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

A Dangerous Visibility: Moderating Effects of Antitrans Legislative Efforts on Trans and Gender-Diverse Mental Health

The present study used a minority stress theory framework to investigate the direct and indirect relations of minority stressors (transgender discrimination experiences, internalized transphobia, identity nondisclosure), sense of belonging, and hopelessness with depression and anxiety symptoms in a sample of 301 trans and gender-diverse adults living in the United States. This study also explored the moderating effect of having knowledge of antitrans legislative efforts in one's state of residence on the overall pattern of results through a nested model comparison of the hypothesized path analysis. Participants were recruited using Internet-based forums, listservs, and social media, and survey data were collected online. Significant moderation effects were found, such that for those who reported having knowledge of antitrans legislative efforts in their state of residence reported a stronger association of external stressors (discrimination) than internal stressors (internalized transphobia, identity nondisclosure) on sense of belonging and hopelessness than their peers who did not have any knowledge of such legislative efforts. Furthermore, hopelessness emerged as a stronger predictor for those who were aware of antitrans legislative efforts. Implications of study findings for counseling, advocacy, and future research are discussed.

Developing a tool to monitor knowledge translation in the health system: results from an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

It is generally accepted that evidence-informed decision making contributes to better health system performance and health outcomes, yet we are lacking benchmarks to monitor the impact of national health information systems (HIS) in policy and practice. Hence in this study, we have aimed to identify criteria for monitoring Knowledge Translation (KT) capacity within countries.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based Delphi with over 120 public health professionals from 45 countries to reach agreement on criteria to monitor KT at the level of national HIS. Public health professionals participated in three survey rounds, in which they ranked 85 preselected criteria and could suggest additional criteria.

RESULTS

Experts working in national (public) health agencies and statistical offices, as well as in health policy and care agreed on 29 criteria which constitute the Health Information (HI)-Impact Index. The criteria cover four essential domains of evaluation: the production of high-quality evidence, broad access and dissemination, stakeholder engagement and knowledge integration across sectors and in civil society. The HI-Impact Index was pretested by officials working in ministries of health and public health agencies in eight countries; they found the tool acceptable and user-friendly.

CONCLUSIONS

The HI-Impact Index provides benchmarks to monitor KT so that countries can assess whether high-quality evidence can be easily accessed and used by the relevant stakeholders in health policy and practice, by civil society and across sectors. Next steps include further refining the procedure for conducting the assessment in routine, and sharing experiences from HIS evaluations using the HI-Impact Index.

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

BACKGROUND

Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening.

MAIN TEXT

The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.

Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches

Background

Embedded approaches to implementation research (IR), whereby health system decision-makers participate actively in the research process, are gaining traction as effective approaches to optimise the delivery of health programmes and policies. However, the evidence base on the processes and effectiveness of such collaborative research remains inchoate. Standardised approaches to evaluate these initiatives are needed to identify core elements of ‘embeddedness’, unveil the underlying pathways of change, and assess contribution to evidence uptake in decision-making and overall outcomes of effect. The framework presented in this paper responds to this need, designed to guide the systematic evaluation of embedded IR.

Methods

This evaluation framework for embedded IR approaches is based on the experience of a joint initiative by the Pan American Health Organization/Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, which has supported 19 IR grants in 10 Latin American and Caribbean countries from 2014 to 2017. The conceptualisation of this framework drew on various sources of information, including empirical evidence and conceptual insights from the literature, interviews with content experts, and a prospective evaluation of the 2016 cohort that included semi-structured key informant interviews, document analysis, and a research team survey to examine key aspects of embedded research.

Results

We developed a widely applicable conceptual framework to guide the evaluation of embedded IR in various contexts. Focused on uncovering how this collaborative research approach influences programme improvement, it outlines expected processes and intermediate outcomes. It also highlights constructs with which to assess ‘embeddedness’ as well as critical contextual factors. The framework is intended to provide a structure by which to systematically examine such embedded research initiatives, proposing three key stages of evidence-informed decision-making – co-production of evidence, engagement with research, and enactment of programme changes.

Conclusion

Rigorous evaluation of embedded IR is needed to build the evidence on its processes and effectiveness in influencing decision-making. The evaluation framework presented here addresses this gap with consideration of the complexity of such efforts. Its applicability to similar initiatives is bolstered by virtue of being founded on real-world experience; its potential to contribute to a nuanced understanding of embedded IR is significant.

Investigating the process of evidence-informed health policymaking in Bangladesh: a systematic review

Over the last four decades, Bangladesh has made considerable improvements in population health, this is in part due to the use of evidence to inform policymaking. This systematic review aims to better understand critical factors that have facilitated the diffusion of scientific evidence into multiple phases of health policymaking in Bangladesh. To do this an existing policy framework designed by Shiffman and Smith in 2007, was used to extract and synthesize data from selected policy analyses. This framework was used to ensure the content, context and actors involved with evidence-informed policymaking were considered in each case where research had helped shape a health policy. The 'PRISMA Checklist' was employed to design pre-specified eligibility criteria for the selection of information sources, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and process of data extraction and synthesis. Through our systematic search conducted from February to May 2017, we initially identified 1859 articles; after removal of duplicates, followed by the screening of titles, abstracts and full-texts, 24 articles were included in the analysis. Health policy issues included the following topics: maternal and child health, tobacco control, reproductive health, infectious disease control and the impact and sustainability of knowledge translation platforms. Findings suggested that research evidence that could be used to meet key targets associated with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were more likely to be considered as a political (and therefore policy) priority. Furthermore, avenues of engagement between research organizations and the government as well as collective action from civil-society organizations were important for the diffusion of evidence into policies. Through this article, it is apparent that the interface between evidence and policy formulation occurs when evidence is, disseminated by a cohesive policy-network with strong leadership and framed to deliver solutions for problems on both the domestic and global development agenda.

How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations

Background

Public research funding agencies and research organisations are increasingly accountable for the wider impacts of the research they support. While research impact assessment (RIA) frameworks and tools exist, little is known and shared of how these organisations implement RIA activities in practice.

Methods

We conducted a review of academic literature to search for research organisations’ published experiences of RIAs. We followed this with semi-structured interviews from a convenience sample (n = 7) of representatives of four research organisations deploying strategies to support and assess research impact.

Results

We found only five studies reporting empirical evidence on how research organisations put RIA principles into practice. From our interviews, we observed a disconnect between published RIA frameworks and tools, and the realities of organisational practices, which tended not to be reported.

We observed varying maturity and readiness with respect to organisations’ structural set ups for conducting RIAs, particularly relating to leadership, skills for evaluation and automating RIA data collection. Key processes for RIA included efforts to engage researcher communities to articulate and plan for impact, using a diversity of methods, frameworks and indicators, and supporting a learning approach. We observed outcomes of RIAs as having supported a dialogue to orient research to impact, underpinned shared learning from analyses of research, and provided evidence of the value of research in different domains and to different audiences.

Conclusions

Putting RIA principles and frameworks into practice is still in early stages for research organisations. We recommend that organisations (1) get set up by considering upfront the resources, time and leadership required to embed impact strategies throughout the organisation and wider research ‘ecosystem’, and develop methodical approaches to assessing impact; (2) work together by engaging researcher communities and wider stakeholders as a core part of impact pathway planning and subsequent assessment; and (3) recognise the benefits that RIA can bring about as a means to improve mutual understanding of the research process between different actors with an interest in research.

Building a bright, evidence-informed future: a conversation starter from the incoming editors

Health Research and Policy Systems (HARPS) has gone from strength to strength since it was established in 2003. As new Editors-in-Chief, we look forward to a bright future for HARPS, and we would like to start a conversation with you, HARPS readers, authors, editors and others, about how HARPS can best support ongoing progress and debate on evidence-informed health research policy and systems, particularly in developing countries. As a starting point for discussion, we would like to highlight three areas that we are passionate about, namely supporting an integrated community of researchers and policy-makers; building a focus on how health research and policy systems can support achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals; and strengthening our commitment to communicating and disseminating the work published in HARPS. We invite you to contribute your thoughts, ideas and suggestions on the future of HARPS, as we work together towards an evidence-informed future.