Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. Phimosis is a condition in which the prepuce (foreskin) cannot be fully retracted past the head of the penis (glans). Phimosis is often treated surgically by circumcision or prepuce plasty; however, reports of non-invasive treatment using topical corticosteroids applied for four to eight weeks have suggested favorable outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical corticosteroids applied to the stenotic portion of the prepuce for the treatment of phimosis in boys compared with placebo or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and ClinicalTrial.gov. We checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for additional studies. There were no restrictions on the language of publication. The date of the last search was 4 October 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of any topical corticosteroid with placebo or no treatment for boys with any type or degree of phimosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data related to the review's primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed the studies' risk of bias. We used the random-effects model for statistical analyses and expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We contacted the authors of the primary articles to request details of the study design and specific outcome data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence on a per-outcome basis. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified two new studies with 111 participants, bringing the total number of included studies to 14 (1459 randomized participants). We found that types of corticosteroids investigated, participant age, degree of phimosis, type of phimosis, and treatment duration varied considerably among studies. Compared with placebo or no treatment, topical corticosteroids may increase the complete resolution of phimosis after four to eight weeks of treatment (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 4.16; I² = 72%; 10 trials, 834 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 252 complete resolutions per 1000 boys in the control group, this corresponds to 436 more complete resolutions per 1000 boys (95% CI 199 more to 796 more). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious inconsistency. Topical corticosteroids may also increase the partial resolution of phimosis at four to eight weeks of treatment compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.40; I² = 44%; 7 trials, 745 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 297 partial resolutions per 1000 boys in the control group, this corresponds to 202 more partial resolutions per 1000 boys (95% CI 50 more to 416 more). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious inconsistency. We are uncertain of the effect of topical corticosteroids compared to placebo on change in retractability score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.48, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.03; I²91%; 2 trials, 177 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations, one level for serious heterogeneity, and one level for serious imprecision. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may increase the long-term complete resolution of phimosis six or more months after treatment (RR 4.09, 95% CI 2.80 to 5.97; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 280 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 171 long-term complete resolutions per 1000 boys in the control group, this corresponds to 528 more complete resolutions per 1000 boys (95% CI 308 more to 850 more). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious imprecision. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between topical corticosteroids and placebo or no treatment (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.62; I² = 22%; 11 trials, 1091 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only two of 11 studies that recorded adverse effects reported any adverse effects; one event occurred in the corticosteroid group and six in the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids, compared to placebo or no treatment, may increase complete and partial resolution of phimosis when assessed after four to eight weeks of treatment, and may increase long-term complete resolution of phimosis assessed six or more months after treatment. Topical corticosteroids may have few or no adverse effects, and we are uncertain about their effect on retractability scores. The body of evidence is limited by poor reporting of methods in the studies, important clinical heterogeneity, and serious imprecision in the results. Future, higher-quality trials with long-term follow-up would likely improve our understanding of the effects of topical corticoids on phimosis in boys.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Drug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by  Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC)  to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare is limited.

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.

Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes.

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.

[Perceptions and attitudes of Chilean primary care physicians toward clinical practice guidelines]. / Percepciones y actitudes de médicos de atención primaria respecto de las Guías de Práctica Clínicas en el Régimen de Garantías en Salud.

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.

Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity.

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.

Financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

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.

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

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.

Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

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.

Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

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.

The Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) in Chile: lessons learned from a year of coordinated efforts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models. FINDINGS: Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt. CONCLUSION: Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.

Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, phimosis has been treated surgically by circumcision or prepuceplasty; however, recent reports of non-invasive treatment using topical corticosteroids applied for four to eight weeks have been favourable. The efficacy and safety of topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys has not been previously systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to 1) compare the effectiveness of the use of topical corticosteroid ointment applied to the distal stenotic portion of the prepuce in the resolution of phimosis in boys compared with the use of placebo or no treatment, and 2) determine the rate of partial resolution (improvement) of phimosis, rate of re-stenosis after initial resolution or improvement of phimosis, and the rate of adverse events of topical corticosteroid treatment in boys with phimosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Date of last search: 16 June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of any topical corticosteroid ointment with placebo ointment or no treatment for boys with phimosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full-text of eligible studies, extracted data relating to the review's primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed studies' risk of bias. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We contacted authors of primary articles asking for details of study design and specific outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies that enrolled 1395 boys in this review. We found that both types of corticosteroids investigated and treatment duration varied among studies.Compared with placebo, corticosteroids significantly increased complete or partial clinical resolution of phimosis (12 studies, 1395 participants: RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.26). Our analysis of studies that compared different types of corticosteroids found that these therapies also significantly increased complete clinical resolution of phimosis (8 studies, 858 participants: RR 3.42, 95% CI 2.08 to 5.62). Although nine studies (978 participants) reported that assessment of adverse effects were planned in the study design, these outcomes were not reported.Overall, we found that inadequate reporting made assessing risk of bias challenging in many of the included studies.Selection bias, performance and detection bias was unclear in the majority of the included studies: two studies had adequate sequence generation, none reported allocation concealment; two studies had adequate blinding of participants and personnel and one had high risk of bias; one study blinded outcome assessors. Attrition bias was low in 8/12 studies and reporting bias was unclear in 11 studies and high in one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids offer an effective alternative for treating phimosis in boys. Although sub optimal reporting among the included studies meant that the size of the effect remains uncertain, corticosteroids appear to be a safe, less invasive first-line treatment option before undertaking surgery to correct phimosis in boys.

Capturing lessons learned from evidence-to-policy initiatives through structured reflection.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge translation platforms (KTPs), which are partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers, are being established in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to enhance evidence-informed health policymaking (EIHP). This study aims to gain a better understanding of the i) activities conducted by KTPs, ii) the way in which KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders perceive these activities and their outputs, iii) facilitators that support KTP work and challenges, and the lessons learned for overcoming such challenges, and iv) factors that can help to ensure the sustainability of KTPs. METHODS: This paper triangulated qualitative data from: i) 17 semi-structured interviews with 47 key informants including KTP leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders from 10 KTPs; ii) document reviews, and iii) observation of deliberations at the International Forum on EIHP in LMICs held in Addis Ababa in August 2012. Purposive sampling was used and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Deliberative dialogues informed by evidence briefs were identified as the most commendable tools by interviewees for enhancing EIHP. KTPs reported that they have contributed to increased awareness of the importance of EIHP and strengthened relationships among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers. Support from policymakers and international funders facilitated KTP activities, while the lack of skilled human resources to conduct EIHP activities impeded KTPs. Ensuring the sustainability of EIHP initiatives after the end of funding was a major challenge for KTPs. KTPs reported that institutionalization within the government has helped to retain human resources and secure funding, whereas KTPs hosted by universities highlighted the advantage of autonomy from political interests. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of KTPs is a promising development in supporting EIHP. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTPs can support improvements in the functioning of KTPs in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term. Lessons learned can help to promote similar EIHP initiatives in other countries.

[Clinical practice guidelines development and implementation: an introduction]. / Guías de práctica clínica: una introducción a su elaboración e implementación.

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG), defined as "statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options", are tools currently present in every level of our health system. This article introduces guidelines development and implementation processes and it reviews the Chilean experience. The main stages in a CPG development are question formulation, search and analysis of the existing evidence related to those questions, and making judgments about that evidence in order to formulate recommendations for clinical practice. At the national level, guidelines development processes are conducted by the Ministry of Health, and even when recent evaluations show some good results, there are a number of aspects - such as applicability - that should be improved. On the other hand, CPG should be implemented using effective strategies in order to obtain changes in clinical practice and patients' outcomes. The existing evidence about the effects of the different implementation strategies shows modest and highly variable results. At the national level, there is a dearth of research about the design and evaluation of implementation strategies, and most of it has been focused in the evaluation of adherence to specific recommendations.

[The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations]. / El sistema GRADE: un cambio en la forma de evaluar la calidad de la evidencia y la fuerza de recomendaciones.

Individual clinicians and organizations making health care decisions should not only consider the magnitude of the benefits and harms of different courses of action (interventions), but also the confidence we can have in those estimates. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent way to summarize the evidence, to rate the confidence we can have in the effects of the interventions and to move from evidence to recommendations. The GRADE approach has been adopted by several organizations worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the Cochrane Collaboration. In Chile, this approach has already been used by guidelines produced by the Chilean Ministry of Health. In this paper we describe the core concepts of the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence and to grade the strength of recommendations. As clinicians, being familiar with such concepts may be helpful to make decisions informed by the best available evidence.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.