Setting an implementation research agenda for Canadian investments in global maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health: a research prioritization exercise

Planning and implementing practice changes in Ontario maternal-newborn hospital units: a secondary qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams' approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014-2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step.

RESULTS

Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3-7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Implementation research priorities for addressing the maternal health crisis in the USA: results from a modified Delphi study among researchers

BACKGROUND

Maternal health outcomes in the USA are far worse than in peer nations. Increasing implementation research in maternity care is critical to addressing quality gaps and unwarranted variations in care. Implementation research priorities have not yet been defined or well represented in the plans for maternal health research investments in the USA.

METHODS

This descriptive study used a modified Delphi method to solicit and rank research priorities at the intersection of implementation science and maternal health through two sequential web-based surveys. A purposeful, yet broad sample of researchers with relevant subject matter knowledge was identified through searches of published articles and grant databases. The surveys addressed five implementation research areas in maternal health: (1) practices to prioritize for broader implementation, (2) practices to prioritize for de-implementation, (3) research questions about implementation determinants, (4) research questions about implementation strategies, and (5) research questions about methods/measures.

RESULTS

Of 160 eligible researchers, 82 (51.2%) agreed to participate. Participants were predominantly female (90%) and White (75%). Sixty completed at least one of two surveys. The practices that participants prioritized for broader implementation were improved postpartum care, perinatal and postpartum mood disorder screening and management, and standardized management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For de-implementation, practices believed to be most impactful if removed from or reduced in maternity care were cesarean delivery for low-risk patients and routine discontinuation of all psychiatric medications during pregnancy. The top methodological priorities of participants were improving the extent to which implementation science frameworks and measures address equity and developing approaches for involving patients in implementation research.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a web-based Delphi exercise, we identified implementation research priorities that researchers consider to have the greatest potential to improve the quality of maternity care in the USA. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using modified Delphi approaches to engage researchers in setting implementation research priorities within a clinical area.

The Implementation Playbook: study protocol for the development and feasibility evaluation of a digital tool for effective implementation of evidence-based innovations

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based innovations can improve health outcomes, but only if successfully implemented. Implementation can be complex, highly susceptible to failure, costly and resource intensive. Internationally, there is an urgent need to improve the implementation of effective innovations. Successful implementation is best guided by implementation science, but organizations lack implementation know-how and have difficulty applying it. Implementation support is typically shared in static, non-interactive, overly academic guides and is rarely evaluated. In-person implementation facilitation is often soft-funded, costly, and scarce. This study seeks to improve effective implementation by (1) developing a first-in-kind digital tool to guide pragmatic, empirically based and self-directed implementation planning in real-time; and (2) exploring the tool's feasibility in six health organizations implementing different innovations.

METHODS

Ideation emerged from a paper-based resource, The Implementation Game©, and a revision called The Implementation Roadmap©; both integrate core implementation components from evidence, models and frameworks to guide structured, explicit, and pragmatic planning. Prior funding also generated user personas and high-level product requirements. This study will design, develop, and evaluate the feasibility of a digital tool called The Implementation Playbook©. In Phase 1, user-centred design and usability testing will inform tool content, visual interface, and functions to produce a minimum viable product. Phase 2 will explore the Playbook's feasibility in six purposefully selected health organizations sampled for maximum variation. Organizations will use the Playbook for up to 24 months to implement an innovation of their choosing. Mixed methods will gather: (i) field notes from implementation team check-in meetings; (ii) interviews with implementation teams about their experience using the tool; (iii) user free-form content entered into the tool as teams work through implementation planning; (iv) Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change questionnaire; (v) System Usability Scale; and (vi) tool metrics on how users progressed through activities and the time required to do so.

DISCUSSION

Effective implementation of evidence-based innovations is essential for optimal health. We seek to develop a prototype digital tool and demonstrate its feasibility and usefulness across organizations implementing different innovations. This technology could fill a significant need globally, be highly scalable, and potentially valid for diverse organizations implementing various innovations.

Research priorities for maternal and perinatal health clinical trials and methods used to identify them: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Research prioritisation helps to target research resources to the most pressing health and healthcare needs of a population. This systematic review aimed to report research priorities in maternal and perinatal health and to assess the methods that were used to identify them.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken. Projects that aimed to identify research priorities that were considered to be amenable to clinical trials research were eligible for inclusion. The search, limited to the last decade and publications in English, included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, relevant Cochrane priority lists, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group homepage, James Lind Alliance homepage, Joanna Brigg's register, PROSPERO register, reference lists of all included articles, grey literature, and the websites of relevant professional bodies, until 13 October 2020. The methods used for prioritisation were appraised using the Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE).

FINDINGS

From the 62 included projects, 757 research priorities of relevance to maternal and perinatal health were identified. The most common priorities related to healthcare systems and services, pregnancy care and complications, and newborn care and complications. The least common priorities related to preconception and postpartum health, maternal mental health, contraception and pregnancy termination, and fetal medicine and surveillance. The most commonly used prioritisation methods were Delphi (20, 32%), Child Health Nutrition Research Initiative (17, 27%) and the James Lind Alliance (10, 16%). The fourteen projects (23%) that reported on at least 80% of the items included in the REPRISE guideline all used an established research prioritisation method.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a large number of diverse research priorities in maternal and perinatal health that are amenable to future clinical trials research. These have been identified by a variety of research prioritisation methods.

Enhanced childhood diseases treatment using computational models: Systematic review of intelligent experiments heading to precision medicine

INTRODUCTION

Precision or personalized Medicine (PM) is used for the prevention and treatment of diseases by considering a huge amount of information about individuals variables. Due to high volume of information, AI-based computational models are required. A large set of studies conducted to examine the PM approach to improve childhood clinical outcomes. Thus, the main goal of this study was to review the application of health information technology and especially artificial intelligence (AI) methods for the treatment of childhood disease using PM.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched up to December 18, 2019. Articles that focused on informatics applications for childhood disease PM included in this study. Included papers were classified for qualitative analysis and interpreting results. The results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2019.

RESULTS

From 341 citations, 62 papers met our inclusion criteria. The number of published papers that used AI methods to apply for PM in childhood diseases increased from 2010 to 2019. Our results showed that most applied methods were related to machine learning discipline. In terms of clinical scope, the largest number of clinical articles are devoted to oncology. Besides, the analysis showed that genomics was the most PM approach used regarding childhood disease.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review examined papers that used AI methods for applying PM approaches in childhood diseases from medical informatics perspectives. Thus, it provided new insight to researchers who are interested in knowing research needs in this field.

Social accountability for reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health: A review of reviews

Globally, increasing efforts have been made to hold duty-bearers to account for their commitments to improve reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) over the past two decades, including via social accountability approaches: citizen-led, collective processes for holding duty-bearers to account. There have been many individual studies and several reviews of social accountability approaches but the implications of their findings to inform future accountability efforts are not clear. We addressed this gap by conducting a review of reviews in order to summarise the current evidence on social accountability for RMNCAH, identify factors contributing to intermediary outcomes and health impacts, and identify future research and implementation priorities. The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42019134340). We searched eight databases and systematic review repositories and sought expert recommendations for published and unpublished reviews, with no date or language restrictions. Six reviews were analysed using narrative synthesis: four on accountability or social accountability approaches for RMNCAH, and two specifically examining perinatal mortality audits, from which we extracted information relating to community involvement in audits. Our findings confirmed that there is extensive and growing evidence for social accountability approaches, particularly community monitoring interventions. Few documented social accountability approaches to RMNCAH achieve transformational change by going beyond information-gathering and awareness-raising, and attention to marginalised and vulnerable groups, including adolescents, has not been well documented. Drawing generalisable conclusions about results was difficult, due to inconsistent nomenclature and gaps in reporting, particularly regarding objectives, contexts, and health impacts. Promising approaches for successful social accountability initiatives include careful tailoring to the social and political context, strategic planning, and multi-sectoral/multi-stakeholder approaches. Future primary research could advance the evidence by describing interventions and their results in detail and in their contexts, focusing on factors and processes affecting acceptability, adoption, and effectiveness.

Global research priorities for social, behavioural and community engagement interventions for maternal, newborn and child health

Background

Social, behavioural and community engagement (SBCE) interventions are essential for global maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) strategies. Past efforts to synthesise research on SBCE interventions identified a need for clear priorities to guide future research. WHO led an exercise to identify global research priorities for SBCE interventions to improve MNCH.

Methods

We adapted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method and combined quantitative and qualitative methods to determine MNCH SBCE intervention research priorities applicable across different contexts. Using online surveys and meetings, researchers and programme experts proposed up to three research priorities and scored the compiled priorities against four criteria – health and social impact, equity, feasibility, and overall importance. Priorities were then ranked by score. A group of 29 experts finalised the top 10 research priorities for each of maternal, newborn or child health and a cross-cutting area.

Results

A total of 310 experts proposed 867 research priorities, which were consolidated into 444 priorities and scored by 280 experts. Top maternal and newborn health priorities focused on research to improve the delivery of SBCE interventions that strengthen self-care/family care practices and care-seeking behaviour. Child health priorities focused on the delivery of SBCE interventions, emphasising determinants of service utilisation and breastfeeding and nutrition practices. Cross-cutting MNCH priorities highlighted the need for better integration of SBCE into facility-based and community-based health services.

Conclusions

Achieving global targets for MNCH requires increased investment in SBCE interventions that build capacities of individuals, families and communities as agents of their own health. Findings from this exercise provide guidance to prioritise investments and ensure that they are best directed to achieve global objectives. Stakeholders are encouraged to use these priorities to guide future research investments and to adapt them for country programmes by engaging with national level stakeholders.

Research priorities in Maternal, Newborn, & Child Health & Nutrition for India: An Indian Council of Medical Research-INCLEN Initiative

In India, research prioritization in Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health and Nutrition (MNCHN) themes has traditionally involved only a handful of experts mostly from major cities. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-INCLEN collaboration undertook a nationwide exercise engaging faculty from 256 institutions to identify top research priorities in the MNCHN themes for 2016-2025. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method of priority setting was adapted. The context of the exercise was defined by a National Steering Group (NSG) and guided by four Thematic Research Subcommittees. Research ideas were pooled from 498 experts located in different parts of India, iteratively consolidated into research options, scored by 893 experts against five pre-defined criteria (answerability, relevance, equity, investment and innovation) and weighed by a larger reference group. Ranked lists of priorities were generated for each of the four themes at national and three subnational (regional) levels [Empowered Action Group & North-Eastern States, Southern and Western States, & Northern States (including West Bengal)]. Research priorities differed between regions and from overall national priorities. Delivery domain of research which included implementation research constituted about 70 per cent of the top ten research options under all four themes. The results were endorsed in the NSG meeting. There was unanimity that the research priorities should be considered by different governmental and non-governmental agencies for investment with prioritization on implementation research and issues cutting across themes.

Research priorities for adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods synthesis of two separate exercises

Background

In order to clarify priorities and stimulate research in adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted two priority-setting exercises based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology related to 1) adolescent sexual and reproductive health and 2) eight areas of adolescent health including communicable diseases prevention and management, injuries and violence, mental health, non-communicable diseases management, nutrition, physical activity, substance use, and health policy. Although the CHNRI methodology has been utilized in over 50 separate research priority setting exercises, none have qualitatively synthesized the ultimate findings across studies. The purpose of this study was to conduct a mixed-method synthesis of two research priority-setting exercises for adolescent health in LMICs based on the CHNRI methodology and to situate the priority questions within the current global health agenda.

Methods

All of the 116 top-ranked questions presented in each exercise were analyzed by two independent reviewers. Word clouds were generated based on keywords from the top-ranked questions. Questions were coded and content analysis was conducted based on type of delivery platform, vulnerable populations, and the Survive, Thrive, and Transform framework from the United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s, and Adolescents’ Health, 2016-2030.

Findings

Within the 53 top-ranked intervention-related questions that specified a delivery platform, the platforms specified were schools (n = 17), primary care (n = 12), community (n = 11), parenting (n = 6), virtual media (n = 5), and peers (n = 2). Twenty questions specifically focused on vulnerable adolescents, including those living with HIV, tuberculosis, mental illness, or neurodevelopmental disorders; victims of gender-based violence; refugees; young persons who inject drugs; sex workers; slum dwellers; out-of-school youth; and youth in armed conflict. A majority of the top-ranked questions (108/116) aligned with one or a combination of the Survive (n = 39), Thrive (n = 67), and Transform (n = 28) agendas.

Conclusions

This study advances the CHNRI methodology by conducting the first mixed-methods synthesis of multiple research priority-setting exercises by analyzing keywords (using word clouds) and themes (using content analysis).

Prioritizing research for integrated implementation of early childhood development and maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health and nutrition platforms

Background

Existing health and nutrition services present potential platforms for scaling up delivery of early childhood development (ECD) interventions within sensitive windows across the life course, especially in the first 1000 days from conception to age 2 years. However, there is insufficient knowledge on how to optimize implementation for such strategies in an integrated manner. In light of this knowledge gap, we aimed to systematically identify a set of integrated implementation research priorities for health, nutrition and early child development within the 2015 to 2030 timeframe of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Methods

We applied the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative method, and consulted a diverse group of global health experts to develop and score 57 research questions against five criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, impact, and effect on equity. These questions were ranked using a research priority score, and the average expert agreement score was calculated for each question.

Findings

The research priority scores ranged from 61.01 to 93.52, with a median of 82.87. The average expert agreement scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.90, with a median of 0.75. The top–ranked research question were: i) “How can interventions and packages to reduce neonatal mortality be expanded to include ECD and stimulation interventions?”; ii) “How does the integration of ECD and MNCAH&N interventions affect human resource requirements and capacity development in resource–poor settings?”; and iii) “How can integrated interventions be tailored to vulnerable refugee and migrant populations to protect against poor ECD and MNCAH&N outcomes?”. Most highly–ranked research priorities varied across the life course and highlighted key aspects of scaling up coverage of integrated interventions in resource–limited settings, including: workforce and capacity development, cost–effectiveness and strategies to reduce financial barriers, and quality assessment of programs.

Conclusions

Investing in ECD is critical to achieving several of the SDGs, including SDG 2 on ending all forms of malnutrition, SDG 3 on ensuring health and well–being for all, and SDG 4 on ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promotion of life–long learning opportunities for all. The generated research agenda is expected to drive action and investment on priority approaches to integrating ECD interventions within existing health and nutrition services.

Opportunities and Challenges in Global Perinatal Research

BACKGROUND

The global plight of stillbirths and neonatal mortality is concentrated in low- and middle-income countries. The ambitious targets introduced by the World Health Organization in the Every Newborn Action Plan demand a commitment to research that promotes equitable perinatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to understand the opportunities for global perinatal research and the accompanying challenges.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to identify research prioritization exercises from 2014 to 2018 pertaining to global perinatal health. The top 50 questions with the highest research prioritization scores were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

The greatest priorities centered on community-based, implementation research targeting major causes of stillbirth and neonatal mortality in low-resource settings. The priorities are saddled with prerequisite conditions, design obstacles, and ethical considerations that require attention.

CONCLUSIONS

While the challenges are undeniable, the need to make the perinatal period healthier for babies worldwide has never been clearer.