Multi-sectoral collaborations in selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region: assessment, enablers and missed opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic response

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emphasized the importance of multi-sectoral collaboration to respond effectively to public health emergencies. This study aims to generate evidence on the extent to which multi-sectoral collaborations have been employed in the macro-level responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in nine selected countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR).

METHODS

The study employed in-depth analytical research design and was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, data were collected using a comprehensive documentation review. In the second phase, key informant interviews were conducted to validate findings from the first phase and gain additional insights into key barriers and facilitators. We analysed the macro-level pandemic responses across the following seven components of the analytical framework for multi-sectoral collaborations: (1) context and trigger; (2) leadership, institutional mechanisms and processes; (3) actors; (4) administration, funding and evaluation; (5) degree of multi-sectoral engagement; (6) impact; and (7) enabling factors.

RESULTS

Governments in the EMR have responded differently to the pandemic, with variations in reaction speed and strictness of implementation. While inter-ministerial committees were identified as the primary mechanism through which multi-sectoral action was established and implemented in the selected countries, there was a lack of clarity on how they functioned, particularly regarding the closeness of the cooperation and the working methods. Coordination structures lacked a clear mandate, joint costed action plan, sufficient resources and regular reporting on commitments. Furthermore, there was no evidence of robust communication planning both internally, focused on promoting internal consensual decision-making and managing power dynamics, and externally, concerning communication with the public. Across the selected countries, there was strong representation of different ministries in the pandemic response. Conversely, the contribution of non-state actors, including non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, the private sector, the media and citizens, was relatively modest. Their involvement was more ad hoc, fragmented and largely self-initiated, particularly within the selected middle- and low income- countries of the EMR. Moreover, none of the countries incorporated explicit accountability framework or included anti-corruption and counter-fraud measures as integral components of their multi-sectoral plans and coordination mechanisms. Key enablers for the adoption of multi-sectoral collaborations have been identified, paving the way for more efficient responses in the future.

DISCUSSION

Mirroring global efforts, this study demonstrates that the selected countries in the EMR are making efforts to integrate multi-sectoral action into their pandemic responses. Nevertheless, persistent challenges and gaps remain, presenting untapped opportunities that governments can leverage to enhance the efficiency of future public health emergency responses.

Exploring the diverse definitions of 'evidence': a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically collect and analyse diverse definitions of 'evidence' in both health and social sciences, and help users to correctly use the term 'evidence' and rethink what is the definition of 'evidence' in scientific research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

Definitions of evidence in the health sciences and social sciences were included. We have excluded the definition of evidence applied in the legal field, abstracts without full text, documents not published in either Chinese or English and so on. We established a multidisciplinary working group and systematically searched five electronic databases including Medline, Web of Science, EBSCO, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index and the Chinese Science Citation Database from their inception to 26 February 2022. We also searched websites and reviewed the reference lists of the identified studies. Six reviewers working in pairs, independently, selected studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and extracted information. Any differences were discussed in pairs, and if there was disagreement, it was resolved via discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted document characteristics, the original content for the definitions of 'evidence', assessed definitions as either intensional or extensional, and any citations for the given definition.

RESULTS

Forty-nine documents were finally included after screening, and 68 definitions were obtained. After excluding duplicates, a total of 54 different definitions of 'evidence' were identified. There were 42 intensional definitions and 12 extensional definitions. The top three definiens were 'information', 'fact' and 'research/study'. The definition of 'evidence' differed between health and social sciences. The term 'research' appeared most frequently in the definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of 'evidence' has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars and decision-makers in health and social sciences. Nevertheless, there is no widely recognised and accepted definition in scientific research. Given the wide use of the term, we need to think about whether, or under what circumstances, a standardised, clear, meaningful and widely applicable definition of 'evidence' might be helpful.

Evidence synthesis to policy: development and implementation of an impact-oriented approach from the Eastern Mediterranean Region

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of evidence syntheses in informing policymaking, their production and use remain limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR). There is a lack of empirical research on approaches to promote and use policy-relevant evidence syntheses to inform policymaking processes in the EMR.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to describe the development of an impact-oriented approach to link evidence synthesis to policy, and its implementation through selected case studies in Lebanon, a middle-income country in the EMR.

METHODS

This study followed a multifaceted and iterative process that included (i) a review of the literature, (ii) input from international experts in evidence synthesis and evidence-informed health policymaking, and (iii) application in a real-world setting (implementation). We describe four selected case studies of implementation. Surveys were used to assess policy briefs, deliberative dialogues, and post-dialogue activities. Additionally, Kingdon's stream theory was adopted to further explain how and why the selected policy issues rose to the decision agenda.

RESULTS

The approach incorporates three interrelated phases: (1) priority setting, (2) evidence synthesis, and (3) uptake. Policy-relevant priorities are generated through formal priority setting exercises, direct requests by policymakers and stakeholders, or a focusing event. Identified priorities are translated into focused questions that can be addressed via evidence synthesis (phase 1). Next, a scoping of the literature is conducted to identify existing evidence syntheses addressing the question of interest. Unless the team identifies relevant, up-to-date and high-quality evidence syntheses, it proceeds to conducting SRs addressing the priority questions of interest (phase 2). Next, the team prepares knowledge translation products (e.g., policy briefs) for undertaking knowledge uptake activities, followed by monitoring and evaluation (phase 3). There are two prerequisites to the application of the approach: enhancing contextual awareness and capacity strengthening. The four case studies illustrate how evidence produced from the suites of activities was used to inform health policies and practices.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe both the development and implementation of an approach to link evidence synthesis to policy in the EMR. We believe the approach will be useful for researchers, knowledge translation platforms, governments, and funders seeking to promote evidence-informed policymaking and practice.

Conceptual framework for systemic capacity strengthening for health policy and systems research

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is critical in developing health systems to better meet the health needs of their populations. The highly contextualised nature of health systems point to the value of local knowledge and the need for context-embedded HPSR. Despite such need, relatively few individuals, groups or organisations carry out HPSR, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Greater effort is required to strengthen capacity for, and build the field of, HPSR by capturing the multilevel and nuanced representation of HPSR across contexts. No comprehensive frameworks were found that inform systemic HPSR capacity strengthening. Existing literature on capacity strengthening for health research and development tends to focus on individual-level capacity with less attention to collective, organisational and network levels. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for systemic capacity strengthening for HPSR, uniquely drawing attention to the blurred boundaries and amplification potential for synergistic capacity strengthening efforts across the individual, organisational and network levels. Further, it identifies guiding values and principles that consciously acknowledge and manage the power dynamics inherent to capacity strengthening work. The framework was developed drawing on available literature and was peer-reviewed by the Board and Thematic Working Groups of Health Systems Global. While the framework focuses on HPSR, it may provide a useful heuristic for systemic approaches to capacity strengthening more generally; facilitate its mainstreaming within organisations and networks and help maintain a focused approach to, and structure repositories of resources on, capacity strengthening.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

Preventing Unintentional Injuries in School-Aged Children: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Unintentional injuries constitute the leading causes of death and long-term disabilities among children aged 5 to 15 years. We aimed to systematically review published literature on interventions designed to prevent unintentional injuries among school-aged children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO and screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We included randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. The focus of included studies was on primary prevention measures. Two reviewers collected data on type of study design, setting, population, intervention, types of injuries, outcomes assessed, and statistical results.

RESULTS

Of 30 179 identified studies, 117 were included in this review. Most of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and addressed traffic-related injuries. Evidence from included studies reveals that multicomponent educational interventions may be effective in improving safety knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in school-aged children mainly when coupled with other approaches. Laws/legislation were shown to be effective in increasing cycle helmet use and reducing traffic-related injury rates. Findings reveal the relevance of infrastructure modification in reducing falls and improving pedestrian safety among children.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of unintentional injury prevention interventions on injury, hospitalizations, and mortality rates and the impact of laws and legislation and infrastructure modification on preventing unintentional injuries among school-aged children.

Funding for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean region: amount, source and key determinants

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the current state of funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) on a national level across the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), and to examine the key factors influencing funding for HPSR in the region.

METHODS

A multistep approach was employed, involving a documentation review, secondary data analysis and key informant interviews with 30 stakeholders from five countries in the EMR. Findings are presented narratively (and where applicable as percentages).

RESULTS

National funding for research and development (R&D) in general, and for health research in particular, has been low in comparative terms and lagging behind at the global scale, while funding for HPSR has been lacking on a national level. None of the 22 EMR countries studied had explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR. Analysis of funding sources of 1821 published HPSR articles in the EMR (2010-2019) showed that the most notable source was external/international grants (45.6%), followed by university/academia (35.1%), and government (9.5%). Although HPSR publications have been increasing over time, this still falls short of the scale needed for strengthening health systems and informing current transformations in the region. Findings from the interviews identified several factors influencing investment in or funding for HPSR in the EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the EMR's policy priorities are related to health systems, however our research finds that overall investment in health research and HPSR is still low, with limited recognition of the importance of HPSR in the EMR.

Health-related articles on Syria before and after the start of armed conflict: a scoping review for The Lancet-American University of Beirut Commission on Syria

Introduction

Armed conflict may influence the size and scope of research in Arab countries. We aimed to assess the impact of the 2011 Syrian conflict on health articles about Syria published in indexed journals.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review on Syrian health-related articles using seven electronic databases. We included clinical, biomedical, public health, or health system topics published between 1991 and 2017. We excluded animal studies and studies conducted on Syrian refugees. We used descriptive and social network analyses to assess the differences in rates, types, topics of articles, and authorship before and after 2011, the start of the Syrian conflict.

Results

Of 1138 articles, 826 (72.6%) were published after 2011. Articles published after 2011 were less likely to be primary research; had a greater proportion reporting on mental health (4.6% vs. 10.0%), accidents and injuries (2.3% vs. 18.8%), and conflict and health (1.7% vs. 7.8%) (all p < 0.05); and a lower proportion reporting on child and maternal health (8.1 to 3.6%, p = 0.019). The proportion of research articles reporting no funding increased from 1.1 to 14.6% (p < 0.01). While international collaborations increased over time, the number of articles with no authors affiliated to Syrian institutions overtook those with at least one author affiliation to a Syrian institution for the first time in 2015.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of armed conflict on health scholarship in Syria. The Syrian conflict was associated with a change in the rates, types, and topics of the health-related articles, and authors’ affiliations. Our findings have implications for the prioritization of research funding, development of inclusive research collaborations, and promoting the ethics of conducting research in complex humanitarian settings.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s13031-020-00316-7.

Amplifying the role of knowledge translation platforms in the COVID-19 pandemic response

The COVID-19 pandemic presents the worst public health crisis in recent history. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenged by many factors, including scientific uncertainties, scarcity of relevant research, proliferation of misinformation and fake news, poor access to actionable evidence, time constraints, and weak collaborations among relevant stakeholders. Knowledge translation (KT) platforms, composed of organisations, initiatives and networks supporting evidence-informed policy-making, can play an important role in providing relevant and timely evidence to inform pandemic responses and bridge the gap between science, policy, practice and politics. In this Commentary, we highlight the emerging roles of KT platforms in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also reflect on the lessons learned from the efforts of a KT platform in a middle-income country to inform decision-making and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lessons learned can be integrated into strengthening the role, structures and mandates of KT platforms as hubs for trustworthy evidence that can inform policies and practice during public health crises and in promoting their integration and institutionalisation within the policy-making processes.

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review. We searched Medline and CINAHL databases in addition to Cochrane website and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 31 articles reporting on 29 studies: seven proposed approaches for prioritization and 25 conducted prioritization exercises (three studies did both). The included studies addressed the following fields: clinical (n = 19; 66%), public health (n = 10; 34%), and health policy and systems (n = 8; 28%), with six studies (21%) addressing more than one field. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Twenty-eight studies (97%) involved or proposed involving stakeholders in the priority-setting process. These 28 studies referred to twelve stakeholder categories, most frequently to health care providers (n = 24; 86%) and researchers (n = 21; 75%). A common framework of 25 prioritization criteria was derived, clustered in 10 domains.

CONCLUSION

We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Background

The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update.

Objective

To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way.

Results

Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs.

Conclusions

This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review

Background

Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing for reproducibility. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study.

Results

Our search captured 33,339 unique citations out of which we identified 10 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development. All of the identified approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics but none on prioritizing recommendation questions or outcomes. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%) and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. The most frequently reported criteria were the health burden of disease which was included in all of the approaches, practice variation (8 out of 10, 80%), and impact on health outcomes (7 out of 10, 70%). Two of the identified approaches stood out as being comprehensive and detailed.

Conclusions

We described 10 prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines. There is a need to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the identified approaches and to develop standardized and validated priority setting tools.

Quality, safety and performance management in primary health care: from scoping review to research priority setting and implementation plan in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

INTRODUCTION

Strong primary health care (PHC) leads to better health outcomes, improves health equity and accelerates progress towards universal health coverage (UHC). The Astana Declaration on PHC emphasised the importance of quality care to achieve UHC. A comprehensive understanding of the quality paradigm of PHC is critical, yet it remains elusive in countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). This study used a multistep approach to generate a policy-relevant research agenda for strengthening quality, safety and performance management in PHC in the EMR.

METHODS

A multistep approach was adopted, encompassing the following steps: scoping review and generation of evidence and gap maps, validation and ranking exercises, and development of an approach for research implementation. We followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting scoping reviews and a method review of the literature to build the evidence and gap maps. For the validation and ranking exercises, we purposively sampled 55 high-level policy-makers and stakeholders from selected EMR countries. We used explicit multicriteria for ranking the research questions emerging from the gap maps. The approach for research implementation was adapted from the literature and subsequently tailored to address the top ranked research question.

RESULTS

The evidence and gap maps revealed limited production of research evidence in the area of quality, safety and performance management in PHC by country and by topic. The priority setting exercises generated a ranked list of 34 policy-relevant research questions addressing quality, safety and performance management in PHC in the EMR. The proposed research implementation plan involves collaborative knowledge generation with policy-makers along with knowledge translation and impact assessment.

CONCLUSION

Study findings can help inform and direct future plans to generate, disseminate and use research evidence to enhance quality, safety and performance management in PHC in EMR and beyond. Study methodology can help bridge the gap between research and policy-making.

Using narratives to impact health policy-making: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is increased interest in using narratives or storytelling to influence health policies. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on the use of narratives to impact the health policy-making process.

METHODS

Eligible study designs included randomised studies, non-randomised studies, process evaluation studies, economic studies, qualitative studies, stakeholder analyses, policy analyses, and case studies. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), WHO Global Health Library, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and Google Scholar databases were searched. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We synthesised the findings narratively and presented the results stratified according to the following stages of the policy cycle: (1) agenda-setting, (2) policy formulation, (3) policy adoption, (4) policy implementation and (5) policy evaluation. Additionally, we presented the knowledge gaps relevant to using narrative to impact health policy-making.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, and included case studies (n = 15), participatory action research (n = 1), documentary analysis (n = 1) and biographical method (n = 1). The majority were of very low methodological quality. In addition, none of the studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of the narrative-based interventions. Findings suggest that narratives may have a positive influence when used as inspiration and empowerment tools to stimulate policy inquiries, as educational and awareness tools to initiate policy discussions and gain public support, and as advocacy and lobbying tools to formulate, adopt or implement policy. There is also evidence of undesirable effects of using narratives. In one case study, narrative use led to widespread insurance reimbursement of a therapy for breast cancer that was later proven to be ineffective. Another case study described how the use of narrative inappropriately exaggerated the perceived risk of a procedure, which led to limiting its use and preventing a large number of patients from its benefits. A third case study described how optimistic 'cure' or 'hope' stories of children with cancer were selectively used to raise money for cancer research that ignored the negative realities. The majority of included studies did not provide information on the definition or content of narratives, the theoretical framework underlying the narrative intervention or the possible predictors of the success of narrative interventions.

CONCLUSION

The existing evidence base precludes any robust inferences about the impact of narrative interventions on health policy-making. We discuss the implications of the findings for research and policy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID =  CRD42018085011 ).

Extent of physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Background

Pharmaceutical companies spend large amounts of money promoting their products to physicians. There is evidence that physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies negatively affect their prescribing patterns. The objective of this study was to systematically review the extent of the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

Studies assessing the extent of any type of interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in July 2016. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to complete study selection, data abstraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively.

Results

We included 11 eligible studies (7 quantitative and 4 qualitative). Quantitative studies found that pharmaceutical company representatives visited at least 90% of physicians. Printed material, stationery items and drug samples were the most frequently received gifts. Two of the studies assessing direct payment found percentages of 16 and 5%, respectively. Findings of qualitative studies were consistent with those of quantitative studies. In addition, they revealed an increasing tendency for pharmaceutical companies to provide expensive personal gifts, sponsor social events and offer cash as inducements to physicians based on their demands. They also identified building personal relationships, creating a sense of indebtedness and emotional blackmailing as commonly used techniques to influence physicians.

Conclusion

A relatively high percentage of physicians in LMICs interact with pharmaceutical companies. Findings have implications for policy and practice, given the current extent of interaction is likely affecting the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of essential health benefits package within primary health care settings in low-income and middle-income countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

One of the key requirements for achieving universal health coverage is the proper design and implementation of essential health benefits package (EHPs). We systematically reviewed the evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EHPs within primary health care settings in low-income and middle-income countries.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases and the gray literature. Two reviewers completed independently and in duplicate data selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. We synthesized the findings according to the following health systems arrangement levels: governance, financial, and delivery arrangements.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. At the governance level, key reported barriers were insufficient policymaker-implementer interactions, limited involvement of consumers and stakeholders, sub-optimal primary health care network arrangement, poor marketing and promotion of package, and insufficient coordination with community network. The key reported facilitator was the presence of a legal policy framework for package implementation. At the financial level, barriers included delays and inadequate remunerations to health care providers while facilitators included government and donor commitments to financing of package and flexibility in exploring new funding mechanisms. At the delivery level, barriers included inadequate supervision, poor facility infrastructure, limited availability of equipment and supplies, and shortages of workers. Facilitators included proper training and management of workforce, availability of female health workers, presence of clearly defined packages, and continuum of care, including referrals to promote comprehensive service delivery.

CONCLUSION

We identified a set of barriers and facilitators that need to be addressed to ensure proper implementation of EHPs within primary health care settings.

Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: rising up to the global challenge through institutionalising partnerships with governments and communities

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development covers a wide range of interrelated goals, including poverty eradication and economic growth, social inclusion, environmental sustainability and peace for all people by 2030. Policy decisions to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) need to be informed by policy-relevant evidence co-designed and co-produced with the pertinent stakeholders, taking into consideration local and political contexts. Universities are uniquely placed to lead the cross-sectoral implementation of the SDGs and advance the 2030 agenda. This commentary provides the case for building, strengthening and institutionalising university partnerships with governments and communities to achieve the SDGs. The authors call for a change in mindsets and culture in both academia and government, and invite both parties to start the dialogue if we are to rise up to the global challenge.

A review of national policies and strategies to improve quality of health care and patient safety: a case study from Lebanon and Jordan

Background

Improving quality of care and patient safety practices can strengthen health care delivery systems, improve health sector performance, and accelerate attainment of health-related Sustainability Development Goals. Although quality improvement is now prominent on the health policy agendas of governments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), progress to date has not been optimal. The objective of this study is to comprehensively review existing quality improvement and patient safety policies and strategies in two selected countries of the EMR (Lebanon and Jordan) to determine the extent to which these have been institutionalized within existing health systems.

Methods

We used a mixed methods approach that combined documentation review, stakeholder surveys and key informant interviews. Existing quality improvement and patient safety initiatives were assessed across five components of an analytical framework for assessing health care quality and patient safety: health systems context; national policies and legislation; organizations and institutions; methods, techniques and tools; and health care infrastructure and resources.

Results

Both Lebanon and Jordan have made important progress in terms of increased attention to quality and accreditation in national health plans and strategies, licensing requirements for health care professionals and organizations (albeit to varying extents), and investments in health information systems. A key deficiency in both countries is the absence of an explicit national policy for quality improvement and patient safety across the health system. Instead, there is a spread of several (disjointed) pieces of legal measures and national plans leading to fragmentation and lack of clear articulation of responsibilities across the entire continuum of care. Moreover, both countries lack national sets of standardized and applicable quality indicators for performance measurement and benchmarking. Importantly, incentive systems that link contractual agreement, regulations, accreditation, and performance indicators are underutilized in Lebanon and absent in Jordan. At the healthcare organizational level, there is a need to instill a culture of continuous quality improvement and promote professional training in quality improvement and patient safety.

Conclusion

Study findings highlight the importance of aligning policies, organizations, methods, capacities and resources in order to institutionalize quality improvement and patient safety practices in health systems. Gaps and dysfunctions identified can help inform national deliberations and dialogues among key stakeholders in each study country. Findings can also inform future quality improvement efforts in the EMR and beyond, with a particular emphasis on LMICs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2528-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association between physicians' interaction with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviors of physicians. The objective of this study was to systematically review the association between physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices.

Methods

We used the standard systematic review methodology. Observational and experimental study designs examining any type of targeted interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. The search strategy included a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to July 2016. Two reviewers selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate and independently. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Results

Twenty articles reporting on 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. All of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and examined different types of interactions, including detailing, industry-funded continuing medical education, and receiving free gifts. While all included studies assessed prescribing behaviors, four studies also assessed financial outcomes, one assessed physicians’ knowledge, and one assessed their beliefs. None of the studies assessed clinical outcomes. Out of the 19 studies, 15 found a consistent association between interactions promoting a medication, and inappropriately increased prescribing rates, lower prescribing quality, and/or increased prescribing costs. The remaining four studies found both associations and lack of significant associations for the different types of exposures and drugs examined in the studies. A meta-analysis of six of these studies found a statistically significant association between exposure and physicians’ prescribing behaviors (OR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.82–3.50). The quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate for risk of bias and inconsistency. Sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially change these results. A subgroup analysis did not find a difference by type of exposure.

Conclusion

There is moderate quality evidence that physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies are associated with their prescribing patterns and quality.

Pharmacists' views and reported practices in relation to a new generic drug substitution policy in Lebanon: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Governments in both developed and developing countries have adopted generic drug substitution policies to decrease pharmaceutical expenditures and improve access to medicine. In August 2015, the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) in Lebanon introduced generic drug substitution and a unified medical prescription form as policy instruments to promote generic drug use. The objective of this exploratory study was to examine the attitudes of community pharmacists and the reported practices in relation to the implementation of the new generic drug substitution policy.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional mixed methods approach composed of self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The study population consisted of community pharmacists in Lebanon. We randomly approached one pharmacy personnel from each selected community pharmacy. We conducted descriptive analyses to assess responses to questionnaire and regression analyses to understand associations between responses and respondent demographics. We analyzed qualitative data thematically.

RESULTS

Out of 204 invited community pharmacies, 153 pharmacies participated (75% response rate). The majority of respondents (64%) were in favor of generic drug substitution; however, less than half (40%) indicated they have substituted brand drugs for generic equivalents. Moreover, 57% indicated that the existing pricing system discourages them from performing generic drug substitution. Most respondents indicated that physicians are overusing the "non-substitutable" option (84%) and that there are technical problems with processing the new prescription form (78%). Less than half (47%) reported that the MOPH is performing regular audits on the forms collected by the pharmacy. While 45% of the respondents indicated that consumers have accepted most of the generic substitutions, 21% perceived the increase in generic drug dispensing to be significant. Findings suggested a potentially significant association between being informed about generic drugs and respondents' support of the policy. Suggested strategies to address implementation challenges included strengthening stewardship function of MOPH, securing full commitment of health care providers, conducting educational and awareness campaigns about generic drugs and generic drug substitution, and aligning incentive systems of the key stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of community pharmacists were supportive of generic drug substitution in general but not of the current implementation of the policy in Lebanon. Findings revealed implementation challenges at the provider, patient, and system level which are hindering attainment of the policy objectives. The key lessons derived from this study can be used for continuous improvement of the policy and its implementation.

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry.

METHODS

We included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country.

RESULTS

Of the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians' disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies.

CONCLUSION

The awareness of participants was low for physicians' receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.

Strategies and Systems-Level Interventions to Combat or Prevent Drug Counterfeiting: A Systematic Review of Evidence Beyond Effectiveness

Background

A recent systematic review suggested that drug registrations and onsite quality inspections may be effective in reducing the prevalence of counterfeit and substandard drugs. However, simply replicating the most effective interventions is problematic, as it denotes implementing the intervention without further adaptation.

Objective

The aim was to systematically review the evidence beyond effectiveness for systems-level interventions to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting.

Methods

We conducted an extensive search, including an electronic search of 14 databases. We included studies examining the efficiency, feasibility, reliability, and economic outcomes of the interventions, as well as barriers and facilitators to their implementation. Two reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesized the results narratively, stratified by type of intervention.

Results

Of 10,220 captured citations, 19 met our inclusion criteria. The findings suggest that the following may strengthen regulatory measures (e.g., registration): minimizing drug diversion, enhancing lines of communications, ensuring feedback on drug quality, and promoting strict licensing criteria. There is evidence that onsite quality surveillance and inspection systems may be efficient and cost-effective for preliminary testing of large samples of drugs. Laws and legislation need to be specific to counterfeit drugs, include firm penalties, address online purchasing of drugs, and be complemented by education of judges and lawyers. Public awareness and education should rely on multiple platforms and comprehensive and dedicated content. While product authentication technologies may be efficient and reliable in detecting counterfeit drugs in the supply chain, they require a strong information system infrastructure. As for pharmacovigilance systems, it is critical to tackle the issue of underreporting, to enhance their chances of success.

Conclusion

Several factors are critical to the successful design and implementation of systems-level interventions to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting. Policymakers need to take these into consideration to ensure success of these interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40290-016-0156-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Causes of cancellations on the day of surgery at a Tertiary Teaching Hospital

Background

Cancellation of elective scheduled operations on the day of surgery leads to an inefficient use of operating room (OR) time and a waste of resources. It also causes inconvenience for patients and families. Moreover, day of surgery (DOS) cancellation creates logistic and financial burden associated with extended hospital stay and repetitions of pre-operative preparations as well as opportunity costs of lost time and missed income. The objective of this study is to establish the rate of elective surgical cases cancellations on the day of surgery and the reasons for these cancellations stratified by avoidable versus unavoidable within a tertiary care teaching hospital in Beirut, Lebanon as well as recommend appropriate solutions.

Method

This is a prospective audit of the operation theatre list over a period of eight months (January 1, 2013-August 30, 2013). All patients scheduled to undergo elective surgeries at the hospital from January-August 2013 were included. An assigned OR staff recorded the cancelled cases in real time. The assigned staff confirmed the cancellation reason and added additional explanation if necessary by calling patients or through direct inquiry of clerical and/or clinical staff the following day. A Pareto chart was constructed to prioritize the reasons that accounted for 80 % of the avoidable surgical cancellations.

Results

For the given study period, 5929 elective surgeries were performed, of which 261 cases (4.4 %) were cancelled on the day of surgery. 187 cases (or 71.6 %) were judged as potentially avoidable cancellations versus 74 (28.4 %) that were judged as unavoidable. Of the 187 potentially avoidable cancellations, lack of financial clearance, incomplete medical evaluation, patient not showing up for surgery, and OR behind schedule accounted for almost 80 % of the causes.

Conclusion

This study showed that the majority of cancellations were deemed avoidable and hospital related. A day of surgery cancellation rate less than 2 % is attainable. Determining the major avoidable contributors to DOS cancellations is an essential first step to developing appropriate interventions to improve operating theater efficiency. Recommended interventions were presented accordingly.

Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review

Background

Understanding the perceptions and attitudes of physicians is important. This knowledge assists in the efforts to reduce the impact of their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry on clinical practice. It appears that most studies on such perceptions and attitudes have been conducted in high-income countries. The objective was to systematically review the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interactions with pharmaceutical companies.

Methods

Eligible studies addressed any type of interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. The outcomes of interest included knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of practicing physicians. The search strategy covered MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Two reviewers completed in duplicate and independently study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. The data synthesis consisted of a narrative summary of the findings stratified by knowledge, beliefs and attitudes.

Results

We included ten reports from nine eligible studies, each of which had a number of methodological limitations. Four studies found that the top perceived benefits of this interaction were receiving information and rewards. In five out of eight studies assessing the perception regarding the impact of the interaction on the behavior of physician prescription, the majority of participants believed it to be minor. In one of these studies, participants perceived that impact to be lesser when asked about their own behavior. The attitudes of physicians towards information and rewards provided by pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) (assessed in 5 and 2 studies respectively) varied across studies. In the only study assessing their attitudes towards pharmaceutical-sponsored Continuing Medical Education, physicians considered local conferences to have higher impact. Their attitudes towards developing policies restricting physicians’ interactions with PCRs were positive in two studies. In one study, the majority of participants did not mind the public knowing that physicians were receiving gifts and awards from drug companies.

Conclusions

This review identified few studies conducted in low and middle-income countries. While physicians generally perceived the impact of interactions on their behavior to be minor, their attitudes toward receiving information and rewards varied across studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1299-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Validity of tools used for surveying physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical company: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that physicians' prescription behavior is negatively affected by the extent of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies. In order to develop and implement policies and interventions for better management of interactions, we need to understand physicians' perspectives on this issue. Surveys addressing physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies need to use validated tools to ensure the validity of their findings.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the validity of tools used in surveys of physicians about the extent and nature of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies, and about their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards such interactions; and to identify those tools that have been formally validated.

METHODS

We developed a search strategy with the assistance of a medical librarian. We electronically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in September 2015. Teams of two reviewers conducted data selection and data abstraction. They identified eligible studies in one table and then abstracted the relevant data from the studies with validated tools in another table. Tables were piloted and standardized.

RESULTS

We identified one validated questionnaire out of the 11 assessing the nature and extent of the interaction, and three validated questionnaires out of the 47 assessing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians toward the interaction. None of these validated questionnaires were used in more than one survey.

CONCLUSION

The available supporting evidence of the issue of physicians' interaction with pharmaceutical company is of low quality. There is a need for research to develop and validate tools to survey physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical companies.

Interventions to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Drug counterfeiting has serious public health and safety implications. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting.

DATA SOURCES

We searched multiple electronic databases and the grey literature up to March 2014. Two reviewers completed, in duplicate and independently, the study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

We included randomised trials, non-randomised studies, and case studies examining any intervention at the health system-level to combat or prevent drug counterfeiting. Outcomes of interest included changes in failure rates of tested drugs and changes in prevalence of counterfeit medicines. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on substandard, degraded or expired drugs, or that focused on medication errors.

APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. We reported the results narratively and, where applicable, we conducted meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 21 studies representing 25 units of analysis. Overall, we found low quality evidence suggesting positive effects of drug registration (OR=0.23; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.67), and WHO-prequalification of drugs (OR=0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35) in reducing the prevalence of counterfeit and substandard drugs. Low quality evidence suggests that licensing of drug outlets is probably ineffective (OR=0.66; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.05). For multifaceted interventions (including a mix of regulations, training of inspectors, public-private collaborations and legal actions), low quality evidence suggest they may be effective. The single RCT provided moderate quality evidence of no effect of 'two extra inspections' in improving drug quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers and stakeholders would benefit from registration and WHO-prequalification of drugs and may also consider multifaceted interventions. Future effectiveness studies should address the methodological limitations of the available evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42014009269.

A call for a backward design to knowledge translation

Despite several calls to support evidence-informed policy-making, variations in uptake of evidence into policy persist. This editorial brings together and builds on previous Knowledge Translation (KT) frameworks and theories to present a simple, yet, holistic approach for promoting evidence-informed policies. The proposed conceptual framework is characterized by its impact-oriented approach and its view of KT as a continuum from the evidence synthesis stage to uptake and evaluation, while highlighting capacity and resource requirement at every step. A practical example is given to guide readers through the different steps of the framework. With a growing interest in strengthening evidence-informed policy-making, there is a need to continuously develop theories to understand and improve the science of KT and its implementation within the field of policy-making.

Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews can offer policymakers and stakeholders concise, transparent, and relevant evidence pertaining to pressing policy priorities to help inform the decision-making process. The production and the use of systematic reviews are specifically limited in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities in the region is still unknown. This situational analysis exercise aims at assessing the extent to which published systematic reviews address policy priorities identified by policymakers and stakeholders in Eastern Mediterranean region countries. It also provides an overview about the state of systematic review production in the region and identifies knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Health System Evidence database to identify published systematic reviews on policy-relevant priorities pertaining to the following themes: human resources for health, health financing, the role of the non-state sector, and access to medicine. Priorities were identified from two priority-setting exercises conducted in the region. We described the distribution of these systematic reviews across themes, sub-themes, authors' affiliations, and countries where included primary studies were conducted.

RESULTS

Out of the 1,045 systematic reviews identified in Health System Evidence on selected themes, a total of 200 systematic reviews (19.1%) addressed the priorities from the Eastern Mediterranean region. The theme with the largest number of systematic reviews included was human resources for health (115) followed by health financing (33), access to medicine (27), and role of the non-state sector (25). Authors based in the region produced only three systematic reviews addressing regional priorities (1.5%). Furthermore, no systematic review focused on the Eastern Mediterranean region. Primary studies from the region had limited contribution to systematic reviews; 17 systematic reviews (8.5%) included primary studies conducted in the region.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still gaps in the production of systematic reviews addressing policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Efforts should be directed towards better aligning systematic review production with policy needs and priorities. Study findings can inform the agendas of researchers, research institutions, and international funding agencies of priority areas where systematic reviews are required.

Legislative, educational, policy and other interventions targeting physicians' interaction with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically review the effects of interventions targeting practising physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included observational studies, non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) and RCTs evaluating legislative, educational, policy or other interventions targeting the interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical companies.

DATA SOURCES

The search strategy included an electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two reviewers performed duplicate and independent study selection, data abstraction and assessment of risk of bias.

APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. We summarised the findings narratively because the nature of the data did not allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

Of 11 189 identified citations, one RCT and three observational studies met the eligibility criteria. All four studies specifically targeted one type of interaction with pharmaceutical companies, that is, interactions with drug representatives. The RCT provided moderate quality evidence of no effect of a 'collaborative approach' between the pharmaceutical industry and a health authority. The three observational studies provided low quality evidence suggesting a positive effect of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies (by restricting free samples, promotional material, and meetings with pharmaceutical company representatives) on prescription behaviour.

LIMITATIONS

We identified too few studies to allow strong conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests a potential impact of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and drug representatives on physicians' prescription behaviour. We found no evidence concerning interventions affecting other types of interaction with pharmaceutical companies.