1
|
Doshmangir L, Mostafavi H, Behzadifar M, Yazdizadeh B, Sajadi HS, Hasanpoor E, Mahdavi M, Majdzadeh R. Individual and institutional capacity-building for evidence-informed health policy-making in Iran: a mix of local and global evidence. Health Res Policy Syst 2022; 20:18. [PMID: 35151312 PMCID: PMC8841080 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00816-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Providing valid evidence to policy-makers is a key factor in the development of evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM). This study aims to review interventions used to promote researchers’ and knowledge-producing organizations’ knowledge and skills in the production and translation of evidence to policy-making and explore the interventions at the individual and institutional level in the Iranian health system to strengthen EIPM.
Methods
The study was conducted in two main phases: a systematic review and a qualitative study. First, to conduct the systematic review, the PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Quality appraisal was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Second, semi-structured interviews and document review were used to collect local data. Purposive sampling was used and continued until data saturation. A qualitative content analysis approach was used for data analysis.
Results
From a total of 11,514 retrieved articles, 18 papers were eligible for the analysis. Based on the global evidence, face-to-face training workshops for researchers was the most widely used intervention for strengthening researchers’ capacity regarding EIPM. Target audiences in almost all of the training programmes were researchers. Setting up joint training sessions that helped empower researchers in understanding the needs of health policy-makers had a considerable effect on strengthening EIPM. Based on the local collected evidence, the main interventions for individual and institutional capacity-building were educational and training programmes or courses related to the health system, policy-making and policy analysis, and research cycle management. To implement the individual and institutional interventions, health system planners and authorities and the community were found to have a key role as facilitating factors.
Conclusion
The use of evidence-based interventions for strengthening research centres, such as training health researchers on knowledge translation and tackling institutional barriers that can prevent well-trained researchers from translating their knowledge, as well as the use of mechanisms and networks for effective interactions among policy-makers at the macro and meso (organizational) level and the research centre, will be constructive for individual and institutional capacity-building. The health system needs to strengthen its strategic capacity to facilitate an educational and training culture in order to motivate researchers in producing appropriate evidence for policy-makers.
Collapse
|
2
|
Khampang R, Khuntha S, Hadnorntun P, Kumluang S, Anothaisintawee T, Tanuchit S, Tantivess S, Teerawattananon Y. Selecting topic areas for developing quality standards in a resource-limited setting. BMJ Open Qual 2019; 8:e000491. [PMID: 30815581 PMCID: PMC6361367 DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2018] [Revised: 11/27/2018] [Accepted: 01/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Variation in practices of and access to health promotion and disease prevention (P&P) across geographical areas have been studied in Thailand as well as other healthcare settings. The implementation of quality standards (QS)—a concise set of evidence-informed quality statements designed to drive and measure priority quality improvements—can be an option to solve the problem. This paper aims to provide an overview of the priority setting process of topic areas for developing QS and describes the criteria used. Topic selection consisted of an iterative process involving several steps and relevant stakeholders. Review of existing documents on the principles and criteria used for prioritising health technology assessment topics were performed. Problems with healthcare services were reviewed, and stakeholder consultation meetings were conducted to discuss current problems and comment on the proposed prioritisation criteria. Topics were then prioritised based on both empirical evidence derived from literature review and stakeholders’ experiences through a deliberative process. Preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and postpartum haemorrhage were selected. The three health problems had significant disease burden; were prevalent among pregnant women in Thailand; led to high mortality and morbidity in mothers and children and caused variation in the practices and service uptake at health facilities. Having agreed-on criteria is one of the important elements of the priority setting process. The criteria should be discussed and refined with various stakeholders. Moreover, key stakeholders, especially the implementers of QS initiative, should be engaged in a constructive way and should be encouraged to actively participate and contribute significantly in the process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roongnapa Khampang
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| | - Sarayuth Khuntha
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| | | | | | - Thunyarat Anothaisintawee
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Nonthaburi, Thailand.,Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Sonvanee Tanuchit
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| | - Sripen Tantivess
- Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Nonthaburi, Thailand
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Straus SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med 2015; 13:224. [PMID: 26377409 PMCID: PMC4574114 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 482] [Impact Index Per Article: 53.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2015] [Accepted: 08/28/2015] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent. CONCLUSIONS Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
- Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3 M7, Canada.
| | - Jesmin Antony
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
| | - Wasifa Zarin
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
| | - Lisa Strifler
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
- Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3 M6, Canada.
| | - Marco Ghassemi
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
| | - John Ivory
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
| | - Laure Perrier
- Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3 M6, Canada.
| | - Brian Hutton
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
| | - David Moher
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
| | - Sharon E Straus
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada.
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A1, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|