Health Research Policy and Systems

Examining vulnerabilities within our current healthcare system we propose borrowing two tools from the fields of engineering and design: a) Reason's system approach [1] and b) User-centered design [2, 3]. Both approaches are human-centered in that they consider common patterns of human behavior when analyzing systems to identify problems and generate solutions. This paper examines these two human-centered approaches in the context of healthcare. We argue that maintaining a human-centered orientation in clinical care, research, training, and governance is critical to the evolution of an effective and sustainable healthcare system.

Biomedical research on Alzheimer’s disease (AD), breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC) has globally improved our understanding of the etiopathological mechanisms underlying the onset of these diseases, often with the goal to identify associated genetic and environmental risk factors and develop new medicines. However, the prevalence of these diseases and failure rate in drug development remain high. Being able to retrospectively monitor the major scientific breakthroughs and impact of such investment endeavors is important to re-address funding strategies if and when needed. The EU has supported research into those diseases via its successive framework programmes for research, technological development and innovation. The European Commission (EC) has already undertaken several activities to monitor research impact. As an additional contribution, the EC Joint Research Centre (JRC) launched in 2020 a survey addressed to former and current participants of EU-funded research projects in the fields of AD, BC and PC, with the aim to understand how EU-funded research has contributed to scientific innovation and societal impact, and how the selection of the experimental models may have underpinned the advances made. Further feedback was also gathered through in-depth interviews with some selected survey participants representative of the diverse pre-clinical models used in the EU-funded projects. A comprehensive analysis of survey replies, complemented with the information derived from the interviews, has recently been published in a Synopsis report. Here we discuss the main findings of this analysis and propose a set of priority actions that could be considered to help improving the translation of scientific innovation of biomedical research into societal impact.

A wide range of preventive, treatment, and care programs for HIV/AIDS are currently available and some of them have been implemented in Thailand. Policy makers are now facing challenges on how the scarce resources for HIV/AIDS control can be spent more wisely. Although effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information is useful for guiding policy decisions, empirical evidence indicates the importance of other criteria, such as equity and the characteristics of the target population, also play important roles in priority setting. This study aims to experiment with the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to prioritise interventions in HIV/AIDS control in Thailand. We used MCDA to rank 40 HIV/AIDS interventions on the basis of the priority setting criteria put forward by three groups of stakeholders including policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDs (PLWHA), and village health volunteers (VHVs). MCDA incorporated an explicit component of deliberation to let stakeholders reflect on the rank ordering, and adapt where necessary. Upon deliberation, policy makers expressed a preference for programs that target high risk groups such as men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and female sex workers. The VHVs preferred interventions that target the youth or the general population, and gave lower priority to programs that target high risk groups. PLWHA gave all interventions the same priority. The rank order correlation between the priorities as expressed before and after deliberation was 37% among the policy makers and 46% among the VHVs. This study documented the feasibility of MCDA to prioritize HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and has shown the usefulness of a deliberative process as an integrated component of MCDA. MCDA holds potential to contribute to a more transparent and accountable priority setting process, and further application of this approach in the prioritisation of health interventions is warranted.

The concept of community resilience has gained considerable attention in the global health discussions since the Ebola outbreak of West Africa in 2014–2015. However, there are no measurement models to quantify community resilience. Without measurement models, it is unclear how to test strategies for building community resilience or to describe their likely intended and unintended results and their impact on health outcomes. We propose a measurement model for community resilience with relevant constructs and indicators to measure these constructs. We conducted a scoping review, systematically searching, screening and selecting relevant articles from two bibliographic databases (PUBMED and Google Scholar) for literature using search terms such as “resilience”, “community resilience” and “health systems resilience”. We screened 500 papers, then completed a full text review of 112 identified as relevant based on their title and abstract. A total of 27 papers and reports were retained for analysis. We then aggregated and synthesised the various definitions of community resilience and the frameworks for understanding these definitions. We identified key constructs from these frameworks and organised these constructs into domains and sub-domains. We proposed indicators to capture aspects of these domains and sub-domains and operationalised these indicators as a measurement model for quantifying community resilience in health systems. We propose a model with 20 indicators to assess community resilience. These indicators tap into various constructs from different theoretical frameworks of community resilience and are useful for assessing the level of knowledge, financial resources, and human, social and physical capital that are needed (or lacking) to respond to any types of shock, including health shock at the community level. This is an initial attempt to describe a multilevel measurement model for quantifying community resilience. This model will help to guide the development and testing of strategies for strengthening community resilience and will require further work to assess its relevance, reliability and validity in different LMIC settings.

The use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to support decision making in health systems is limited in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). This is partly due to the lack of effective initiatives to strengthen regional HPSR capacities and promote its use in decision making. This paper offers a structured reflection on the establishment and core functioning of a HPSR Nodal Institute for the EMR with specific focus on the approach used to support the conduct and use of HPSR. It seeks to gain better understanding of the activities conducted by the Nodal Institute, the methods by which the Nodal Institute implemented these activities, and the outcomes of these activities. A multi-faceted approach was implemented by the Nodal Institute in collaboration with regional academic/research institutions, Sub-Nodes. The overall approach was a phased one that included the selection of Sub-Nodes, mapping of academic/research institutions in the EMR, stakeholders’ meetings, and HPSR capacity building workshops, and culminated with a regional meeting. The mapping of academic/research institutions in the EMR resulted in the identification of 50 institutions, of which only 32 were engaged in HPSR. These institutions have the highest HPSR involvement in information/evidence (84%) and the lowest in human resources for health (34%). Their main HPSR focus areas included quality of healthcare services, patient safety, management of non-communicable diseases, and human resources for health. Regional HPSR challenges among these institutions were identified. The validation and ranking questionnaires resulted in the identification of country-specific HPSR priorities according to stakeholders in three countries. From these results, cross-cutting HPSR priorities among the countries related to primary healthcare, non-communicable diseases, human resources for health, as well as cross-cutting HPSR priorities among stakeholders and according to stakeholders of the countries, were extracted. The Nodal Institute in the EMR is a promising initiative to support the conduct and use of HPSR in health policies. The approach and findings reported in this paper allow for the development of opportunities towards the building of capacity for HPSR in the region and other countries and provide a roadmap for academic/research institutions interested in HPSR in the region.

To review and assess (i) the factors that facilitate the development of sustainable health policy analysis institutes in low and middle income countries and (ii) the nature of external support for capacity development provided to such institutes. Comparative case studies of six health policy analysis institutes (3 from Asia and 3 from Africa) were conducted. In each region an NGO institute, an institute linked to government and a university based institute were included. Data collection comprised document review, semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and discussion of preliminary findings with institute staff. The findings are organized around four key themes: (i) Financial resources: three of the institutes had received substantial external grants at start-up, however two of these institutes subsequently collapsed. At all but one institute, reliance upon short term, donor funding, created high administrative costs and unpredictability. (ii) Human resources: the retention of skilled human resources was perceived to be key to institute success but was problematic at all but one institute. In particular staff often moved to better paid positions elsewhere once having acquired necessary skills and experience, leaving remaining senior staff with heavy workloads. (iii) Governance and management: board structures and roles varied according to the nature of institute ownership. Boards made important contributions to organizational capacity through promoting continuity, independence and fund raising. Routine management systems were typically perceived to be strong. (iv) Networks: linkages to policy makers helped promote policy influences. External networks with other research organizations, particularly where these were longer term institutional collaborations helped promote capacity. The development of strong in-country analytical and research capacity to guide health policy development is critical, yet many health policy analysis institutes remain very fragile. A combination of more strategic planning, active recruitment and retention strategies, and longer term, flexible funding, for example through endowments, needs to be promoted. Specific recommendations to funders and institutes are provided.

WHO publishes public health and clinical guidelines to guide Member States in achieving better health outcomes. Furthermore, WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work for 2019–2023 prioritizes strengthening its normative functional role and uptake of normative and standard-setting products, including guidelines at the country level. Therefore, understanding WHO guideline uptake by the Member States, particularly the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is of utmost importance for the organization and scholarship. We conducted a scoping review using a comprehensive search strategy to include published literature in English between 2007 and 2020. The review was conducted between May and June 2021. We searched five electronic databases including CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Scopus. We also searched Google Scholar as a supplementary source. The review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews) guidelines for reporting the searches, screening and identification of evaluation studies from the literature. A narrative synthesis of the evidence around key barriers and challenges for WHO guideline uptake in LMICs is thematically presented. The scoping review included 48 studies, and the findings were categorized into four themes: (1) lack of national legislation, regulations and policy coherence, (2) inadequate experience, expertise and training of healthcare providers for guideline uptake, (3) funding limitations for guideline uptake and use, and (4) inadequate healthcare infrastructure for guideline compliance. These challenges were situated in the Member States’ health systems. The findings suggest that governance was often weak within the existing health systems amongst most of the LMICs studied, as was the guidance provided by WHO’s guidelines on governance requirements. This challenge was further exacerbated by a lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms for uptake and implementation of guidelines. In addition, the WHO guidelines themselves were either unclear and were technically challenging for some health conditions; however, WHO guidelines were primarily used as a reference by Member States when they developed their national guidelines. The challenges identified reflect the national health systems’ (in)ability to allocate, implement and monitor the guidelines. Historically this is beyond the remit of WHO, but Member States could benefit from WHO implementation guidance on requirements and needs for successful uptake and use of WHO guidelines.

Pakistan’s maternal and child health indicators remain unacceptably high, with a maternal mortality ratio of 276 per 100,000 live births and a neonatal mortality rate of 55 per 1,000 live births. Provision of basic and comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care is mandated by the government; however, coverage, access, and utilisation levels remain unsatisfactory, with the situation in Sindh province being amongst the worst in the country. This study attempted to assess access to comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care (C-EmONC) facilities and barriers hampering access in Sindh. One public sector hospital in each of three districts in Sindh province providing C-EmONC services were selected for a facility exit survey. A cross-sectional household survey and focus group discussions were conducted in the catchment population of these hospitals. Overall, 82% and 96% of those who utilised a public or private C-EmONC facility, respectively, incurred out-of-pocket expenditure. As expected, those living more than 5 km from the facility reported higher mean expenditure than those living within 5 km of the facility. More than half of the respondents (55%) among public sector users and the majority (71%) of private sector users could not afford travel costs. More than one third (35%) of public sector users and about two thirds (64%) of private sector users who could not afford travel costs took loans. The proportion of respondents who took loans was higher among those living more than 5 km of the health facility compared to those living within a 5 km distance. The majority of respondents (70%) in the community survey chose to go to a private sector C-EmONC facility. In addition to poverty, in terms of sociocultural access, religious and ethnic discrimination and the poor attitude of facility staff were amongst the most important barriers to accessing a C-EmONC facility. C-EmONC facilities in both the public and private sectors may simply not be accessible and affordable for the vast majority of poor and marginalised women in targeted districts.