Health systems research in Lao PDR: capacity development for getting research into policy and practice

Does improving the skills of researchers and decision-makers in health policy and systems research lead to enhanced evidence-based decision making in Nigeria?-A short term evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Health care decision makers require capacity to demand and use research evidence for effective decision making. Capacity to undertake health policy and systems research (HPSR) and teaching is low in developing countries. Strengthening the capacity of producers and users of research is a more sustainable strategy for developing the field of HPSR in Africa, than relying on training in high-income countries.

METHODS

Data were collected from 118 participants who had received the capacity building, using a pre-tested questionnaire. Respondents included health research scientists from institutions (producers) and decision makers (users) in the public health sector, in Anambra and Enugu states, southeast Nigeria. Data were collected on participants' progress with proposed group activities in their short- term goals; effects of these activities on evidence-informed decision making and constraints to implementing activities. Univariate analysis was done using SPSS version 16.

FINDINGS

All prioritised activities were carried out. However, responses were low. Highest response for an activity amongst producers was 39.1%, and 44.4% for users. Some of the activities implemented positively influenced changes in practice; like modification of existing policies and programme plans. There was a wide range of responses between producers of evidence (0.0-39.1%) and users (2.7-44.4%) across both study states. Lack of authority to implement activities was the major constraint (42-9-100.0% across activities), followed by financial constraints (70.6%).

CONCLUSION

Capacity building intervention improved skills of a critical mass of research scientists, policymakers and practitioners, towards evidence-based decision making. Participants committed to undertake proposed activities but faced a number of constraints. These need to be addressed, especially the decision space and authority, improving funding to implement activities that influence Getting Research into Policy & Practice (GRIPP). Being at different stages of planning and implementing proposed activities; participants require continuous technical and financial support to successfully implement activities and engage meaningfully within and across professional boundaries and roles, in order to achieve short-, medium- and long- term goals.

Knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle- income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

Background

Effective knowledge translation allows the optimisation of access to and utilisation of research knowledge in order to inform and enhance public health policy and practice. In low- and middle- income countries, there are substantial complexities that affect the way in which research can be utilised for public health action. This review attempts to draw out concepts in the literature that contribute to defining some of the complexities and contextual factors that influence knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle- income countries.

Methods

A Critical Interpretive Synthesis was undertaken, a method of analysis which allows a critical review of a wide range of heterogeneous evidence, through incorporating systematic review methods with qualitative enquiry techniques. A search for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2016 on the topic of knowledge translation for public health in low- and middle – income countries was carried out, and 85 articles were reviewed and analysed using this method.

Results

Four main concepts were identified: 1) tension between ‘global’ and ‘local’ health research, 2) complexities in creating and accessing evidence, 3) contextualising knowledge translation strategies for low- and middle- income countries, and 4) the unique role of non-government organisations in the knowledge translation process.

Conclusion

This method of review has enabled the identification of key concepts that may inform practice or further research in the field of knowledge translation in low- and middle- income countries.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41256-018-0084-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How is the use of research evidence in health policy perceived? A comparison between the reporting of researchers and policy-makers

Background

The use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the χ² test.

Results

A total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making.

Conclusions

This research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0345-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Promoting evidence informed policymaking for maternal and child health in Nigeria: lessons from a knowledge translation workshop

Background: Knowledge translation (KT) is a process that ensures that research evidence gets translated into policy and practice. In Nigeria, reports indicate that research evidence rarely gets into policymaking process. A major factor responsible for this is lack of KT capacity enhancement mechanisms. The objective of this study was to improve KT competence of an implementation research team (IRT), policymakers and stakeholders in maternal and child health to enhance evidence-informed policymaking.

Methods: This study employed a “before and after” design, modified as an intervention study. The study was conducted in Bauchi, north-eastern Nigeria. A three-day KT training workshop was organized and 15 modules were covered including integrated and end-of-grant KT; KT models, measures, tools and strategies; priority setting; managing political interference; advocacy and consensus building/negotiations; inter-sectoral collaboration; policy analysis, contextualization and legislation. A 4-point Likert scale pre-/post-workshop questionnaires were administerd to evaluate the impact of the training, it was designed in terms of extent of adequacy; with “grossly inadequate” representing 1 point, and “very adequate” representing 4 points.

Results: A total of 45 participants attended the workshop. There was a noteworthy improvement in the participants’ understanding of KT processes and strategies. The range of the preworkshop mean of participants knowledge of modules taught was from 2.04-2.94, the range for the postworkshop mean was from 3.10–3.70 on the 4-point Likert scale. The range of percentage increase in mean for participants’ knowledge at the end of the workshop was from 13.3%–55.2%.

Conclusion: The outcome of this study suggests that using a KT capacity building programme e.g., workshop, health researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders can acquire capacity and skill that will facilitate evidence-to-policy link.

'Knowledge for better health' revisited - the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief

How can nations organise research investments to obtain the best bundle of knowledge and the maximum level of improved health, spread as equitably as possible? This question was the central focus of a major initiative from WHO led by Prof Tikki Pang, which resulted in a range of developments, including the publication of a conceptual framework for national health research systems - Knowledge for better health - in 2003, and in the founding of the journal Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS). As Editors-in-Chief of the journal since 2006, we mark our retirement by tracking both the progress of the journal and the development of national health research systems. HARPS has maintained its focus on a range of central themes that are key components of a national health research system in any country. These include building capacity to conduct and use health research, identifying appropriate priorities, securing funds and allocating them accountably, producing scientifically valid research outputs, promoting the use of research in polices and practice in order to improve health, and monitoring and evaluating the health research system. Some of the themes covered in HARPS are now receiving increased attention and, for example, with the assessment of research impact and development of knowledge translation platforms, the journal has covered their progress throughout that expansion of interest. In addition, there is increasing recognition of new imperatives, including the importance of promoting gender equality in health research if benefits are to be maximised. In this Editorial, we outline some of the diverse and developing perspectives considered within each theme, as well as considering how they are held together by the growing desire to build effective health research systems in all countries.From 2003 until mid-June 2017, HARPS published 590 articles on the above and related themes, with authors being located in 76 countries. We present quantitative data tracing the journal's growth and the increasing external recognition of its role. We thank the many colleagues who have kindly contributed to the journal's success, and finish on an exciting note by welcoming the new Editors-in-Chief who will take HARPS forward.

Health policy evolution in Lao People's Democratic Republic: context, processes and agency

During the last 20 years Lao People's Democratic Republic has successfully developed and adopted some 30 health policies, strategies, decrees and laws in the field of health. Still, the implementation process remains arduous. This article aims at discussing challenges of health policy development and effective implementation by contextualizing the policy evolution over time and by focusing particularly on the National Drug Policy and the Health Care Law. Special attention is given to the role of research in policymaking. The analysis was guided by the conceptual framework of policy context, process, content and actors, combined with an institutional perspective, and showed that effective implementation of a health policy is highly dependent on both structures and agency of those involved in the policy process. The National Drug Policy was formulated and adopted in a short period of time in a resource-scarce setting, but with dedicated policy entrepreneurs and support of concerned international collaborators. Timely introduction of operational health systems research played a crucial role to support the implementation, as well as the subsequent revision of the policy. The development of the Health Care Law took several years and once adopted, the implementation was delayed by institutional legacies and issues concerning the choice of institutional design and financing, despite strong support of the law among the policymakers. Among many factors, timing of the implementation appeared to be of crucial importance, in combination with strong leadership. These two examples show that more research, that problematizes the complex policy environment in combination with improved communication between researchers and policymakers, is necessary to inform about measures for effective implementation. A way forward can be to strengthen the domestic research capacity and the international research collaboration regionally as well as globally.

Implementation of a health policy advisory committee as a knowledge translation platform: the Nigeria experience

BACKGROUND

In recent times, there has been a growing demand internationally for health policies to be based on reliable research evidence. Consequently, there is a need to strengthen institutions and mechanisms that can promote interactions among researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders who can influence the uptake of research findings. The Health Policy Advisory Committee (HPAC) is one of such mechanisms that can serve as an excellent forum for the interaction of policy-makers and researchers. Therefore, the need to have a long term mechanism that allows for periodic interactions between researchers and policy-makers within the existing government system necessitated our implementation of a newly established HPAC in Ebonyi State Nigeria, as a Knowledge Translation (KT) platform. The key study objective was to enhance the capacity of the HPAC and equip its members with the skills/competence required for the committee to effectively promote evidence informed policy-making and function as a KT platform.

METHODS

A series of capacity building programmes and KT activities were undertaken including: i) Capacity building of the HPAC using Evidence-to-Policy Network (EVIPNet) SUPPORT tools; ii) Capacity enhancement mentorship programme of the HPAC through a three-month executive training programme on health policy/health systems and KT in Ebonyi State University Abakaliki; iii) Production of a policy brief on strategies to improve the performance of the Government's Free Maternal and Child Health Care Programme in Ebonyi State Nigeria; and iv) Hosting of a multi-stakeholders policy dialogue based on the produced policy brief on the Government's Free Maternal and Child Health Care Programme.

RESULTS

The study findings indicated a noteworthy improvement in knowledge of evidence-to-policy link among the HPAC members; the elimination of mutual mistrust between policy-makers and researchers; and an increase in the awareness of importance of HPAC in the Ministry of Health (MoH).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study suggest that a HPAC can function as a KT platform and can introduce a new dimension towards facilitating evidence-to-policy link into the operation of the MoH, and can serve as an excellent platform to bridge the gap between research and policy.

Global justice and health systems research in low- and middle-income countries

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm - research for health justice - to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. "Research for health justice" requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed.

Institutional capacity for health systems research in East and Central African schools of public health: experiences with a capacity assessment tool

BACKGROUND

Despite significant investments in health systems research (HSR) capacity development, there is a dearth of information regarding how to assess HSR capacity. An alliance of schools of public health (SPHs) in East and Central Africa developed a tool for the self-assessment of HSR capacity with the aim of producing institutional capacity development plans.

METHODS

Between June and November 2011, seven SPHs across the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda implemented this co-created tool. The objectives of the institutional assessments were to assess existing capacities for HSR and to develop capacity development plans to address prioritized gaps. A mixed-method approach was employed consisting of document analysis, self-assessment questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and institutional dialogues aimed at capturing individual perceptions of institutional leadership, collective HSR skills, knowledge translation, and faculty incentives to engage in HSR. Implementation strategies for the capacity assessment varied across the SPHs. This paper reports findings from semi-structured interviews with focal persons from each SPH, to reflect on the process used at each SPH to execute the institutional assessments as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the assessment process.

RESULTS

The assessment tool was robust enough to be utilized in its entirety across all seven SPHs resulting in a thorough HSR capacity assessment and a capacity development plan for each SPH. Successful implementation of the capacity assessment exercises depended on four factors: (i) support from senior leadership and collaborators, (ii) a common understanding of HSR, (iii) adequate human and financial resources for the exercise, and (iv) availability of data. Methods of extracting information from the results of the assessments, however, were tailored to the unique objectives of each SPH.

CONCLUSIONS

This institutional HSR capacity assessment tool and the process for its utilization may be valuable for any SPH. The self-assessments, as well as interviews with external stakeholders, provided diverse sources of input and galvanized interest around HSR at multiple levels.

Development of evidence-based health policy documents in developing countries: a case of Iran

Background:

Evidence-based policy documents that are well developed by senior civil servants and are timely available can reduce the barriers to evidence utilization by health policy makers. This study examined the barriers and facilitators in developing evidence-based health policy documents from the perspective of their producers in a developing country.

Methods:

In a qualitative study with a framework analysis approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews using purposive and snowball sampling. A qualitative analysis software (MAXQDA-10) was used to apply the codes and manage the data. This study was theory-based and the results were compared to exploratory studies about the factors influencing evidence-based health policymaking.

Results:

18 codes and three main themes of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs were identified. Factors that influence the development of evidence-based policy documents were identified by the participants: behavioral beliefs included quality of policy documents, use of resources, knowledge and innovation, being time-consuming and contextualization; normative beliefs included policy authorities, policymakers, policy administrators, and co-workers; and control beliefs included recruitment policy, performance management, empowerment, management stability, physical environment, access to evidence, policy making process, and effect of other factors.

Conclusion:

Most of the cited barriers to the development of evidence-based policy were related to control beliefs, i.e. barriers at the organizational and health system levels. This study identified the factors that influence the development of evidence-based policy documents based on the components of the theory of planned behavior. But in exploratory studies on evidence utilization by health policymakers, the identified factors were only related to control behaviors. This suggests that the theoretical approach may be preferable to the exploratory approach in identifying the barriers and facilitators of a behavior.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

Background

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

Methods

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

Results

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

Conclusions

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

BACKGROUND

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

RESULTS

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

Promotion of evidence-informed health policymaking in Nigeria: bridging the gap between researchers and policymakers

In Nigeria, the lack of adequate understanding of the complex nature of translating research into policy and the incompatibility existing between researchers and policymakers constitute a great challenge to evidence-informed policymaking. To address these challenges a one-day evidence-to-policy training workshop was organised for policymakers, researchers and other major stakeholders in the health sector in southeastern Nigeria. Of the 104 individuals invited to the workshop 87 (83.6%) attended. The workshop training sessions focused on capacity development for evidence-informed health policy-making and building effective linkages/partnerships. The post-workshop assessment indicated significant improvements in participants' knowledge, their understanding of the health policymaking process and the use of evidence compared to their pre-workshop status. Using a focus group discussion, major strategies identified by participants that can bridge the gap between health policymakers and researchers included: involving both parties in planning and execution of health research and health programmes; promoting dialogue between researchers and policymakers; institutionalising research grants and commissioning research in health ministries; and ensuring that researchers are made to focus on the core needs of policymakers. There is need for further discussion and debate on the researchers and policymakers partnership concept in low income settings.

Culture and quality care perceptions in a Pakistani hospital

PURPOSE

Organizational culture is a determinant for quality improvement. This paper aims to assess organizational culture in a hospital setting, understand its relationship with perceptions about quality of care and identify areas for improvement.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The paper is based on a cross-sectional survey in a large clinical department that used two validated questionnaires. The first contained 20 items addressing perceptions of cultural typology (64 respondents). The second one assessed staff views on quality improvement implementation (48 faculty) in three domains: leadership, information and analysis and human resource utilization (employee satisfaction).

FINDINGS

All four cultural types received scoring, from a mean of 17.5 (group), 13.7 (developmental), 31.2 (rational) to 37.2 (hierarchical). The latter was the dominant cultural type. Group (participatory) and developmental (open) culture types had significant positive correlation with optimistic perceptions about leadership (r = 0.48 and 0.55 respectively, p < 0.00). Hierarchical (bureaucratic) culture was significantly negatively correlated with domains; leadership (r = -0.61,p < 0.00), information and analysis (-0.50, p < 0.00) and employee satisfaction (r = -0.55, p < 0.00). Responses reveal a need for leadership to better utilize suggestions for improving quality of care, strengthening the process of information analysis and encouraging reward and recognition for employees.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

It is likely that, by adopting a participatory and open culture, staff views about organizational leadership will improve and employee satisfaction will be enhanced. This finding has implications for quality care implementation in other hospital settings.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The paper bridges an important gap in the literature by addressing the relationship between culture and quality care perceptions in a Pakistani hospital. As such a new and informative perspective is added.