Co-producing the covid-19 response in Germany, Hong Kong, Lebanon, and Pakistan

"I am there just to get on with it": a qualitative study on the labour of the patient and public involvement workforce

BACKGROUND

Workers tasked with specific responsibilities around patient and public involvement (PPI) are now routinely part of the organizational landscape for applied health research in the United Kingdom. Even as the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has had a pioneering role in developing a robust PPI infrastructure for publicly funded health research in the United Kingdom, considerable barriers remain to embedding substantive and sustainable public input in the design and delivery of research. Notably, researchers and clinicians report a tension between funders' orientation towards deliverables and the resources and labour required to embed public involvement in research. These and other tensions require further investigation.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study with participatory elements. Using purposive and snowball sampling and attending to regional and institutional diversity, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with individuals holding NIHR-funded formal PPI roles across England. Interviews were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis with coding and framing presented and adjusted through two workshops with study participants.

RESULTS

We generated five overarching themes which signal a growing tension between expectations put on staff in PPI roles and the structural limitations of these roles: (i) the instability of support; (ii) the production of invisible labour; (iii) PPI work as more than a job; (iv) accountability without control; and (v) delivering change without changing.

CONCLUSIONS

The NIHR PPI workforce has enabled considerable progress in embedding patient and public input in research activities. However, the role has led not to a resolution of the tension between performance management priorities and the labour of PPI, but rather to its displacement and - potentially - its intensification. We suggest that the expectation to "deliver" PPI hinges on a paradoxical demand to deliver a transformational intervention that is fundamentally divorced from any labour of transformation. We conclude that ongoing efforts to transform health research ecologies so as to better respond to the needs of patients will need to grapple with the force and consequences of this paradoxical demand.

"We all see things through a different lens based on our life experiences": co-production of a web-based implementation toolkit with stakeholders across the health and social care system

Background

Implementing new innovations across the health and social care system is complex, involving many factors that in recent years have been compounded by Covid-19. While a plethora of implementation tools and frameworks are available, there are limitations in terms of their design and accessibility. Co-production is a valuable mechanism for developing tools that have utility and accessibility for those tasked with using them in health and social care organisations and there is growing acknowledgement of increasing the role of co-production in implementation science. This paper provides novel insight into co-production practices and relevance to implementation science by reporting findings from a study to co-produce a web-based implementation toolkit (WIT) that is accessible, usable and designed to support adaptive implementation across health and social care systems. Key themes relating to the process of co-production are outlined and the value of using co-production in implementation processes are discussed.

Methods

A web-based survey (n = 36) was conducted with a range of stakeholders across health and social care. Findings identified a need for WIT. Survey respondents were invited to express interest in becoming part of a co-production group and to take part in three online interactive workshops to co-produce WIT. Workshops took place with the group (n = 12) and focused on key developmental stages of WIT.

Results

Online co-production workshops were integral to the development and refinement of WIT. Benefits of using this process identified three interrelated themes: (i) Co-designing key features of the toolkit, (ii) Co-producing a toolkit with utility for users across health and social care settings, (iii) Co-producing a toolkit to support the implementation journey. Our approach of undertaking co-production as a dialogic process enabled generation of these themes. To illuminate discussion of these themes we draw upon iterative co-development of the "active ingredients" of key components (e.g., interactive Implementation Wheel) and functions (e.g., interactive "pop-up" definitions of keyword) and features (e.g., case studies) of WIT.

Conclusion

Using a co-production approach with a range of end-users across health and social care systems, highlights the benefits of understanding implementation processes for users in these settings. User-centred design and processes for ensuring accessibility readily support the translation of implementation into rapidly changing health and social care systems to benefit outcomes for patients, their families, carers, service users and practitioners.

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of evidence syntheses in informing policymaking, their production and use remain limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). There is a lack of empirical research on approaches to promote and use policy-relevant evidence syntheses to inform policymaking processes in the EMR.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to describe the development of an impact-oriented approach to link evidence synthesis to policy, and its implementation through selected case studies in Lebanon, a middle-income country in the EMR.

METHODS

This study followed a multifaceted and iterative process that included (i) a review of the literature, (ii) input from international experts in evidence synthesis and evidence-informed health policymaking, and (iii) application in a real-world setting (implementation). We describe four selected case studies of implementation. Surveys were used to assess policy briefs, deliberative dialogues, and post-dialogue activities. Additionally, Kingdon's stream theory was adopted to further explain how and why the selected policy issues rose to the decision agenda.

RESULTS

The approach incorporates three interrelated phases: (1) priority setting, (2) evidence synthesis, and (3) uptake. Policy-relevant priorities are generated through formal priority setting exercises, direct requests by policymakers and stakeholders, or a focusing event. Identified priorities are translated into focused questions that can be addressed via evidence synthesis (phase 1). Next, a scoping of the literature is conducted to identify existing evidence syntheses addressing the question of interest. Unless the team identifies relevant, up-to-date and high-quality evidence syntheses, it proceeds to conducting SRs addressing the priority questions of interest (phase 2). Next, the team prepares knowledge translation products (e.g., policy briefs) for undertaking knowledge uptake activities, followed by monitoring and evaluation (phase 3). There are two prerequisites to the application of the approach: enhancing contextual awareness and capacity strengthening. The four case studies illustrate how evidence produced from the suites of activities was used to inform health policies and practices.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe both the development and implementation of an approach to link evidence synthesis to policy in the EMR. We believe the approach will be useful for researchers, knowledge translation platforms, governments, and funders seeking to promote evidence-informed policymaking and practice.

COVID-19 management at one of the largest hospitals in Germany: Concept, evaluation and adaptation

CONTEXT

The LMU University Hospital is among the largest healthcare facilities in Germany. The measures implemented prior to and during the first pandemic wave of COVID-19, were evaluated in preparation of a second pandemic wave. This paper presents the pandemic management concept, evaluation and adaptation of LMU University Hospital.

METHODS

Between July and September 2020 the disaster management team of LMU University Hospital conducted a mixed-method evaluation of the hospital's pandemic management. A workshop series based on the After Action Review working group format was organized to examine the management structure, decision-making processes, documentation, and crisis preparedness response for a second COVID-19 wave. Further, the satisfaction of employees with the hospital's COVID-19 management was examined through an anonymous survey.

RESULTS

The workshop series highlighted a need for structural and operational adaptation of the COVID-19 management at LMU University Hospital. The results of the employee survey (N = 2182) provided positive feedback for the measures taken during the first pandemic wave. Specific actions were derived concerning the availability of personal protective equipment and emergency childcare services. A key outcome of both evaluation activities was the identified need for further improvement in communication between stakeholders. All changes were adopted prior to the second pandemic wave.

Applying learning health systems thinking in codeveloping integrated tuberculosis interventions in the contexts of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic reversed much of global progress made in combatting tuberculosis, with South Africa experiencing one of the largest impacts on tuberculosis detection. The aim of this paper is to share our experiences in applying learning health systems (LHS) thinking to the codevelopment of an intervention improving an integrated response to COVID-19 and tuberculosis in a South African district. A sequential partially mixed-methods study was undertaken between 2018 and 2021 in the district of Amajuba in KwaZulu-Natal. Here, we report on the formulation of a Theory of Change, codesigning and refining proposed interventions, and piloting and evaluating codesigned interventions in primary healthcare facilities, through an LHS lens. Following the establishment and formalisation of a district Learning Community, diagnostic work and a codevelopment of a theory of change, intervention packages tailored according to pandemic lockdowns were developed, piloted and scaled up. This process illustrates how a community of learning can generate more responsive, localised interventions, and suggests that the establishment of a shared space of research governance can provide a degree of resilience to facilitate adaption to external shocks. Four main lessons have been gleaned from our experience in adopting an LHS approach in a South African district, which are (1) the importance of building and sustaining relationships, (2) the utility of colearning, coproduction and adaptive capacity, (3) the centrality of theory-driven systems strengthening and (4) reflections on LHS as a framework.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.

Research can be integrated into public health policy-making: global lessons for and from Spanish economic evaluations

WHO promotes the use of research in policy-making to drive improvements in health, including in achieving Sustainable Development Goals such as tobacco control. The European Union’s new €95 billion Horizon Europe research framework programme parallels these aims, and also includes commitments to fund economic evaluations. However, researchers often express frustration at the perceived lack of attention to scientific evidence during policy-making. For example, some researchers claim that evidence regarding the return on investment from optimal implementation of evidence-based policies is frequently overlooked. An increasingly large body of literature acknowledges inevitable barriers to research use, but also analyses facilitators encouraging such use. This opinion piece describes how some research is integrated into policy-making. It highlights two recent reviews. One examines impact assessments of 36 multi-project research programmes and identifies three characteristics of projects more likely to influence policy-making. These include a focus on healthcare system needs, engagement of stakeholders, and research conducted for organizations supported by structures to receive and use evidence. The second review suggests that such characteristics are likely to occur as part of a comprehensive national health research system strategy, especially one integrated into the healthcare system. We also describe two policy-informing economic evaluations conducted in Spain. These examined the most cost-effective package of evidence-based tobacco control interventions and the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer. Both projects focused on issues of healthcare concern and involved considerable stakeholder engagement. The Spanish examples reinforce some lessons from the global literature and, therefore, could help demonstrate to authorities in Spain the value of developing comprehensive health research systems, possibly following the interfaces and receptor model. The aim of this would be to integrate needs assessment and stakeholder engagement with structures spanning the research and health systems. In such structures, economic evaluation evidence could be collated, analysed by experts in relation to healthcare needs, and fed into both policy-making as appropriate, and future research calls. The increasingly large local and global evidence base on research utilization could inform detailed implementation of this approach once accepted as politically desirable. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare systems and return on investment of public health interventions becomes even more important.

COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy or Acceptance and Its Associated Factors: Findings from Post-Vaccination Cross-Sectional Survey from Punjab Pakistan

COVID-19 has posed massive challenges related to health, economy, and the social fabric of the entire human population. To curb the spread of the virus, the Government of Pakistan initiated a vaccination campaign against COVID-19. The objective of this research was to assess the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. The data were collected telephonically using a cross-sectional survey design through a close-ended structured questionnaire from a sample of 1325 vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals with a response rate of 38%. SPSS v. 26 was used to analyze the data. The study revealed that 73% of the respondents were male, half in the 40-49 age group, 78% living in urban areas, and 45% had a monthly income between 20,001-50,000 Pakistani rupees. People felt reluctant to get vaccinated because of myths and misinformation related to it. The socio-demographic factors including male, age 60-69, middle or higher level of education, marital status, currently employed, from middle socio-economic status, living in urban areas, high access to mass media, history of influenza vaccination, physical activity, and perceived good health status were significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Concerted efforts are needed to achieve vaccine targets for the broader population through understanding and identifying barriers to vaccination.

National health governance, science and the media: drivers of COVID-19 responses in Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis in which governments had to act in a situation of rapid change and substantial uncertainty. The governments of Germany, Sweden and the UK have taken different paths allowing learning for future pandemic preparedness. To help inform discussions on preparedness, inspired by resilience frameworks, this paper reviews governance structures, and the role of science and the media in the COVID-19 response of Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020. We mapped legitimacy, interdependence, knowledge generation and the capacity to deal with uncertainty.Our analysis revealed stark differences which were linked to pre-existing governing structures, the traditional role of academia, experience of crisis management and the communication of uncertainty-all of which impacted on how much people trusted their government. Germany leveraged diversity and inclusiveness, a 'patchwork quilt', for which it was heavily criticised during the second wave. The Swedish approach avoided plurality and largely excluded academia, while in the UK's academia played an important role in knowledge generation and in forcing the government to review its strategies. However, the vivant debate left the public with confusing and rapidly changing public health messages. Uncertainty and the lack of evidence on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic-the main feature during the first wave-was only communicated explicitly in Germany. All country governments lost trust of their populations during the epidemic due to a mix of communication and transparency failures, and increased questioning of government legitimacy and technical capacity by the public.

Rigorous Policy-Making Amid COVID-19 and Beyond: Literature Review and Critical Insights

Policies shape society. Public health policies are of particular importance, as they often dictate matters in life and death. Accumulating evidence indicates that good-intentioned COVID-19 policies, such as shelter-in-place measures, can often result in unintended consequences among vulnerable populations such as nursing home residents and domestic violence victims. Thus, to shed light on the issue, this study aimed to identify policy-making processes that have the potential of developing policies that could induce optimal desirable outcomes with limited to no unintended consequences amid the pandemic and beyond. Methods: A literature review was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus to answer the research question. To better structure the review and the subsequent analysis, theoretical frameworks such as the social ecological model were adopted to guide the process. Results: The findings suggested that: (1) people-centered; (2) artificial intelligence (AI)-powered; (3) data-driven, and (4) supervision-enhanced policy-making processes could help society develop policies that have the potential to yield desirable outcomes with limited unintended consequences. To leverage these strategies' interconnectedness, the people-centered, AI-powered, data-driven, and supervision-enhanced (PADS) model of policy making was subsequently developed. Conclusions: The PADS model can develop policies that have the potential to induce optimal outcomes and limit or eliminate unintended consequences amid COVID-19 and beyond. Rather than serving as a definitive answer to problematic COVID-19 policy-making practices, the PADS model could be best understood as one of many promising frameworks that could bring the pandemic policy-making process more in line with the interests of societies at large; in other words, more cost-effectively, and consistently anti-COVID and pro-human.