Suchergebnisse

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.

Abstract

Background
The unprecedented amount of resources dedicated to humanitarian aid has led many stakeholders to demand the use of reliable evidence in humanitarian aid decisions to ensure that desired impacts are achieved at acceptable costs. However, little is known about the factors that influence the use of research evidence in the policy development in humanitarian crises. We examined how research evidence was used to inform two humanitarian policies made in response to the Syrian refugee crisis.


Methods
We identified two policies as rich potential case studies to examine the use of evidence in humanitarian aid policy decision-making: Lebanon's 2016 Health Response Strategy and Ontario's 2016 Phase 2: Health System Action Plan, Syrian Refugees. To study each, we used an embedded qualitative case study methodology and recruited senior decision-makers, policy advisors, and healthcare providers who were involved with the development of each policy. We reviewed publicly available documents and media articles that spoke to the factors that influence the process. We used the analytic technique of explanation building to understand the factors that influence the use of research evidence in the policy-development process in crisis zones.


Results
We interviewed eight informants working in government and six in international agencies in Lebanon, and two informants working in healthcare provider organizations and two in non-governmental organizations in Ontario, for a total of 18 key informants. Based on our interviews and documentary analysis, we identified that there was limited use of research evidence and that four broad categories of factors helped to explain the policy-development process for Syrian refugees – development of health policies without significant chance for derailment from other government bodies (Lebanon) or opposition parties (Ontario) (i.e., facing no veto points), government's engagement with key societal actors to inform the policy-development process, the values underpinning the process, and external factors significantly influencing the policy-development process.


Conclusions
This study suggests that use of research evidence in the policy-development process for Syrian refugees was subordinate to key political factors, resulting in limited influence of research evidence in the development of both the Lebanese and Ontarian policy.

The objective of this paper is to conduct comparative analysis about the views and practices of policy makers and researchers on the use of health systems evidence in policy making in selected Eastern Mediterranean countries. We analysed data from two self-reported surveys, one targeted at policy makers and the other at researchers. Results show a wide gap between policy makers and researchers when comparing perceptions on factors influencing the policy-making process and use of evidence in health policy making. Findings highlight specific areas for undertaking knowledge translation activities and implementing interventions to narrow the gap between policy makers and researchers.

Background: Oman has prioritised enhanced efforts for supporting evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM), including establishing a knowledge translation department in the Omani Ministry of Health (MOH).
Aim and objective: Our aim was to gather insights to guide the process of activating this department.
Methods: We conducted a document review and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders who are familiar with the Omani system.
Findings: We conducted 17 interviews, which highlighted that policymakers in Oman use multiple sources of data and evidence to inform policymaking about health systems. However, several challenges to using evidence were identified, including low quality and limited availability of local evidence, system fragmentation, low interest in research, and lack of skills, capacity and time for finding, synthesising and using research evidence. Five possible activities for the department were refined with participants: building capacity, finding evidence, sparking action, embedding supports, and evaluating innovations. Participants viewed each of these activities as equally important and they should be pursued simultaneously. However, when asked to rank the most important option, participants identified capacity building as the most important to enable cultural changes needed within the MOH.
Discussion and conclusions: This study provides insights for activating the knowledge translation department in the Omani MOH. Fully operationalising the department will require convening a codesign process to reach consensus on the scope of the activities undertaken by the department. Implementation will also require capitalising on the relevant experience of highly qualified staff and existing infrastructure as well as continuing to foster a supportive climate for EIPM.

Abstract Background Health systems evidence can enhance policymaking and strengthen national health systems. In the Middle East, limited research exists on the use of evidence in the policymaking process. This multi-country study explored policymakers' views and practices regarding the use of health systems evidence in health policymaking in 10 eastern Mediterranean countries, including factors that influence health policymaking and barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence. Methods This study utilized a survey adapted and customized from a similar tool developed in Canada. Health policymakers from 10 countries (Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen) were surveyed. Descriptive and bi-variate analyses were performed for quantitative questions and thematic analysis was done for qualitative questions. Results A total of 237 policymakers completed the survey (56.3% response rate). Governing parties, limited funding for the health sector and donor organizations exerted a strong influence on policymaking processes. Most (88.5%) policymakers reported requesting evidence and 43.1% reported collaborating with researchers. Overall, 40.1% reported that research evidence is not delivered at the right time. Lack of an explicit budget for evidence-informed health policymaking (55.3%), lack of an administrative structure for supporting evidence-informed health policymaking processes (52.6%), and limited value given to research (35.9%) all limited the use of research evidence. Barriers to the use of evidence included lack of research targeting health policy, lack of funding and investments, and political forces. Facilitators included availability of health research and research institutions, qualified researchers, research funding, and easy access to information. Conclusions Health policymakers in several countries recognize the importance of using health systems evidence. Study findings are important in light of changes unfolding in some Arab countries and can help undertake an analysis of underlying transformations and their respective health policy implications including the way evidence will be used in policy decisions.

Since 2009, the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) in Lebanon has been going through a major reform initiative to improve its contracting system with private and public hospitals. The private sector is the main provider of hospital care in the country and the main contractor to the MoPH for the provision of curative care. As an "insurer of last resort," the MoPH plays an important role in providing hospital coverage to 53% of the population who lack coverage by private or public insurance schemes, through contractual arrangements with the private sector. Historically, the MoPH used hospital accreditation as the basis for contracting and for determining the reimbursement rate. However, recent studies by the MoPH showed that reimbursing hospitals solely on accreditation results was not appropriate and led to an unfair and inefficient reimbursement system. The reform program included the development of several components, in particular, an automated billing system, a utilization review function, standardized admission criteria, and a hospital case mix index that accounts for case complexity. In 2014, the MoPH started implementing a new mixed-model contracting system with private and public hospitals. Preliminary evaluation of the new model suggests that the system incentivized hospitals to admit fewer inappropriate cases and more cases that are more complex/serious. This article shares one experience of how to introduce a merit-based system to face the common practice of political clientelism and confessional/religious-based favoritism in Lebanon. It highlights the importance of stakeholder engagement in a framework of networking and participatory governance that proved to be a key element behind the resilience of a diversified health system.

Abstract
Introduction
The Lebanese government estimates the number of Syrian refugees to be 1.5 million, representing 25% of the population. Refugee healthcare services have been integrated into the existing Lebanese health system. This study aims to describe the integration of Syrian refugee health services into the Lebanese national health system from 2011 to 2022, amid an ongoing economic crisis since 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods
This paper employs a mixed-methods approach drawing upon different data sources including: 1- document review (policies, legislation, laws, etc.); 2- semi-structured interviews with policymakers, stakeholders, and health workers; 3- focus group discussions with patients from both host and refugee populations; and 4- health systems and care seeking indicators.

Results
Although the demand for primary health care increased due to the Syrian refugee crisis, the provision of primary health care services was maintained. The infusion of international funding over time allowed primary health care centers to expand their resources to accommodate increased demand. The oversupply of physicians in Lebanon allowed the system to maintain a relatively high density of physicians even after the massive influx of refugees. The highly privatized, fragmented and expensive healthcare system has impeded Syrian refugees' access to secondary and tertiary healthcare services. The economic crisis further exacerbated limits on access for both the host and refugee populations and caused tension between the two populations. Our findings showed that the funds are not channeled through the government, fragmentation across multiple financing sources and reliance on international funding. Common medications and vaccines were available in the public system for both refugee and host communities and were reported to be affordable. The economic crisis hindered both communities' access to medications due to shortages and dramatic price increases.

Conclusion
Integrating refugees in national health systems is essential to achieve sustainable development goals, in particular universal health coverage. Although it can strengthen the capacity of national health systems, the integration of refugees in low-resource settings can be challenging due to existing health system arrangements (e.g., heavily privatized care, curative-oriented, high out-of-pocket, fragmentation across multiple financing sources, and system vulnerability to economic shocks).

Abstract
Background
With the increasing number of protracted refugee crises globally, it is essential to ensure strong national health information systems (HIS) in displacement settings that include refugee-sensitive data and disaggregation by refugee status. This multi-country study aims to assess the degree of integration of refugee health data into national HIS in Jordan, Lebanon, and Uganda and identify the strengths and weaknesses of their national HIS in terms of collecting and reporting on refugee-related health indicators.

Methods
The study employs a comparative country analysis approach using a three-phase framework. The first phase involved reviewing 4120 indicators compiled from global health organizations, followed by a multi-stage refinement process, resulting in 45 indicators distributed across five themes. The second phase consisted of selecting relevant criteria from the literature, including data sources, annual reporting, disaggregation by refugee status, refugee population adjustments, accuracy, and consistency. The third phase involved assessing data availability and quality of the selected indicators against these criteria.

Results
Our analysis uncovered significant challenges in assessing the health status of refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Uganda, primarily stemming from limitations in the available health data and indicators. Specifically, we identified significant issues including incomplete local data collection with reliance on international data sources, fragmented data collection from various entities leading to discrepancies, and a lack of distinction between refugees and host populations in most indicators. These limitations hinder accurate comparisons and analyses. In light of these findings, a set of actionable recommendations was proposed to guide policymakers in the three countries to improve the integration of refugee health data into their national HIS ultimately enhancing refugees' well-being and access to healthcare services.

Conclusion
The current status of refugee-related health data in Jordan, Lebanon, and Uganda indicates the need for improved data collection and reporting practices, disaggregation by refugee status and better integration of refugee health data into national HIS to capture the health status and needs of refugees in host countries. Key improvement strategies include establishing a centralized authority for consistent and efficient data management, fostering transparent and inclusive data governance, and strengthening workforce capacity to manage refugee health data effectively.

Appropriate deployment or posting and transfer (P&T) of health workers – placing the right people in the right positions at the right time – lies at the heart of fostering communities' faith in government health services and cementing the role of the health system as a core social institution. The authors of this paper have been involved in an ongoing transnational dialogue about P&T practices and determinants. This dialogue seeks to call attention to the importance of P&T as a health system function; to urge donors and policy-makers working in health systems, HRH and public administration governance to consider how to address issues around P&T; and to suggest avenues and approaches to research. P&T is a vexed and unresolved issue in many low- and middle-income countries that requires, above all, political commitment to improving public sector services and to new thinking and research. It holds promise as a focal point for inter-disciplinary collaboration in research and implementation that can inform other areas in HRH and health systems strengthening. Innovative social science and management theorizing, and iterative, locally driven interventions that focus on establishing transparent professional norms and building the credibility of government administration, including the health services, are likely the way forward.

AbstractIntroductionTo systematically review the effectiveness and unintended health and socioeconomic consequences of public health and social measures (PHSM) aimed at reducing the scale and risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).MethodsThis review followed guidance about overviews of reviews in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions and used the Epistemonikos database's COVID‐19 Living Overview of Evidence repository as a primary search source. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist.ResultsA total of 94 reviews were included, of which eight (9%) had "moderate" to "high" confidence ratings on the AMSTAR 2. Of 16 reviews (17%) reporting applying the GRADE framework, none found high certainty evidence for any of our outcomes of interest. Across the 94 reviews, the most frequently examined PHSM were personal protection (n = 18, 19%). Within multicomponent interventions, so‐called "lockdown" was the most frequently examined component (n = 39, 41%). The most frequently reported outcome category was non‐COVID‐19‐related health outcomes (n = 58, 62%). Only five (5%) reviews reported on socioeconomic outcomes. Findings from the eight reviews with moderate or high confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 are narratively summarized. There is low‐certainty evidence that multicomponent interventions may reduce the transmission of COVID‐19 in different settings. For active surveillance and response measures, low‐certainty evidence suggests that routine testing of residents and staff in long‐term care facilities may reduce the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. We found very low‐certainty evidence about the effectiveness of personal protection measures, travel‐related control measures, and environmental measures. Unintended consequences were rarely examined by those eight reviews.ConclusionWe found predominantly low‐ to very low‐certainty evidence regarding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of PHSM in controlling the risk and scale of COVID‐19 transmission. There is a need to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. DESIGN: Policy mapping and systematic review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. CONCLUSION: Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.