Closing the know-do gap for child health: UNICEF's experiences from embedding implementation research in child health and nutrition programming

Implementing a Care Pathway for small and nutritionally at-risk infants under six months of age: A multi-country stakeholder consultation

Nutritional vulnerability under the age of 6 months is prevalent in low- and middle-income countries with 20.1% infants underweight, 21.3% wasted and 17.6% stunted in a recent review. A novel Care Pathway for improved management of small and nutritionally at-risk infants under 6 months and their mothers (MAMI) has recently been developed to provide outpatient care at large coverage. We aimed to investigate stakeholders' views on the feasibility of its implementation and to identify barriers and enablers. This was an early stage formative mixed-methods study: an online survey plus in-depth interviews with country-level stakeholders in nutrition and child health from different geographical regions and stakeholder groups. 189 stakeholders from 42 countries responded to the online survey and 14 remote interviews were conducted. Participants expressed an urgent need for improved detection and care for small and nutritionally at-risk infants under 6 months. Whilst they considered the MAMI Care Pathway feasible and relevant, they noted it was largely unknown in their country. The most mentioned implementation barriers were: community-specific needs and health care seeking barriers, health workers' lack of competence in breastfeeding counselling and the absence of a validated anthropometric screening method. Possible enablers for its implementation were: patients' preference for outpatient care, integrating the MAMI care pathway into existing maternal and child health programmes and the possibility of a local pilot project. Adaptation to the local context was considered crucial in further scale-up.

Framing rehabilitation through health policy and systems research: priorities for strengthening rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Recent estimates report that 2.4 billion people with health conditions globally could benefit from rehabilitation. While the benefits of rehabilitation for individuals and society have been described in the literature, many individuals, especially in low- and middle-income countries do not have access to quality rehabilitation. As the need for rehabilitation continues to increase, it is crucial that health systems are adequately prepared to meet this need. Practice- and policy-relevant evidence plays an important role in health systems strengthening efforts. The aim of this paper is to report on the outcome of a global consultative process to advance the development of a research framework to stimulate health policy and systems research (HPSR) for rehabilitation, in order to generate evidence needed by key stakeholders.

METHODS

A multi-stakeholder participatory technical consultation was convened by WHO to develop a research framework. This meeting included participants from selected Member States, rehabilitation experts, HPSR experts, public health researchers, civil society and other stakeholders from around the world. The meeting focused on introducing systems approaches to stakeholders and deliberating on priority rehabilitation issues in health systems. Participants were allocated to one of four multi-stakeholder groups with a facilitator to guide the structured technical consultations. Qualitative data in the form of written responses to guiding questions were collected during the structured technical consultations. A technical working group was then established to analyse the data and extract its emerging themes. This informed the development of the HPSR framework for rehabilitation and a selection of preliminary research questions that exemplify how the framework might be used.

RESULTS

A total of 123 individuals participated in the multi-stakeholder technical consultations. The elaborated framework is informed by an ecological model and puts forth elements of the six WHO traditional building blocks of the health system, while emphasizing additional components pertinent to rehabilitation, such as political priority, engagement and participatory approaches, and considerations regarding demand and access. Importantly, the framework highlights the multilevel interactions needed across health systems in order to strengthen rehabilitation. Additionally, an initial set of research questions was proposed as a primer for how the framework might be used.

CONCLUSIONS

Strengthening health systems to meet the increasing need for rehabilitation will require undertaking more HPSR to inform the integration of rehabilitation into health systems globally. We anticipate that the proposed framework and the emerging research questions will support countries in their quest to increase access to rehabilitation for their populations.

Learning Health Systems to Bridge the Evidence-Policy-Practice Gap in Primary Health Care: Lessons From the African Health Initiative

The compilation of lessons in this supplement on the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s African Health Initiative’s work in the application of implementation research in primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa reflects the evolution of the discipline that is now increasingly recognized as integral to health systems strengthening.

Deconstructing design thinking as a tool for the implementation of a population health initiative

Background

The translation of evidence-based practices and rapid uptake of innovations into global health practice is challenging. Design thinking is a consultative process involving multiple stakeholders and has been identified as a promising solution to create and apply implementation strategies in complex environments like health systems.

Methods

We conducted a process evaluation of a real-world example, namely an initiative to innovate hypertension screening, diagnosis and care in São Paulo, Brazil. The parameters of the evaluation were informed by a specification rubric and categorization system, recommended for the investigation of implementation strategies, and the double-diamond conceptual framework to describe and examine the strategic architecture and nature of the design thinking approach, with particular emphasis on identifying potential areas of “value-add” particular to the approach. The retrospective evaluation was performed by an independent partner who had not been involved in the setting up and implementation of the design thinking process.

Results

The evaluation unveiled a dense catalogue of strategically driven, mostly theoretically based, activities involving all identified health system stakeholders including patients. Narrative reconstruction illuminated the systematic and coherent nature of this approach, with different resulting actions progressively accounting for all relevant layers of the health system to engineer a broad selection of specific implementation solutions. The relevance of the identified features and the mechanics used to promote more successful implementation practices was manifested in several distinct ways: design thinking offered a clear direction on which innovations really mattered and when, as well as several new dimensions for consideration in the development of an innovation mindset amongst stakeholders. It thereby promoted relationship quality in terms of familiarity and trust, and commitment to evidence-based enquiry and action. Design thinking was also able to navigate the territory between the need for intervention “fidelity” versus “adaptation” and provide the operational know-how to face familiar implementation hurdles. Lastly, it brought a new kind of skill set to the public health stakeholders that incorporated diplomacy, multidisciplinary approaches and management sciences—skills that are considered necessary but not yet widely taught as part of public health training.

Conclusions

Design thinking is a sound and viable tool to use as part of an implementation strategy for engaging with health system stakeholders and successfully translating evidence-based practices and new innovations into routine practice, thereby addressing an important knowledge—practice gap and, more broadly, contributing to the strategic repertoire available to implementation science.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00892-5.