Suchergebnisse

Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund Im neu entstehenden Stadtteil Freiham in München plant
und implementiert die Stadt München zeitgleich mit dem Bezug des
Stadtteils eine Präventionskette als integrierte kommunale Strategie.
Ziel der "Präventionskette Freiham" ist es, von Anfang
an gesunde Aufwachsbedingungen für alle Kinder und Jugendlichen zu
schaffen. Zur Steuerung wurde auf Stadtverwaltungsebene ein
referatsübergreifendes Gremium gebildet. Ziel der Studie ist es, dieses
Gremium hinsichtlich seiner Strukturen, Prozesse und Zusammenarbeit mit
vielfältigen Agierenden zu untersuchen.
Methoden Die Studie kombinierte eine qualitative Interviewstudie mit
Methoden der sozialen Netzwerkanalyse (SNA). Von März bis April 2018
wurden leitfadengestützte Einzelinterviews mit den Mitgliedern der
Begleitgruppe durchgeführt und dabei egozentrierte, soziale
Netzwerkkarten erstellt. Die Auswertung der Transkripte erfolgte qualitativ auf
Grundlage der Inhaltsanalyse nach Margrit Schreier. Die Netzwerkkarten wurden
ebenfalls qualitativ ausgewertet und die Ergebnisse visualisiert. Die Ergebnisse
wurden den Studienteilnehmenden in einem Workshop im Juni 2018 vorgestellt,
gemeinsam interpretiert und validiert.
Ergebnisse Es nahmen zehn Mitglieder der Begleitgruppe an der Studie teil.
Die referatsübergreifende, multiprofessionelle Zusammenarbeit in der
Begleitgruppe wurde von allen Beteiligten als gewinnbringend bewertet.
Darüber hinaus wurde die externe Koordination durch MAGs sowie die
wissenschaftliche Expertise der LMU München als Stütze
wahrgenommen. Hindernisse in der Planung und Implementierung der
Präventionskette Freiham finden sich in erster Linie auf administrativer
Ebene der Verwaltung. Aspekte, die die Zusammenarbeit der Begleitgruppe
betreffen, wurden als vorrangig positiv empfunden. In der SNA wurden zahlreiche
Agierende, vor allem aus der Fachsteuerungs- und Planungsebene der Referate,
genannt, die bereits mit einbezogen werden. Zudem wurden Agierende
identifiziert, die bislang noch nicht in den Planungsprozess involviert
waren.
Schlussfolgerungen Die Organisationsform der Begleitgruppe als
formalisierter Zusammenschluss von Vertreter*innen verschiedener
Referate, die sich gleichermaßen der Präventionskette widmen,
sowie eine externe Koordination und wissenschaftliche Begleitung stellen einen
positiv bewerteten Ansatz dar. Der Aufbau der Präventionskette sollte
weiterhin als Querschnittsaufgabe verstanden sowie sektor- und
hierarchieübergreifend unterstützt werden.

BACKGROUND: Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) can increase the risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dental caries. Interventions that alter the physical or social environment in which individuals make beverage choices have been proposed to reduce the consumption of SSB. METHODS: We included randomised controlled, non-randomised controlled, and interrupted time series studies on environmental interventions, with or without behavioural co-interventions, implemented in real-world settings, lasting at least 12 weeks, and including at least 40 individuals. Studies on the taxation of SSB were not included, as these are subject of a separate Cochrane review. We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and evidence grading and synthesis. Searches were updated to January 24, 2018. RESULTS: We identified 14,488 unique records and assessed 1,030 full texts for eligibility. We included 58 studies comprising a total of 1,180,096 participants and a median length of follow-up of 10 months. We found moderate-certainty evidence for consistent associations with decreases in SSB consumption or sales for the following interventions: traffic light labelling, price increases on SSB, in-store promotion of healthier beverages in supermarkets, government food benefit programs with incentives for purchasing fruits and vegetables and restrictions on SSB purchases, multi-component community campaigns focused on SSB, and interventions improving the availability of low-calorie beverages in the home environment. For the remaining interventions we found low- to very-low-certainty evidence for associations showing varying degrees of consistency. CONCLUSIONS: With observed benefits outweighing observed harms, we suggest that environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of SSB be considered as part of a wider set of measures to improve population-level nutrition. Implementation should be accompanied by evaluations using appropriate methods. Future studies ...

Background: The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions.Methods: The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework.Results: The CICI framework comprises three dimensions—context, implementation and setting—which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and ...

Background The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions. Methods The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework. Results The CICI framework comprises three dimensions—context, implementation and setting—which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and quantitative reviews and a consultation guide for applicability assessments. Conclusions The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way. It aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance our understanding of whether and how interventions work. The framework can be applied in systematic reviews and HTA as well as primary research and facilitate communication among teams of researchers and with various stakeholders.

Background The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. Methods We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. Discussion Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.

BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. DISCUSSION: Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the ...

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 and the impact of COVID‐19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures in order to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. While these measures were imposed with the intention of controlling the pandemic, they were also associated with severe psychosocial, societal, and economic implications on a societal level. One setting affected heavily by these measures is the school setting. By mid‐April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world's student population. In consideration of the adverse consequences of school closures, many countries around the world reopened their schools in the months after the initial closures. To safely reopen schools and keep them open, governments implemented a broad range of measures. The evidence with regards to these measures, however, is heterogeneous, with a multitude of study designs, populations, settings, interventions and outcomes being assessed. To make sense of this heterogeneity, we conducted a rapid scoping review (8 October to 5 November 2020). This rapid scoping review is intended to serve as a precursor to a systematic review of effectiveness, which will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) checklist and was registered with the Open Science Framework. OBJECTIVES: To identify and comprehensively map the evidence assessing the impacts of measures implemented in the school setting to reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 pandemic, with particular focus on the types of measures implemented in different school settings, the outcomes used to measure their impacts and the study types used to assess these. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the CDC COVID‐19 Research Articles ...

BACKGROUND: In response to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the impact of COVID-19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures in order to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. While these measures were imposed with the intention of controlling the pandemic, they were also associated with severe psychosocial, societal, and economic implications on a societal level. One setting affected heavily by these measures is the school setting. By mid-April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world's student population. In consideration of the adverse consequences of school closures, many countries around the world reopened their schools in the months after the initial closures. To safely reopen schools and keep them open, governments implemented a broad range of measures. The evidence with regards to these measures, however, is heterogeneous, with a multitude of study designs, populations, settings, interventions and outcomes being assessed. To make sense of this heterogeneity, we conducted a rapid scoping review (8 October to 5 November 2020). This rapid scoping review is intended to serve as a precursor to a systematic review of effectiveness, which will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and was registered with the Open Science Framework. OBJECTIVES: To identify and comprehensively map the evidence assessing the impacts of measures implemented in the school setting to reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the types of measures implemented in different school settings, the outcomes used to measure their impacts and the study types used to assess these. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the CDC COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database for preprints, and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 8 October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the impact of measures implemented in the school setting. Eligible populations were populations at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, or developing COVID-19 disease, or both, and included people both directly and indirectly impacted by interventions, including students, teachers, other school staff, and contacts of these groups, as well as the broader community. We considered all types of empirical studies, which quantitatively assessed impact including epidemiological studies, modelling studies, mixed-methods studies, and diagnostic studies that assessed the impact of relevant interventions beyond diagnostic test accuracy. Broad outcome categories of interest included infectious disease transmission-related outcomes, other harmful or beneficial health-related outcomes, and societal, economic, and ecological implications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data from included studies in a standardized manner, and mapped them to categories within our a priori logic model where possible. Where not possible, we inductively developed new categories. In line with standard expectations for scoping reviews, the review provides an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias, and was not designed to synthesize effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterize strength of evidence (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies that assessed measures implemented in the school setting. The majority of studies used mathematical modelling designs (n = 31), while nine studies used observational designs, and two studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Studies conducted in real-world contexts or using real data focused on the WHO European region (EUR; n = 20), the WHO region of the Americas (AMR; n = 13), the West Pacific region (WPR; n = 6), and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR; n = 1). One study conducted a global assessment and one did not report on data from, or that were applicable to, a specific country. Three broad intervention categories emerged from the included studies: organizational measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 36), structural/environmental measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 11), and surveillance and response measures to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections (n = 19). Most studies assessed SARS-CoV-2 transmission-related outcomes (n = 29), while others assessed healthcare utilization (n = 8), other health outcomes (n = 3), and societal, economic, and ecological outcomes (n = 5). Studies assessed both harmful and beneficial outcomes across all outcome categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base of measures implemented in the school setting. This review is an important first step in understanding the available evidence and will inform the development of rapid reviews on this topic.