Building a learning health care community in rural and remote areas: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A Learning Health Care Community (LHCC) is a framework to enhance health care through mutual accountability between the health care system and the community. LHCC components include infrastructure for health-related data capture, care improvement targets, a supportive policy environment, and community engagement. The LHCC involves health care providers, researchers, decision-makers, and community members who work to identify health care needs and address them with evidence-based solutions. The objective of this study was to summarize the barriers and enablers to building an LHCC in rural areas. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases. Eligibility criteria was determined by the research team. Published literature on LHCCs in rural areas was systematically collected and organized. Screening was completed independently by two authors. Detailed information about rural health care, activities, and barriers and enablers to building an LHCC in rural areas was extracted. Qualitative analysis was used to identify core themes. RESULTS: Among 8169 identified articles, 25 were eligible. LHCCs aimed to increase collaboration and co-learning between community members and health care providers, integrate community feedback in health care services, and to share information. Main barriers included obtaining adequate funding and participant recruitment. Enablers included meaningful engagement of stakeholders and stakeholder collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: The LHCC is built on a foundation of meaningful use of health data and empowers health care practitioners and community members in informed decision-making. By reducing the gap between knowledge generation and its application to practice, the LHCC has the potential to transform health care delivery in rural areas.

Specific considerations for research on the effectiveness of multisectoral collaboration: methods and lessons from 12 country case studies.

BACKGROUND: The success of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is predicated on multisectoral collaboration (MSC), and the COVID-19 pandemic makes it more urgent to learn how this can be done better. Complex challenges facing countries, such as COVID-19, cut across health, education, environment, financial and other sectors. Addressing these challenges requires the range of responsible sectors and intersecting services - across health, education, social and financial protection, economic development, law enforcement, among others - transform the way they work together towards shared goals. While the necessity of MSC is recognized, research is needed to understand how sectors collaborate, inform how to do so more efficiently, effectively and equitably, and ascertain similarities and differences across contexts. To answer these questions and inform practice, research to strengthen the evidence-base on MSC is critical. METHODS: This paper draws on a 12-country study series on MSC for health and sustainable development, in the context of the health and rights of women, children and adolescents. It is written by core members of the research coordination and country teams. Issues were analyzed during the study period through 'real-time' discussions and structured reporting, as well as through literature reviews and retrospective feedback and analysis at the end of the study. RESULTS: We identify four considerations that are unique to MSC research which will be of interest to other researchers, in the context of COVID-19 and beyond: 1) use theoretical frameworks to frame research questions as relevant to all sectors and to facilitate theoretical generalizability and evolution; 2) specifically incorporate sectoral analysis into MSC research methods; 3) develop a core set of research questions, using mixed methods and contextual adaptations as needed, with agreement on criteria for research rigor; and 4) identify shared indicators of success and failure across sectors to assess MSCs. CONCLUSION: In responding to COVID-19 it is evident that effective MSC is an urgent priority. It enables partners from diverse sectors to effectively convene to do more together than alone. Our findings have practical relevance for achieving this objective and contribute to the growing literature on partnerships and collaboration. We must seize the opportunity here to identify remaining knowledge gaps on how diverse sectors can work together efficiently and effectively in different settings to accelerate progress towards achieving shared goals.

Rural health research capacity building: an anchored solution.

Rural physicians face many challenges with providing rural health care, which often leads to innovative solutions. Despite their creativity with overcoming barriers, there is a lack of support for rural health research - an area of health care where research makes great impacts on small communities. Rural research capacity building (RRCB) is essential to support rural physicians so that they can conduct relevant research, but RRCB programs are sparse. Thus, our team at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, has created an RRCB ecosystem through the 6for6 and Rural360 programs, which outline a pathway for rural physicians to make meaningful contributions to their communities through research. This article describes the RRCB ecosystem and explains how the 6for6 and Rural360 programs address the need for RRCB. Designed to train six rural physicians over six sessions per year, 6for6 fosters learning of research practices through a conceptual framework that envelops complexity science, systems thinking, and anchored instruction. The use of this framework allows the learning to be grounded in issues that are locally relevant for each participant and follows guiding principles that enable many types of learning. Rural360 continues the pathway by providing an in-house funding opportunity with an iterative review process that allows participants to continue developing their research skills and, ultimately, secure funding for their project. This anchored delivery model of RRCB programming is made possible through many support systems including staff, librarians, instructors, the university, and other stakeholders. It has successfully helped form communities of practice, promotes collaboration both between learners and with third parties, encourages self-organization with flexibility for learners outside of the in-house sessions, and ultimately drives social accountability in addressing local healthcare issues.

The Water@Birth Study: an exploratory study on the requirements of water for hand hygiene during labour and delivery in low-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Infections acquired during childbirth are one of the leading causes of maternal death; the majority of these deaths occur in low-income settings. Hand hygiene is one of the most effective ways of preventing infection but requires basic resources, such as running water, to be performed. Limited literature on water volume requirements for hand hygiene in healthcare facilities exists despite the importance of this information, particularly in resource-poor settings. AIM: To establish the volume of water required for hand hygiene during childbirth in low-income countries. METHODS: Data was collected in Aberdeen Maternity Hospital (AMH) and Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital, Ethiopia (FHRH), with an average of 14 and 16 deliveries per day respectively. Primary data on hand hygiene opportunities (HHOs) during childbirth were gathered using observational methods, and secondary data gathered from register and case-note reviews. The volume of water required for each HHO (H2O/HHO) was calculated by multiplying flow rate by hand washing time. Estimates of water requirements were derived by calculating the number of HHOs during childbirth and the H2O/HHO. Water requirement estimates from each facility were compared to each other as well as to WHO recommendations. Due to skewed data, Spearman's rho was utilised to explore the relationship between variables. RESULTS: Eleven deliveries were observed in AMH and 20 in FHRH. The number of HHOs was largely determined by the length of labour. Stringently following WHO recommendations lead to a significantly higher number of HHOs than was performed in clinical practice at both sites. Hand washing also occurred for a much shorter time than the WHO recommendation of 40-60 seconds, with an average of 24 seconds in AMH and 25 seconds in FHRH observed. The estimated number of HHOs at sites ranged from 5 to 16 per hour per delivery and water consumption from 21 to 159.6 litres per hour per delivery. Hand hygiene was estimated to require 8937.6 litres and 4838.4 litres per day or 638.4 litres and 302.4 litres per delivery for AMH and FHRH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Water requirements are variable due to the nature of childbirth but are not currently met in low-income countries. In terms of performance of hand hygiene, there is a large gap between clinical and recommended practice and thus room for improvement. The volume of water required for hand hygiene has significant implications for water requirements within maternity units, particularly in resource-poor settings. Further research on water requirements is merited to improve the targeting of limited resources.

From pipelines to pathways: the Memorial experience in educating doctors for rural generalist practice.

CONTEXT: This report describes the community context, concept and mission of The Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University of Newfoundland (Memorial), Canada, and its 'pathways to rural practice' approach, which includes influences at the pre-medical school, medical school experience, postgraduate residency training, and physician practice levels. Memorial's pathways to practice helped Memorial to fulfill its social accountability mandate to populate the province with highly skilled rural generalist practitioners. Programs/interventions/initiatives: The 'pathways to rural practice' include initiatives in four stages: (1) before admission to medical school; (2) during undergraduate medical training (medical degree (MD) program); (3) during postgraduate vocational residency training; and (4) after postgraduate vocational residency training. Memorial's Learners & Locations (L&L) database tracks students through these stages. The Aboriginal initiative - the MedQuest program and the admissions process that considers geographic or minority representation in terms of those selecting candidates and the candidates themselves - occurs before the student is admitted. Once a student starts Memorial's MD program, the student has ample opportunities to have rural-based experiences through pre-clerkship and clerkship, of which some take place exclusively outside of St. John's tertiary hospitals. Memorial's postgraduate (PG) Family Medicine (FM) residency (vocational) training program allows for deeper community integration and longer periods of training within the same community, which increases the likelihood of a physician choosing rural family medicine. After postgraduate training, rural physicians were given many opportunities for professional development as well as faculty development opportunities. Each of the programs and initiatives were assessed through geospatial rurality analysis of administrative data collected upon entry into and during the MD program and PG training (L&L). Among Memorial MD-graduating classes of 2011-2020, 56% spent the majority of their lives before their 18th birthday in a rural location and 44% in an urban location. As of September 2016, 23 Memorial MD students self-identified as Aboriginal, of which 2 (9%) were from an urban location and 20 (91%) were from rural locations. For Year 3 Family Medicine, graduating classes 2011 to 2019, 89% of placement weeks took place in rural communities and 8% took place in rural towns. For Memorial MD graduating classes 2011-2013 who completed Memorial Family Medicine vocational training residencies, (N=49), 100% completed some rural training. For these 49 residents (vocational trainees), the average amount of time spent in rural areas was 52 weeks out of a total average FM training time of 95 weeks. For Family Medicine residencies from July 2011 to October 2016, 29% of all placement weeks took place in rural communities and 21% of all placement weeks took place in rural towns. For 2016-2017 first-year residents, 53% of the first year training is completed in rural locations, reflecting an even greater rural experiential learning focus. LESSONS LEARNED: Memorial's pathways approach has allowed for the comprehensive training of rural generalists for Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada and may be applicable to other settings. More challenges remain, requiring ongoing collaboration with governments, medical associations, health authorities, communities, and their physicians to help achieve reliable and feasible healthcare delivery for those living in rural and remote areas.

Does rural generalist focused medical school and family medicine training make a difference? Memorial University of Newfoundland outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Rural recruitment and retention of physicians is a global issue. The Faculty of Medicine at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, was established as a rural-focused medical school with a social accountability mandate that aimed to meet the healthcare needs of a sparse population distributed over a large landmass as well as the needs of other rural and remote areas of Canada. This study aimed to assess whether Memorial medical degree (MD) and postgraduate (PG) programs were effective at producing physicians for their province and rural physicians for Canada compared with other Canadian medical schools. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included medical school graduates who completed their PG training between 2004 and 2013 in Canada. Practice locations of study subjects were georeferenced and assigned to three geographic classes: Large Urban; Small City/Town; and Rural. Analyses were performed at two levels. (1) Provincial level analysis compared Memorial PG graduates practicing where they received their MD and/or PG training with other medical schools who are the only medical school in their province (n=4). (2) National-level analysis compared Memorial PG graduates practicing in rural Canada with all other Canadian medical schools (n=16). Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 18 766 physicians practicing in Canada completed Canadian PG training (2004-2013), and of those, 8091 (43%) completed Family Medicine (FM) training. Of all physicians completing Canadian PG training, 1254 (7%) physicians were practicing rurally and of those, 1076 were family physicians. There were 379 Memorial PG graduates and of those, 208 (55%) completed FM training and 72 (19%) were practicing rurally, and of those practicing rurally, 56 were family physicians. At the national level, the percentage of all Memorial PG graduates (19.0%) and FM PG graduates (26.9%) practicing rurally was significantly better than the national average for PG (6.4%, p<0.000) and FM (12.9%, p<0.000). Among 391 physicians practicing in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), 257 (65.7%) were Memorial PG graduates and 247 (63.2%) were Memorial MD graduates. Of the 163 FM graduates, 148 (90.8%) were Memorial FM graduates and 118 (72.4%) were Memorial MD graduates. Of the 68 in rural practice, 51 (75.0%) were Memorial PG graduates and 31 (45.6%) were Memorial MD graduates. Of the 41 FM graduates in rural practice, 39 (95.1%) were Memorial FM graduates and 22 (53.7%) were Memorial MD graduates. Two-sample proportion tests demonstrated Memorial University provided a larger proportion of its provincial physician resource supply than the other four single provincial medical schools, by medical school MD for FM (72.4% vs 44.3%, p<0.000) and for overall (63.2% vs 43.5% p<0.000), and by medical school PG for FM (90.8 % vs 72.0%, p<0.000). CONCLUSION: This study found Memorial University graduates were more likely to establish practice in rural areas compared with the national average for most program types as well as more likely to establish practice in NL compared with other single medical schools' graduates in their provinces. This study highlights the impact a comprehensive rural-focused social accountability approach can have at supplying the needs of a population both at the regional and rural national levels.

Diversity and divergence: the dynamic burden of poor maternal health.

Maternal health is a big issue and is central to sustainable development. Each year, about 210 million women become pregnant and about 140 million newborn babies are delivered-the sheer scale of maternal health alone makes maternal well being and survival vital concerns. In this Series paper, we adopt primarily a numerical lens to illuminate patterns and trends in outcomes, but recognise that understanding of poor maternal health also warrants other perspectives, such as human rights. Our use of the best available evidence highlights the dynamic burden of maternal health problems. Increased diversity in the magnitude and causes of maternal mortality and morbidity between and within populations presents a major challenge to policies and programmes aiming to match varying needs with diverse types of care across different settings. This diversity, in turn, contributes to a widening gap or differences in levels of maternal mortality, seen most acutely in vulnerable populations, predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa. Strong political and technical commitment to improve equity-sensitive information systems is required to monitor the gap in maternal mortality, and robust research is needed to elucidate major interactions between the broad range of health problems. Diversity and divergence are defining characteristics of poor maternal health in the 21st century. Progress on this issue will be an ultimate judge of sustainable development.

Quality maternity care for every woman, everywhere: a call to action.

To improve maternal health requires action to ensure quality maternal health care for all women and girls, and to guarantee access to care for those outside the system. In this paper, we highlight some of the most pressing issues in maternal health and ask: what steps can be taken in the next 5 years to catalyse action toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goal target of less than 70 maternal deaths per 100 000 livebirths by 2030, with no single country exceeding 140? What steps can be taken to ensure that high-quality maternal health care is prioritised for every woman and girl everywhere? We call on all stakeholders to work together in securing a healthy, prosperous future for all women. National and local governments must be supported by development partners, civil society, and the private sector in leading efforts to improve maternal-perinatal health. This effort means dedicating needed policies and resources, and sustaining implementation to address the many factors influencing maternal health-care provision and use. Five priority actions emerge for all partners: prioritise quality maternal health services that respond to the local specificities of need, and meet emerging challenges; promote equity through universal coverage of quality maternal health services, including for the most vulnerable women; increase the resilience and strength of health systems by optimising the health workforce, and improve facility capability; guarantee sustainable finances for maternal-perinatal health; and accelerate progress through evidence, advocacy, and accountability.

Who delivers where? The effect of obstetric risk on facility delivery in East Africa.

OBJECTIVES: Skilled attendance at birth is key for the survival of pregnant women. This study investigates whether women at increased risk of maternal and newborn complications in four East African countries are more likely to deliver in a health facility than those at lower risk. METHODS: Demographic and Health Survey data for Kenya 2014, Rwanda 2014-15, Tanzania 2015-16 and Uganda 2011 were used to study women with a live birth in the three years preceding the survey. A three-level obstetric risk index was created using known risk factors. Generalised linear Poisson regression was used to investigate the association between obstetric risk and facility delivery. RESULTS: We analysed data from 13 119 women across the four countries of whom 42-45% were considered at medium risk and 12-17% at high risk, and the remainder were at low risk. In Rwanda, 93% of all women delivered in facilities but this was lower (59-66%) in the other three countries. There was no association between a woman's obstetric risk level and her place of delivery in any country; greater wealth and more education were, however, independently strongly associated with facility delivery. CONCLUSIONS: In four East African countries, women at higher obstetric risk were not more likely to deliver in a facility than those with lower risk. This calls for a renewed focus on antenatal risk screening and improved communication on birth planning to ensure women with an increased chance of maternal and newborn complications are supported to deliver in facilities with skilled care.