From Kisiizi to Baltimore: cultivating knowledge brokers to support global innovation for community engagement in healthcare

Reversing the trend: a scoping review of health innovation transfer or exchange from low- and middle-income countries to high-income countries

The transfer of innovations from low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to high-income countries (HICs) has received little attention, leaving gaps in the understanding of the process, its benefits and the factors influencing it. This scoping review, part of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) project and the focus for a 2022 NIH-sponsored workshop on Global Health Reciprocal Innovation, sought to identify publications describing health innovations that were researched, developed and implemented in LMICs and adapted to address similar health challenges in HICs. A protocol was written a priori and registered on Open Science Framework. Four databases were searched for articles published in English from 2000 to 2022 and described health innovations developed in LMICs and were transferred to HICs. Using Covidence, two reviewers initially screened the title and abstract and then the full text; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Two reviewers collected the data from each article using Covidence and Microsoft Excel; discrepancies were resolved by a separate third reviewer. 7191 records were retrieved and screened of which 12 studies were included. Various frameworks and methodologies were employed in these studies, with a particular emphasis on adaptation and adoption of innovations. The review uncovered different paradigms of LMIC to HIC innovation transfer and exchange, including unidirectional transfers from LMICs to HICs as well as bidirectional or multidirectional mutually beneficial exchanges. The use of both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods was common across all the included articles. Facilitators for innovation transfers included stakeholder engagement, relevance of local context, simplicity, and sufficient funding, promotion and branding. Barriers to transfers were mostly the opposite of the facilitators. Our results highlighted the underexplored field of LMIC to HIC innovation transfer and exchange and lay the foundation for future research studies.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Reciprocal innovation: A new approach to equitable and mutually beneficial global health partnerships

Global health researchers often discount mutual learning and benefit to address shared health challenges across high and low- and middle-income settings. Drawing from a 30-year partnership called AMPATH that started between Indiana University in the US and Moi University in Kenya, we describe an innovative approach and program for mutual learning and benefit coined 'reciprocal innovation.' Reciprocal innovation harnesses a bidirectional, co-constituted, and iterative exchange of ideas, resources, and innovations to address shared health challenges across diverse global settings. The success of AMPATH in Kenya, particularly in HIV/AIDS and community health, resulted in several innovations being 'brought back' to the US. To promote the bidirectional flow of learning and innovations, the Indiana CTSI reciprocal innovation program hosts annual meetings of multinational researchers and practitioners to identify shared health challenges, supports pilot grants for projects with reciprocal exchange and benefit, and produces educational and training materials for investigators. The transformative power of global health to address systemic health inequities embraces equitable and reciprocal partnerships with mutual benefit across countries and communities of academics, practitioners, and policymakers. Leveraging a long-standing partnership, the Indiana CTSI has built a reciprocal innovation program with promise to redefine global health for shared wellbeing at a global scale.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

From reverse innovation to global innovation in animal health: A review

Reverse innovation refers to learning from or diffusion of innovations developed in low income settings and further translated to industrialized countries. There is lack of consensus regarding terminology, but the idea that innovations in low-income countries are promising for adoption in high-income contexts is not new. However, in healthcare literature globally, the vast majority of publications referring to 'disruptive innovation' were published in the last ten years. To assess the potential of innovative developments and technologies for improving animal health, we initiated a literature review in 2020. We used a combined approach, incorporating targeted searching in PubMed using a key word algorithm with a snowball technique, to identify 120 relevant publications and extract data for qualitative coding. Heterogeneity of articles precluded meta-analysis, quality scoring and risk of bias analysis. We can distinguish technical innovations like new digital devices, diagnostic tests and procedures, and social innovations of intersectoral cooperation. We profile two case studies to describe potential global innovations: an integrated surveillance and response system in Somali Regional State, Ethiopia and a blockchain secured One Health intervention to optimally provide post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies exposed people in West Africa. Innovation follows no borders and can also occur in low-income settings, under constraints of cost, lack of services and infrastructure. Lower administrative and legal barriers may contribute to produce innovations that would not be possible under conditions of high density of regulation. We recommend using the term global innovation, which highlights those emanating from international partnership to solve problems of global implications.

Review of the reverse innovation series in globalization and health - where are we and what else is needed?

Following advances in industrial strategy and organizational behaviour, as well as post-development debates in international relations, Globalization and Health launched the Reverse Innovation series in 2012, in order to forge an agenda to promote not just the innovativeness of low-income country health systems but to recognize current and advocate for future strengthened knowledge flow between the global south and global north. It was considered to be a timely antidote to a knowledge flow that has traditionally been characterised by unidirectionality of innovation and expertise. Since then, the series provides a repository of research, theory, commentary and debate through which a collective community of practice in Reverse Innovation might emerge and provide an evidence base to promote, support and mainstream this type of knowledge flow. In this Commentary, we review the series as a whole, explore what has been learnt and what needs to come next in terms of empirical research, business models, processes and theoretical contributions to inform reverse innovation.

Where is the 'global' in the European Union's Health Research and Innovation Agenda?

Global Health has not featured as prominently in the European Union (EU) research agenda in recent years as it did in the first decade of the new millennium, and participation of low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in EU health research has declined substantially. The Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Framework adopted by the European Parliament in April 2019 for the period 2021-2027 will serve as an important funding instrument for health research, yet the proposed health research budget to be finalised towards the end of 2019 was reduced from 10% in the current framework, Horizon 2020, to 8% in Horizon Europe. Our analysis takes the evolvement of Horizon Europe from the initial framework of June 2018 to the framework agreed on in April 2019 into account. It shows that despite some improvements in terms of Global Health and reference to the Sustainable Development Goals, European industrial competitiveness continues to play a paramount role, with Global Health research needs and relevant health research for LMICs being only partially addressed. We argue that the globally interconnected nature of health and the transdisciplinary nature of health research need to be fully taken into account and acted on in the new European Research and Innovation Framework. A facilitated global research collaboration through Horizon Europe could ensure that Global Health innovations and solutions benefit all parts of the world including EU countries.

Impact of a bottom-up community engagement intervention on maternal and child health services utilization in Ghana: a cluster randomised trial

Background

Ghana is among African countries not likely to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) three (3) target of reducing maternal mortality to 70 per 100,000 live births by the year 2030 if maternal and child health services utilization are not improved. Community engagement in health is therefore advocated to help address this challenge. This study evaluated the impact of a community engagement intervention on maternal and child health services utilization in Ghana.

Methods

This study was a cluster randomised trial among primary healthcare facilities (n = 64) in the Greater Accra and Western regions in Ghana. Multivariate multiple regression analysis and paired-ttest were used to determine impact of the community engagement intervention on maternal and child health indicators at baseline and follow-up.

Results

Intervention health facilities recorded significant improvements over control facilities in terms of average spontaneous vaginal deliveries per month per health facility (baseline mean = 15, follow-up mean = 30, p = 0.0013); child immunizations (baseline mean = 270, follow-up mean = 455, p = 0.0642) and female condoms distribution (baseline mean = 0, follow-up mean = 2, p = 0.0628). Other improved indicators in intervention facilities were average number of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) tests for non-pregnant women (baseline mean = 55, follow-up 104, p = 0.0213); HIV tests for pregnant women (baseline mean = 40, follow-up mean = 119, p = 0.0067) and malaria tests (baseline mean = 43, follow-up mean = 380, p = 0.0174). Control facilities however performed better than intervention facilities in terms of general laboratory tests, voluntary counselling and testing, treatment of sexually transmitted infections, male child circumcisions and other minor surgical procedures.

Conclusion

Community engagement in health has the potential of improving utilization of maternal and child health services. There is the need for multi-stakeholder dialogues on complementing existing quality improvement interventions with community engagement strategies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7180-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.