Is qualitative social research in global health fulfilling its potential?: a systematic evidence mapping of research on point-of-care testing in low- and middle-income contexts.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative social research has made valuable contributions to understanding technology-based interventions in global health. However, we have little evidence of who is carrying out this research, where, how, for what purpose, or the overall scope of this body of work. To address these questions, we undertook a systematic evidence mapping of one area of technology-focused research in global health, related to the development, deployment and use of point-of-care tests (POCTs) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We conducted an exhaustive search to identify papers reporting on primary qualitative studies that explore the development, deployment, and use of POCTs in LMICs and screened results to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included studies and descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria, with numbers increasing year by year. Funding of studies was primarily credited to high income country (HIC)-based institutions (95%) and 64% of first authors were affiliated with HIC-based institutions. Study sites, in contrast, were concentrated in a small number of LMICs. Relatively few studies examined social phenomena related to POCTs that take place in HICs. Seventy-one percent of papers reported on studies conducted within the context of a trial or intervention. Eighty percent reported on studies considering POCTs for HIV and/or malaria. Studies overwhelmingly reported on POCT use (91%) within primary-level health facilities (60%) or in hospitals (30%) and explored the perspectives of the health workforce (70%). CONCLUSIONS: A reflexive approach to the role, status, and contribution of qualitative and social science research is crucial to identifying the contributions it can make to the production of global health knowledge and understanding the roles technology can play in achieving global health goals. The body of qualitative social research on POCTs for LMICs is highly concentrated in scope, overwhelmingly focuses on testing in the context of a narrow number of donor-supported initiatives and is driven by HIC resources and expertise. To optimise the full potential of qualitative social research requires the promotion of open and just research ecosystems that broaden the scope of inquiry beyond established public health paradigms and build social science capacity in LMICs.

The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing evidence on patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research, little emphasis has been placed on understanding its quality and appropriateness to evidence synthesis (ES) and systematic reviews (SR). This study aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on the benefits, challenges, and best practices for PPI in ES/SR projects from the perspectives of patients/public and researchers. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus. We also searched relevant grey literature and conducted hand-searching to identify qualitative studies which report the benefits and challenges of PPI in individual ES/SR projects. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers for inclusion and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Qualitative Tool. Included studies were synthesised narratively using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 9923 articles, of which eight studies were included in this review. Five themes on benefits emerged: two from patients'/public's perspective-gaining knowledge, and empowerment; and three from researchers' perspective-enhancing relevance, improving quality, and enhancing dissemination of findings. Six themes on challenges were identified: three from patients'/public's perspective-poor communication, time and low self-esteem; and three from researchers' perspective-balancing inputs and managing relations, time, and resources and training. Concerning recommendations for best practice, four themes emerged: provision of sufficient time and resources, developing a clear recruitment plan, provision of sufficient training and support, and the need to foster positive working relationships. CONCLUSION: Highlighting the benefits and challenges of PPI in ES/SR projects from different stakeholder perspectives is essential to understand the process and contextual factors and facilitate meaningful PPI in ES/SR projects. Future research should focus on the utilisation of existing frameworks (e.g., Authors and Consumers Together Impacting on eVidencE [ACTIVE] framework) by researchers to help describe and/or report the best approaches and methods for involving patients/public in ES/SRs projects. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review received great contributions from a recognised PPI partner, the Chair of the Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, to inform the final stage of the review (i.e., interpretation, publication and dissemination of findings). The PPI partner has been included as an author of this review.

What are the characteristics of participatory surveillance systems for influenza-like-illness?

Background: Seasonal influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, with an estimated 9.4 million hospitalisations and 290 000-650 000 respiratory related-deaths globally each year. Influenza can also cause mild illness, which is why not all symptomatic persons might necessarily be tested for influenza. To monitor influenza activity, healthcare facility-based syndromic surveillance for influenza-like illness is often implemented. Participatory surveillance systems for influenza-like illness (ILI) play an important role in influenza surveillance and can complement traditional facility-based surveillance systems to provide real-time estimates of influenza-like illness activity. However, such systems differ in designs between countries and contexts, making it necessary to identify their characteristics to better understand how they fit traditional surveillance systems. Consequently, we aimed to investigate the performance of participatory surveillance systems for ILI worldwide. Methods: We systematically searched four databases for relevant articles on influenza participatory surveillance systems for ILI. We extracted data from the included, eligible studies and assessed their quality using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools. We then synthesised the findings using narrative synthesis. Results: We included 39 out of 3797 retrieved articles for analysis. We identified 26 participatory surveillance systems, most of which sought to capture the burden and trends of influenza-like illness and acute respiratory infections among cohorts with risk factors for influenza-like illness. Of all the surveillance system attributes assessed, 52% reported on correlation with other surveillance systems, 27% on representativeness, and 21% on acceptability. Among studies that reported these attributes, all systems were rated highly in terms of simplicity, flexibility, sensitivity, utility, and timeliness. Most systems (87.5%) were also well accepted by users, though participation rates varied widely. However, despite their potential for greater reach and accessibility, most systems (90%) fared poorly in terms of representativeness of the population. Stability was a concern for some systems (60%), as was completeness (50%). Conclusions: The analysis of participatory surveillance system attributes showed their potential in providing timely and reliable influenza data, especially in combination with traditional hospital- and laboratory led-surveillance systems. Further research is needed to design future systems with greater uptake and utility.

Risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes among adults and children with moderate-to-severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in the United Kingdom requested an evidence synthesis to investigate the relationship between asthma and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarise evidence on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with uncontrolled asthma or markers of asthma severity. METHODS: High-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or oral corticosteroids (OCS) were used as markers of asthma severity, following international or national asthma guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Adjusted point estimates were extracted for random-effects meta-analyses and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: After screening, 12 studies (11 in adults and one in children) met the eligibility criteria. Adults using high-dose ICS or OCS had a pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.33 (95% CI 1.06-1.67, I2=0%) for hospitalisation and an aHR of 1.22 (95% CI 0.90-1.65, I2=70%) for mortality for COVID-19. We found insufficient evidence for associations between markers on COVID-19 mortality in the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with severe asthma are at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation compared to nonusers. Our analysis highlighted the dearth of studies in children with asthma investigating serious COVID-19 outcomes.