces, of interventions likely to have positive impacts, but with careful evaluation of their effects including possible adverse impacts. Well-evaluated implementation of the interventions (including those at the pilot-study stage) will contribute to the evidence base and inform future action. Interventions with negative health impacts should be withdrawn from practice (through regulation, where possible). If use of these interventions is necessary, for other reasons, considerable care should be taken to ensure an appropriate balance between business needs and human health and well-being.

Energy interventions that facilitate sustainable development and impact health: an overview of systematic reviews.

Objective To inform policy by providing an overview of systematic reviews on interventions that facilitate sustainable energy use and have a positive impact on health. Methods Systematic review methods were used to synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews and economic evaluations through a comprehensive search of 13 databases and nine websites based on a pre-defined protocol, including clear inclusion criteria. Both grey and peer-reviewed literature published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese during the 17 years from January 1997 - January 2014 was included. To classify as "sustainable," interventions needed to aim to positively impact at least two dimensions of the integrated framework for sustainable development and include measures of health impact. Results Five systematic reviews and one economic evaluation met the inclusion criteria. The most promising interventions that impacted health were electricity for lighting and other uses (developing countries); improved stoves for cooking and health and/or cleaner fuels for cooking (developing countries); and household energy efficiency measures (developed countries). These interventions also had potential environmental and economic impacts. Their cost-effectiveness is not known, nor is their impact on health inequalities. Conclusions What is needed now is careful implementation of interventions where the impacts are likely to be positive but their implementation needs to be rigorously evaluated, including possible adverse impacts. Care needs to be taken not to exacerbate health inequalities and to consider context, human behavior and cultural factors so that the potential health benefits are realized in real-life implementation. Possible impact on health inequalities needs to be considered and measured in future primary studies and systematic reviews.

Agriculture, food, and nutrition interventions that facilitate sustainable food production and impact health: an overview of systematic reviews.

Objectives To identify the agriculture, food, and nutrition security interventions that facilitate sustainable food production and have a positive impact on health. Methods Systematic review methods were used to synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews and economic evaluations through a comprehensive search of 17 databases and 10 websites. The search employed a pre-defined protocol with clear inclusion criteria. Both grey and peer-reviewed literature published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese between 1 January 1997 and November 2013 were included. To classify as "sustainable," interventions needed to aim to positively impact at least two dimensions of the integrated framework for sustainable development and include measures of health impact. Results Fifteen systematic reviews and seven economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All interventions had some impact on health or on risk factors for health outcomes, except those related to genetically modified foods. Impact on health inequalities was rarely measured. All interventions with economic evaluations were very cost-effective, had cost savings, or net benefits. In addition to impacting health (inclusive social development), all interventions had the potential to impact on inclusive economic development, and some, on environmental sustainability, though these effects were rarely assessed. Conclusions What is needed now is careful implementation of interventions with expected positive health impacts but with concurrent, rigorous evaluation. Possible impact on health inequalities needs to be considered and measured by future primary studies and systematic reviews, as does impact of interventions on all dimensions of sustainable development.

Interventions that facilitate sustainable development by preventing toxic exposure to chemicals: an overview of systematic reviews.

Objective To identify interventions that 1) facilitate sustainable development by preventing toxic exposure to chemicals, including pesticides, and 2) have a positive impact on health. Methods This overview utilized systematic review methods to synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews and economic evaluations. A comprehensive search was conducted based on a predefined protocol, including clear inclusion criteria. To be classified as "sustainable" interventions needed to aim (explicitly or implicitly) to 1) have a positive impact on at least two key dimensions of the United Nations integrated framework for sustainable development and 2) include measures of health impact. Results Thirteen systematic reviews and two economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. The interventions that were most likely to have a positive impact on health included 1) legislation to ban Endosulfan pesticide to prevent fatal poisonings; 2) testing of drinking water for contamination with arsenic, and dissemination of the results to households; and 3) implementation of organic farming / diet to reduce exposure to pesticides. However, the cost-effectiveness of these three interventions and their impact(s) on health inequalities is not known. Strict enforcement of interventions to reduce lead in houses with children was cost-beneficial. Education and dust control interventions performed by cleaning professionals to reduce blood lead levels in children were ineffective. Conclusions What is needed now is careful implementation of the interventions whose impacts are likely to be positive. Ineffective interventions need to be replaced with more effective and cost-effective interventions. Finally, more and better-quality research on the prevention of toxic exposure to chemicals is needed to better support policy development.

[Availability of indicators for monitoring the achievement of "Universal Health" in Latin America and the Caribbean]. / Disponibilidad de indicadores para el seguimiento del alcance de la "Salud Universal" en América Latina y el Caribe.

Objective The objective of this study was to identify the availability of health indicators for validly measuring advances in the attainment of "universal health" in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Methods A systematic search was undertaken for scientific evidence and available technical and scientific documents on assessing health system performance and advances in universal health in the following phases: phase 1, mapping of indicators; phase 2, classification of indicators; and phase 3, mapping the availability of selected indicators in LAC. Results Sixty-three (63) national sources of information and eight international sources were identified. A total of 749 indicators were selected from the different databases and studies evaluated, 619 of which were related to the attainment of universal health and 130 to the burden of disease. The following indicators were identified: financial protection, 42 (6%); coverage of service delivery, 415 (55.4%); population coverage, 6 (0.8%); health determinants, 101 (14%); assessment of inequalities in health, 55 (7.3%); and estimation of burden of disease, 130 (17.3%). Finally, the availability of 141 indicators was mapped for each LAC country. Conclusions The results of this study will help establish a framework for measuring the achievements, obstacles, and rate of progress toward universal health in LAC.

The new United Nations approach to sustainable development post-2015: Findings from four overviews of systematic reviews on interventions for sustainable development and health.

Objective To identify reported interventions that facilitate sustainable development and have had a positive impact on health in four areas: sustainable food production; sustainable energy use; sustainable jobs ("decent work"); and prevention of toxic exposure to chemicals. Methods Systematic review methods were used to synthesize evidence from multiple systematic reviews and economic evaluations. A comprehensive search was conducted of at least 14 databases and 8 websites for each of the four overviews, using pre-defined protocols, including clear inclusion criteria. To qualify as "sustainable," interventions needed to aim (explicitly or implicitly) to positively impact at least two dimensions of the integrated framework for sustainable development and had to include measures of health impact. Results In total, 47 systematic reviews and 10 economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. The most promising interventions, such as agricultural policies, were identified for each of the four topics. While the evidence for the interventions is not strong because of the limited number of studies, there is no evidence of a definite negative impact on health. The only possible exception is that of taxes and subsidies-though this intervention also has the potential to be pro-equity with higher relative impacts for lower income groups. Conclusions The evidence found for effective interventions is useful for guiding countries toward the best options for non-health sector interventions that can positively impact health. This overviews shows that intersectoral work benefits every sector involved.

Antibiotic regimens for management of intra-amniotic infection.

BACKGROUND: Chorioamnionitis is a common infection that affects both mother and infant. Infant complications associated with chorioamnionitis include early neonatal sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis. Chorioamnionitis can also result in maternal morbidity such as pelvic infection and septic shock.Clinical chorioamnionitis is estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of term births and in 5% to 10% of preterm births; histologic chorioamnionitis is found in nearly 20% of term births and in 50% of preterm births. Women with chorioamnionitis have a two to three times higher risk for cesarean delivery and a three to four times greater risk for endomyometritis, wound infection, pelvic abscess, bacteremia, and postpartum hemorrhage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of administering antibiotic regimens for intra-amniotic infection on maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality and on infection-related complications. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 October 2014), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the WHO ICTRP (September 2014). We also searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women who experienced intra-amniotic infection. Trials were included if they compared antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment (if applicable), treatment with different antibiotic regimens, or timing of antibiotic therapy (intrapartum and/or postpartum). Therefore, this review assesses trials evaluating intrapartum antibiotics, intrapartum and postpartum antibiotic regimens, and postpartum antibiotics. Diagnosis of intra-amniotic infection was based on standard criteria (clinical/test), and no limit was placed on gestational age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and included a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Our prespecified primary outcomes were maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal and neonatal severe infection, and duration of maternal and neonatal hospital stay.We included 11 studies (involving 1296 women) and assessed them as having low to moderate risk of bias - mainly because allocation concealment methods were not adequately reported, most studies were open, and outcome reporting was incomplete. The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. The following antibiotics were assessed in the included trials: ampicillin, ampicillin/sulbactam, gentamicin, clindamycin, and cefotetan. During labor: meta-analysis of two studies found no clear differences in rates of neonatal sepsis (163 neonates; risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 2.86; I² = 9%; low quality of evidence), treatment failure (endometritis) (163 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.70; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence), and postpartum hemorrhage (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.56; I² = 0%; low quality of evidence) when two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin were assessed. No clear differences between groups were found for any reported maternal or neonatal outcomes. The review did not identify data for a comparison of antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo. Postpartum: meta-analysis of two studies that evaluated use of antibiotics versus placebo after vaginal delivery showed no significant differences between groups in rates of treatment failure or postpartum endometritis. No significant differences were found in rates of neonatal death and postpartum endometritis when use of antibiotics was compared with no treatment. Four trials assessing two different dosages/regimens of gentamicin or dual-agent therapy versus triple-agent therapy, or comparing antibiotics, found no significant differences in most reported neonatal or maternal outcomes; the duration of hospital stay showed a difference in favor of the group of women who received short-duration antibiotics (one study, 292 women; mean difference (MD) -0.90 days, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.16; moderate quality of evidence). Intrapartum versus postpartum: one small study (45 women) evaluating use of ampicillin/gentamicin during intrapartum versus immediate postpartum treatment found significant differences favoring the intrapartum group in the mean number of days of maternal postpartum hospital stay (one trial, 45 women; MD -1.00 days, 95% CI -1.94 to - 0.06; very low quality of evidence) and the mean number of neonatal hospital stay days (one trial, 45 neonates; MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.91 to -0.49; very low quality of evidence). Although no significant differences were found in the rate of maternal bacteremia or early neonatal sepsis, for the outcome of neonatal pneumonia or sepsis we observed a significant difference favoring intrapartum treatment (one trial, 45 neonates; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.95; very low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included 11 studies (having low to moderate risk of bias). The quality of the evidence was low to very low for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach. Only one outcome (duration of hospital stay) was considered to provide moderate quality of evidence when antibiotics (short duration) were compared with antibiotics (long duration) during postpartum management of intra-amniotic infection. Our main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency of results.Currently, limited evidence is available to reveal the most appropriate antimicrobial regimen for the treatment of patients with intra-amniotic infection; whether antibiotics should be continued during the postpartum period; and which antibiotic regimen or what treatment duration should be used. Also, no evidence was found on adverse effects of the intervention (not reported in any of the included studies). One small RCT showed that use of antibiotics during the intrapartum period is superior to their use during the postpartum period in reducing the number of days of maternal and neonatal hospital stay.

[Priorities for health policy and systems research focused on human resources in health]. / Prioridades de investigación en políticas y sistemas de salud centradas en los recursos humanos en salud.

OBJECTIVE: Identify priorities for health policy and systems research related to human resources in Latin America and Caribbean countries. METHODS: An online survey was designed based on a search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and LILACS that contributed previously prioritized research questions. Respondents, mainly researchers and decision-makers, were identified through various sources. The first round, directed at researchers, aimed at refining and adding research questions and prioritizing questions that researchers regarded as relevant or very relevant. The second round was directed at researchers and decision-makers. A question was considered a priority when 50% (or more) of respondents described it as "relevant" or "very relevant." RESULTS: The first round included 20 questions on human resources and 33/66 researchers responded. Questions suggested by the researchers were added, resulting in 26 questions for the second round, which were sent to 121 researchers and decision-makers. Respondent representation by country was uniform in both rounds. In the second round, 14/26 (54%) questions were described as very relevant. Priority issues related to regulation of the market, integration of education and health care needs, and distribution of human resources. The response rate was 50% in the first round (33/66), and 34% in the second round (41/121). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this exercise provide a starting point for mobilization of resources for health policy and systems research. Identification of health systems research priorities is an effective and efficient strategy for reorienting political, financial, management, and social organization efforts for attaining universal health coverage.