Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like "masks save lives" are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people.

A roadmap for strengthening evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran: protocol for a research programme.

BACKGROUND: Many initiatives have been taken in the Islamic Republic of Iran to promote evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP). However, these initiatives are not systematic. Since the implementation of EIHP is not consistent and the interventions in this regard are complex, a comprehensive plan could be a useful tool for employing initiatives to achieve and promote EIHP. Hence, this study aims to develop a roadmap for strengthening EIHP over a 3-year period in Iran. METHODS: Nine projects will be conducted to define the roadmap for strengthening EIHP. These projects include two reviews and a stakeholder analysis to identify the factors that facilitate or hinder achieving EIHP. The next study will be a qualitative study to prioritise the challenges and outline the main causes. The following steps will be a review of reviews to extract global experiences on interventions used for strengthening EIHP and two qualitative studies to examine the adoption of these interventions and develop an operational plan for strengthening EIHP in Iran. The research will be completed through conducting two qualitative-quantitative studies to design a tool for measuring EIHP and assessing EIHP in Iran at baseline. DISCUSSION: This national EIHP roadmap will surely be able to identify the gaps and bumps that might exist in the implementation plan for establishing EIHP and eliminate them as needed in the future. This roadmap can be a step in moving towards transparency and accountability in the health system and as thus towards good governance and improvement of the health system's performance. Although the plan can be a good model for developing countries and may promote the use of evidence in health policy-making, we should assume that there are some critical contextual factors that could potentially hinder the complete and successful implementation of EIHP. Thus, to enhance EIHP in these countries with a policy-making context that does not fully support the use of evidence, it is crucial to think about not only those interventions that directly address the EIHP barriers, but also some long-term strategies to make required changes in the context, both beyond and within the health system.

Use of post-graduate students' research in evidence informed health policies: a case study of Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: World over, stakeholders are increasingly concerned about making research useful in public policy-making. However, there are hardly any reports linking production of research by students at institutions of higher learning to its application in society. We assessed whether and how post-graduate students' research was used in evidence-informed health policies. METHODS: This is a multiple case study of master's students' dissertations at Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) produced between 1996 and 2010. In a structured review, we applied a theoretical framework of 'research use' and used content analysis to map how research was used in public policy documents. We categorised content of these documents according to the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDG). We defined a case of 'use' as citation of research products from a master's student's dissertation in a public policy-related document. RESULTS: We found 22 cases of research use in policy-related documents (0.5%) out of a total 4230 citations from 16 of 1172 total dissertations (1.4%). Additionally, research was mostly cited in primary studies (95.4%), systematic reviews (3%), narrative reviews (0.8%) and cost-effectiveness analyses (0.2%). Research was predominantly used instrumentally, to either frame the problem (burden of disease or health condition) or select an intervention (treatment or diagnostic option) and rarely symbolically to justify strategies already selected. The bulk of the cases of research use addressed child health (MDG 4), focusing on infectious diseases (MDG 6), mainly in international clinical or public health guidelines, working papers, a consensus statement and a global report. We distilled 'synergistic relationships' among organisations or interest groups, 'globalisation of local evidence', 'trade-offs' in the use of research and use of 'negative results' from the documents and text content. CONCLUSIONS: Research from dissertations of post-graduate students at MakCHS is used in evidence-informed health policies, particularly for infectious diseases in child health. Further, we have delineated pathways of research use in the global arena and highlighted the importance of 'negative results' from dissertations of post-graduate students at MakCHS.

A systematic review on academic research productivity of postgraduate students in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: While several individual studies addressing research productivity of post-graduate students are available, a synthesis of effective strategies to increase productivity and the determinants of productivity in low-income countries has not been undertaken. Further, whether or not this research from post-graduate students' projects was applied in evidence-informed decision-making was unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of literature to identify and assess the effectiveness of approaches that increase productivity (proportion published) or the application (proportion cited) of post-graduate students' research, as well as to assess the determinants of post-graduate students' research productivity and use. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review as per our a priori published protocol, also registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016042819). We searched for published articles in PubMed/MEDLINE and the ERIC databases through to July 2017. We performed duplicate assessments for included primary studies and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Thereafter, we completed a structured narrative synthesis and, for a subset of studies, we performed a meta-analysis of the findings using both fixed and random effects approaches. We aligned our results to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: We found 5080 articles in the PubMed (n = 3848) and ERIC (n = 1232) databases. After excluding duplicates (n = 33), we screened 5047 articles, of which 5012 were excluded. We then retrieved 44 full texts and synthesised 14, of which 4 had a high risk of bias. We did not find any studies assessing effectiveness of strategies for increasing publication nor citations of post-graduate research projects. We found an average publication proportion of 7% (95% CI 7-8%, Higgins I-squared 0.0% and Cochran's Q p < 0.01) and 23% (95% CI 17-29%, Higgins I-squared of 98.4% and Cochran's Q, p < 0.01) using fixed effects and random effects models, respectively. Two studies reported on the citation of post-graduate students' studies, at 17% (95% CI 15-19%) in Uganda and a median citation of 1 study in Turkey (IQR 0.6-2.3). Only one included study reported on the determinants of productivity or use of post-graduate students' research, suggesting that younger students were more likely to publish and cohort studies were more likely to be published. CONCLUSIONS: We report on the low productivity of post-graduate students' research in low- and middle-income countries, including the citation of post-graduate students' research in evidence-informed health policy in low- and middle-income countries. Secondly, we did not find a single study that assessed strategies to increase productivity and use of post-graduate students' research in evidence-informed health policy, a subject for future research.

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence.

BACKGROUND: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple 'Google-style' search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. METHODS: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. RESULTS: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. CONCLUSIONS: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .

Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTAs) have been suggested as a strategy to bridge the evidence-to-policy gap in public health. It is unclear to what extent HTAs have been prepared to assist decisions to implement public health interventions (PHIs). We aimed to describe the experience of HTA agencies by mapping, classifying, and analyzing the evidence content of HTAs of PHIs. METHODS: We systematically searched databases of 35 HTA agencies from 18 countries for evaluations of PHIs between 2008-2018. Interventions were classified using the International Classification of Health Interventions and the evidence content analysed with the INAHTA Product-Type-mark checklist. RESULTS: Only 1010 (9%) of HTAs were on PHIs. 500 (50%) publications targeted Body Systems and Functions, 302 (30%) Health-related Behaviours, 137 (14%) the Environment and 44 (4%) Activities and Participation Domains. Out of 734 publications perused, few met the criteria of full-HTAs (71;10%) or mini-HTAs (110;15%). Most were rapid reviews (420;57%). 72% of all reports came from only 6 countries. CONCLUSION: HTAs on PHIs were uncommon relative to clinical interventions. HTAs on population-based PHIs were less comprehensive in quality and rigor of the evidence. Countries with more resources and mature HTA-systems had done the most evaluations. Exploring the experiences of forerunners could help overcome barriers to evaluations of PHIs and exploit the full potential of HTAs to promote evidence-based public health.

Scientific Advisory Committees at the World Health Organization: A Qualitative Study of How Their Design Affects Quality, Relevance, and Legitimacy.

Governments and international organizations frequently convene scientific advisory committees (SACs) to support decision-making with scientific advice. In this study, thematic analysis of interviews with 35 senior WHO staff identified five main themes characterizing WHO's experience with designing SACs to ensure quality, relevance, and legitimacy of scientific advice. First, in addition to technical matters, SACs are established to serve broader strategic objectives, including consensus building to promote high-level political messages. Second, for SACs to be fully independent, they must have autonomy from the institutions convening or funding them, from the institutions from where SAC members are recruited, and from the institutions to whom the advice is directed. Third, since choices affecting quality, relevance, and legitimacy are closely linked, designing SACs often require trade-offs among these three attributes. Fourth, staff supporting SACs need to balance between safeguarding SACs from external influence and being receptive to the external political environment. Fifth, the design of SACs need to balance the involvement of stakeholders with the power to act on recommendations against the need to protect the independence and integrity of the scientific process. Overall, this study highlights key choices conveners of SACs must make when seeking to promote quality, relevance, and legitimacy of scientific advice.

A Process Evaluation to Assess Contextual Factors Associated With the Uptake of a Rapid Response Service to Support Health Systems' Decision-Making in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Although proven feasible, rapid response services (RRSs) to support urgent decision and policymaking are still a fairly new and innovative strategy in several health systems, more especially in low-income countries. There are several information gaps about these RRSs that exist including the factors that make them work in different contexts and in addition what affects their uptake by potential end users. METHODS: We used a case study employing process evaluation methods to determine what contextual factors affect the utilization of a RRS in Uganda. We held in-depth interviews with researchers, knowledge translation (KT) specialists and policy-makers from several research and policy-making institutions in Uganda's health sector. We analyzed the data using thematic analysis to develop categories and themes about activities and structures under given program components that affected uptake of the service. RESULTS: We identified several factors under three themes that have both overlapping relations and also reinforcing loops amplifying each other: Internal factors (those factors that were identified as over which the RRS had full [or almost full] control); external factors (factors over which the service had only partial influence, a second party holds part of this influence); and environmental factors (factors over which the service had no or only remote control if at all). Internal factors were the design of the service and resources available for it, while the external factors were the service's visibility, integrity and relationships. Environmental factors were political will and health system policy and decision-making infrastructure. CONCLUSION: For health systems practitioners considering RRSs, knowing what factors will affect uptake and therefore modifying them within their contexts is important to ensure efficient use and successful utilization of the mechanisms.