1
|
Knowles S, Morley K, Foster R, Middleton A, Pinar S, Rose F, Williams E, Hendon J, Churchill R. Collaborative evaluation of a pilot involvement opportunity: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Voice of Experience College. Health Expect 2023; 26:2428-2440. [PMID: 37583285 PMCID: PMC10632641 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13835] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2023] [Revised: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 08/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups. METHODS This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points. RESULTS The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two-way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period. CONCLUSIONS Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group-specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co-authored the paper.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Knowles
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Karen Morley
- Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Rob Foster
- Voice of Experience College, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Amy Middleton
- Voice of Experience College, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Semra Pinar
- Voice of Experience College, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Fiona Rose
- Voice of Experience College, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Emma Williams
- Voice of Experience College, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Jessica Hendon
- Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Rachel Churchill
- Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group, Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Postma DJ, De Smet PAGM, Notenboom K, Leufkens HGM, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK. Impact of medicine shortages on patients - a framework and application in the Netherlands. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22:1366. [PMID: 36397073 PMCID: PMC9670055 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08765-x] [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: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Medicine shortages are often described in plain numbers, suggesting all shortages have a uniform impact. However, some shortages have a direct and serious effect on patients and need a prompt reaction from stakeholders. This study aims to create a broad framework to assess the impact of a shortage. Method We identified high impact shortages and selected exemplary shortages which we considered our learning cases. From five learning cases, we identified elements that had a potentially profound impact on one or more of these cases. We tested data saturation on the elements with another five test cases. Based on these elements, we created a framework to assess impact of shortages on patients and presented practical examples how to rate these different elements. Subsequently, we visualised the impact of these five learning cases on patients in radar charts. Results The five elements which we identified as potentially having a large impact were 1) alternative product, 2) disease, 3) susceptibility, 4) costs and 5) number of patients affected. The five learning cases rated high on different elements, leading to diverse and sometimes even opposite patterns of impact. Conclusion We created a framework for assessing the impact of a medicine shortage on patients by means of five key elements. By rating these elements, an indication of the impact can be obtained. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08765-x.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Doerine J. Postma
- grid.5477.10000000120346234Division Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, PO Box 80 082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands ,grid.489189.50000 0001 0708 7338Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association, The Hague, the Netherlands
| | - Peter A. G. M. De Smet
- grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Departments of IQ healthcare and of clinical pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Kim Notenboom
- grid.491235.80000 0004 0465 5952Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Hubert G. M. Leufkens
- grid.5477.10000000120346234Division Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, PO Box 80 082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse
- grid.5477.10000000120346234Division Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, PO Box 80 082, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Erismann S, Pesantes MA, Beran D, Leuenberger A, Farnham A, Berger Gonzalez de White M, Labhardt ND, Tediosi F, Akweongo P, Kuwawenaruwa A, Zinsstag J, Brugger F, Somerville C, Wyss K, Prytherch H. How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst 2021; 19:29. [PMID: 33676518 PMCID: PMC7936421 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00646-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2020] [Accepted: 10/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Addressing the uptake of research findings into policy-making is increasingly important for researchers who ultimately seek to contribute to improved health outcomes. The aims of the Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d Programme) initiated by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation are to create and disseminate knowledge that supports policy changes in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This paper reports on five r4d research projects and shows how researchers engage with various stakeholders, including policy-makers, in order to assure uptake of the research results. Methods Eleven in-depth interviews were conducted with principal investigators and their research partners from five r4d projects, using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews explored the process of how stakeholders and policy-makers were engaged in the research project. Results Three key strategies were identified as fostering research uptake into policies and practices: (S1) stakeholders directly engaged with and sought evidence from researchers; (S2) stakeholders were involved in the design and throughout the implementation of the research project; and (S3) stakeholders engaged in participatory and transdisciplinary research approaches to coproduce knowledge and inform policy. In the first strategy, research evidence was directly taken up by international stakeholders as they were actively seeking new evidence on a very specific topic to up-date international guidelines. In the second strategy, examples from two r4d projects show that collaboration with stakeholders from early on in the projects increased the likelihood of translating research into policy, but that the latter was more effective in a supportive and stable policy environment. The third strategy adopted by two other r4d projects demonstrates the benefits of promoting colearning as a way to address potential power dynamics and working effectively across the local policy landscape through robust research partnerships. Conclusions This paper provides insights into the different strategies that facilitate collaboration and communication between stakeholders, including policy-makers, and researchers. However, it remains necessary to increase our understanding of the interests and motivations of the different actors involved in the process of influencing policy, identify clear policy-influencing objectives and provide more institutional support to engage in this complex and time-intensive process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Séverine Erismann
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. .,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
| | - Maria Amalia Pesantes
- CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
| | - David Beran
- Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, University of Geneva and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Leuenberger
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Andrea Farnham
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Monica Berger Gonzalez de White
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.,Centro de Estudios en Salud, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, Guatemala, Guatemala
| | - Niklaus Daniel Labhardt
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.,Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Fabrizio Tediosi
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Patricia Akweongo
- School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
| | - August Kuwawenaruwa
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.,Ifakara Health Institute, Plot 463, Kiko Avenue Mikocheni, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| | - Jakob Zinsstag
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Fritz Brugger
- Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Claire Somerville
- Gender Centre, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Kaspar Wyss
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Helen Prytherch
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. .,University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hanney SR, Ovseiko PV, Graham KER, Chorzempa H, Miciak M. A systems approach for optimizing implementation to impact: meeting report and proceedings of the 2019 In the Trenches: Implementation to Impact International Summit. BMC Proc 2020; 14:10. [PMID: 32760445 PMCID: PMC7379765 DOI: 10.1186/s12919-020-00189-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The In the Trenches series of cutting-edge knowledge sharing events on impact for front-line experts and practitioners provides an engagement platform for diverse stakeholders across government, research funding organizations, industry, and academia to share emerging knowledge and practical experiences. The second event of the series In the Trenches: Implementation to Impact International Summit was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, on June 7–8, 2019. The overarching vision for the Summit was to create an engagement platform for addressing key challenges and finding practical solutions to move from implementation (i.e. putting findings into effect) to impact (i.e. creating benefits to society and the economy). Processes and proceedings The Summit used diverse approaches to facilitate active engagement and knowledge sharing between 80 delegates across sectors and jurisdictions. Summit sessions mostly consisted of short talks and moderated panels grouped into eight thematic sessions. Each presentation included a summary of Key Messages, along with a summary of the Actionable Insights which concluded each session. The presentations and discussions are analysed, synthesized and described in this proceedings paper using a systems approach. This demonstrates how the Summit focused on each of the necessary functions (and associated components) that should be undertaken, and combined, for effective research and innovation: stewardship and governance, securing finance, creating capacity, and producing and using research. The approach also identifies relevant challenges. Conclusions There is increased interest globally in the benefits that can accrue from adopting a systems approach to research and innovation. Various organizations in Canada and internationally have made considerable progress on Implementation to Impact, often as a result of well-planned initiatives. The Summit highlights the value of 1) collaboration between researchers and potential users, and 2) the adoption by funders of approaches involving an increasing range of responsibilities and activities. The Summit website (https://inthetrenchessummit.com/) will be periodically updated with new resources and information about future In the Trenches events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen R Hanney
- Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH UK
| | - Pavel V Ovseiko
- Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU UK
| | - Kathryn E R Graham
- Alberta Innovates, 1500, 10104-103 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 0H8 Canada
| | - Heidi Chorzempa
- Alberta Innovates, 1500, 10104-103 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 0H8 Canada
| | - Maxi Miciak
- Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, 8205-114 St. NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G4 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Levelink M, Voigt-Barbarowicz M, Brütt AL. Priorities of patients, caregivers and health-care professionals for health research - A systematic review. Health Expect 2020; 23:992-1006. [PMID: 32643854 PMCID: PMC7696132 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2019] [Revised: 04/30/2020] [Accepted: 05/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Based on subjective experience, patients can identify research priorities important for health services research. A systematic method for priority setting has been developed by the James Lind Alliance. Objective This article reviews the literature on the research priorities of patients, caregivers and health‐care professionals and presents the prioritized research themes and prioritization methods used. Search strategy Three electronic databases were searched on 22 May 2018. The search was not limited to any time period or language. Inclusion criteria The included studies reported the identification and prioritization of research priorities involving patients, relatives and caregivers. Each included paper addressed a specific ICD‐coded health problem, and at least one‐third of the sample involved in the prioritization process was affected by the health problem. Data extraction and synthesis The 10 top‐ranked research priorities were included in the thematic analysis. With an inductive approach, a system of identified themes and subthemes was developed from the research priorities. Each research priority was assigned to one research theme. Main results The priority lists of 34 publications involving 331 research priorities were included. Nine main themes represent the content of the research priorities. The most frequently represented main themes are ‘Treatment’, ‘Patients’ and ‘Health condition’. The distribution of the research priorities varied depending on the health conditions and prioritization methods. Discussion and conclusions This review provides a comprehensive overview of the overarching research themes in research priorities of affected individuals. The results can guide future patient‐oriented research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Levelink
- Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
| | - Mona Voigt-Barbarowicz
- Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
| | - Anna Levke Brütt
- Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hanney SR, Kanya L, Pokhrel S, Jones TH, Boaz A. How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership? Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18:72. [PMID: 32571364 PMCID: PMC7308111 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00581-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2020] [Accepted: 05/21/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen R. Hanney
- Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Health, Environment and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom
| | - Lucy Kanya
- Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Health, Environment and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom
- Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
| | - Subhash Pokhrel
- Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Health, Environment and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom
| | - Teresa H. Jones
- Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Health, Environment and Societies, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom
| | - Annette Boaz
- Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, a partnership between Kingston University and St George’s, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|