How to do (or not to do)…Using Causal Loop Diagrams for Health System Research in Low- and Middle-Income Settings

Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are a systems thinking method that can be used to visualize and unpack complex health system behaviour. They can be employed prospectively or retrospectively to identify the mechanisms and consequences of policies or interventions designed to strengthen health systems and inform discussion with policymakers and stakeholders on actions that may alleviate sub-optimal outcomes. Whilst the use of CLDs in health systems research has generally increased, there is still limited use in low- and middle-income settings. In addition to their suitability for evaluating complex systems, CLDs can be developed where opportunities for primary data collection may be limited (such as in humanitarian or conflict settings) and instead be formulated using secondary data, published or grey literature, health surveys/reports and policy documents. The purpose of this paper is to provide a step-by-step guide for designing a health system research study that uses CLDs as their chosen research method, with particular attention to issues of relevance to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The guidance draws on examples from the LMIC literature and authors’ own experience of using CLDs in this research area. This paper guides researchers in addressing the following four questions in the study design process; (1) What is the scope of this research? (2) What data do I need to collect or source? (3) What is my chosen method for CLD development? (4) How will I validate the CLD? In providing supporting information to readers on avenues for addressing these key design questions, authors hope to promote CLDs for wider use by health system researchers working in LMICs.

The development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services: Evidence, expertise and ethics in a priority setting process

Health systems in fragile states need to respond to shifting demographics, burden of disease and socio-economic circumstances in the revision of their health service packages. This entails making difficult decisions about what is and is not included therein, especially in resource-constrained settings offering or striving for universal health coverage. In this paper we turn the lens on the 2017-2021 development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services (IPEHS) to analyse the dynamics of the priority setting process and the role and value of evidence. Using participant observation of meetings and interviews with 25 expert participants, we conducted a qualitative study of the consultation process aimed at examining the characteristics of its technical, socio-cultural and organisational aspects, in particular data use and expert input, and how they influenced how evidence was discussed, taken up, and used (or not used) in the process. Our analysis proposes that the particular dynamics shaped by the context, information landscape and expert input shaped and operationalized knowledge sharing and its application in such a way to constitute a sort of "vernacular evidence". Our findings underline the importance of paying attention to the constellation of the priority setting processes in order to contribute to an ethical allocation of resources, particularly in contexts of resource scarcity and humanitarian need.

Conceptualising and assessing health system resilience to shocks: a cross-disciplinary view

Health systems worldwide face major challenges in anticipating, planning for and responding to shocks from infectious disease epidemics, armed conflict, climatic and other crises. Although the literature on health system resilience has grown substantially in recent years, major uncertainties remain concerning approaches to resilience conceptualisation and measurement. This narrative review revisits literatures from a range of fields outside health to identify lessons relevant to health systems. Four key insights emerge. Firstly, shocks can only be understood by clarifying how, where and over what timescale they interact with a system of interest, and the dynamic effects they produce within it. Shock effects are contingent on historical path-dependencies, and on the presence of factors or system pathways (e.g. financing models, health workforce capabilities or supply chain designs) that may amplify or dampen impact in unexpected ways. Secondly, shocks often produce cascading effects across multiple scales, whereas the focus of much of the health resilience literature has been on macro-level, national systems. In reality, health systems bring together interconnected sub-systems across sectors and geographies, with different components, behaviours and sometimes even objectives - all influencing how a system responds to a shock. Thirdly, transformability is an integral feature of resilient social systems: cross-scale interactions help explain how systems can show both resilience and transformational capability at the same time. We illustrate these first three findings by extending the socioecological concept of adaptive cycles in social systems to health, using the example of maternal and child health service delivery. Finally, we argue that dynamic modelling approaches, under-utilised in research on health system resilience to date, have significant promise for identification of shock-moderating or shock-amplifying pathways, for understanding effects at multiple levels and ultimately for building resilience.

Meeting the health needs of displaced people fleeing Ukraine: Drawing on existing technical guidance and evidence

The invasion of Ukraine has unleashed a humanitarian crisis and the impact is devastating for millions displaced in Ukraine and for those fleeing the country. Receiving countries in Europe are reeling with shock and disbelief and trying at the same time to grapple with the reality of providing for a large, unplanned, unprecedented number of refugees mainly women and children on the move. Several calls for actions, comments and statements express outrage, the risks, and the impending consequences to life and health. There is a need to constantly assess the situation on the ground, identify priorities for health and provide guidance regarding how these needs could be addressed. Therefore, the Lancet Migration European Regional Hub conducted rapid interviews with key informants to identify these needs, and in collaboration with the World Health Organization Health and Migration Programme, summarized how these could be addressed. This viewpoint provides a summary of the situation in receiving countries and the technical guidance required that could be useful for providing assistance in the current refugee crisis.

How is hygiene behaviour affected by conflict and displacement? A qualitative case study in Northern Iraq

This research aimed to qualitatively explore whether the determinants of handwashing behaviour change according to the duration of displacement or the type of setting that people are displaced to. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study in three different post-conflict settings in Northern Iraq–a long-term displacement camp, a short-term displacement camp, and villages where people were returning to post the conflict. We identified 33 determinants of handwashing in these settings and, of these, 21 appeared to be altered by the conflict and displacement. Determinants of handwashing behaviour in the post-conflict period were predominantly explained by disruptions to the physical, psychological, social and economic circumstances of displaced populations. Future hygiene programmes in post-conflict displacement settings should adopt a holistic way of assessing determinants and design programmes which promote agency, build on adaptive norms, create an enabling environment and which are integrated with other aspects of humanitarian response.

How does handwashing behaviour change in response to a cholera outbreak? A qualitative case study in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Background

Handwashing with soap has the potential to curb cholera transmission. This research explores how populations experienced and responded to the 2017 cholera outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and how this affected their handwashing behaviour.

Methods

Cholera cases were identified through local cholera treatment centre records. Comparison individuals were recruited from the same neighbourhoods by identifying households with no recent confirmed or suspected cholera cases. Multiple qualitative methods were employed to understand hand hygiene practices and their determinants, including unstructured observations, interviews and focus group discussions. The data collection tools and analysis were informed by the Behaviour Centred Design Framework. Comparisons were made between the experiences and practices of people from case households and participants from comparison households.

Results

Cholera was well understood by the population and viewed as a persistent and common health challenge. Handwashing with soap was generally observed to be rare during the outbreak despite self-reported increases in behaviour. Across case and comparison groups, individuals were unable to prioritise handwashing due to competing food-scarcity and livelihood challenges and there was little in the physical or social environments to cue handwashing or make it a convenient, rewarding or desirable to practice. The ability of people from case households to practice handwashing was further constrained by their exposure to cholera which in addition to illness, caused profound non-health impacts to household income, productivity, social status, and their sense of control.

Conclusions

Even though cholera outbreaks can cause disruptions to many determinants of behaviour, these shifts do not automatically facilitate an increase in preventative behaviours like handwashing with soap. Hygiene programmes targeting outbreaks within complex crises could be strengthened by acknowledging the emic experiences of the disease and adopting sustainable solutions which build upon local disease coping mechanisms.

Evaluating COVID-19 decision-making in a humanitarian setting: The case study of Somalia

The global COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in its scope and impact. While a great deal of research has been directed towards the response in high-income countries, relatively little is known about the way in which decision-makers in low-income and crisis-affected countries have contended with the epidemic. Through use of an a priori decision framework, we aimed to evaluate the process of policy and operational decision-making in relation to the COVID-19 response in Somalia, a chronically fragile country, focusing particularly on the use of information and the role of transparency. We undertook a desk review, observed a number of key decision-making fora and conducted a series of key informant and focus group discussions with a range of decision-makers including state authority, civil society, humanitarian and development actors. We found that nearly all actors struggled to make sense of the scale of the epidemic and form an appropriate response. Decisions made during the early months had a large impact on the course of the epidemic response. Decision-makers relied heavily on international norms and were constrained by a number of factors within the political environment including resource limitations, political contestation and low population adherence to response measures. Important aspects of the response suffered from a transparency deficit and would have benefitted from more inclusive decision-making. Development of decision support tools appropriate for crisis-affected settings that explicitly deal with individual and environmental decision factors could lead to more effective and timely epidemic response.

Feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against infectious diseases among crisis-affected populations: a scoping review

Background

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are a crucial suite of measures to prevent and control infectious disease outbreaks. Despite being particularly important for crisis-affected populations and those living in informal settlements, who typically reside in overcrowded and resource limited settings with inadequate access to healthcare, guidance on NPI implementation rarely takes the specific needs of such populations into account. We therefore conducted a systematic scoping review of the published evidence to describe the landscape of research and identify evidence gaps concerning the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs among crisis-affected populations and informal settlements.

Methods

We systematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles published between 1970 and 2020 to collate available evidence on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of NPIs in crisis-affected populations and informal settlements. We performed quality assessments of each study using a standardised questionnaire. We analysed the data to produce descriptive summaries according to a number of categories: date of publication; geographical region of intervention; typology of crisis, shelter, modes of transmission, NPI, research design; study design; and study quality.

Results

Our review included 158 studies published in 85 peer-reviewed articles. Most research used low quality study designs. The acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of NPIs was highly context dependent. In general, simple and cost-effective interventions such as community-level environmental cleaning and provision of water, sanitation and hygiene services, and distribution of items for personal protection such as insecticide-treated nets, were both highly feasible and acceptable. Logistical, financial, and human resource constraints affected both the implementation and sustainability of measures. Community engagement emerged as a strong factor contributing to the effectiveness of NPIs. Conversely, measures that involve potential restriction on personal liberty such as case isolation and patient care and burial restrictions were found to be less acceptable, despite apparent effectiveness.

Conclusions

Overall, the evidence base was variable, with substantial knowledge gaps which varied between settings and pathogens. Based on the current landscape, robust evidence-based guidance is not possible, and a research agenda is urgently required that focusses on these specific vulnerable populations. Although implementation of NPIs presents unique practical challenges in these settings, it is critical that such an agenda is put in place, and that the lessons learned from historical and present experiences are documented to build a firm evidence base.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40249-022-00935-7.

Impact of conditional and unconditional cash transfers on health outcomes and use of health services in humanitarian settings: a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cash transfers, payments provided by formal or informal institutions to recipients, are increasingly used in emergencies. While increasing autonomy and being supportive of local economies, cash transfers are a cost-effective method in some settings to cover basic needs and extend benefits of limited humanitarian aid budgets. Yet, the extent to which cash transfers impact health in humanitarian settings remains largely unexplored. This systematic review evaluates the evidence on the effect of cash transfers on health outcomes and health service utilisation in humanitarian contexts.

METHODS

Studies eligible for inclusion were peer reviewed (quantitative,qualitative and mixed-methods). Nine databases (PubMed, EMBAS, Medline, CINAHL, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, SciELO and LiLACS) were searched without language and without a lower bound time restriction through 24 February 2021. The search was updated to include articles published through 8 December 2021. Data were extracted using a piloted extraction tool and quality was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tool. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, results were synthesised narratively and no meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

30 673 records were identified. After removing duplicates, 17 715 were double screened by abstract and title, and 201 in full text. Twenty-three articles from 16 countries were included reporting on nutrition outcomes, psychosocial and mental health, general/subjective health and well-being, acute illness (eg, diarrhoea, respiratory infection), diabetes control (eg, blood glucose self-monitoring, haemoglobin A1C levels) and gender-based violence. Nineteen studies reported some positive impacts on various health outcomes and use of health services, 11 reported no statistically significant impact on outcomes assessed and 4 reported potential negative impacts on health outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Although there is evidence to suggest a positive relationship between cash transfers and health outcomes in humanitarian settings, high-quality empirical evidence, that is methodologically robust, investigates a range of humanitarian settings and is conducted over longer time periods is needed. This should consider factors influencing programme implementation and the differential impact of cash transfers designed to improve health versus multipurpose cash transfers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021237275.

Use of COVID-19 evidence in humanitarian settings: the need for dynamic guidance adapted to changing humanitarian crisis contexts

BACKGROUND

For humanitarian organisations to respond effectively to complex crises, they require access to up-to-date evidence-based guidance. The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of updating global guidance to context-specific and evolving needs in humanitarian settings. Our study aimed to understand the use of evidence-based guidance in humanitarian responses during COVID-19. Primary data collected during the rapidly evolving pandemic sheds new light on evidence-use processes in humanitarian response.

METHODS

We collected and analysed COVID-19 guidance documents, and conducted semi-structured interviews remotely with a variety of humanitarian organisations responding and adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the COVID-19 Humanitarian platform, a website established by three universities in March 2020, to solicit, collate and document these experiences and knowledge.

RESULTS

We analysed 131 guidance documents and conducted 80 interviews with humanitarian organisations, generating 61 published field experiences. Although COVID-19 guidance was quickly developed and disseminated in the initial phases of the crisis (from January to May 2020), updates or ongoing revision of the guidance has been limited. Interviews conducted between April and September 2020 showed that humanitarian organisations have responded to COVID-19 in innovative and context-specific ways, but have often had to adapt existing guidance to inform their operations in complex humanitarian settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Experiences from the field indicate that humanitarian organisations consulted guidance to respond and adapt to COVID-19, but whether referring to available guidance indicates evidence use depends on its accessibility, coherence, contextual relevance and trustworthiness. Feedback loops through online platforms like the COVID-19 Humanitarian platform that relay details of these evidence-use processes to global guidance setters could improve future humanitarian response.

Reducing the impact of the coronavirus on disadvantaged migrants and ethnic minorities

Studies from several countries have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected migrants. Many have numerous risk factors making them vulnerable to infection and poor clinical outcome. Policies to mitigate this effect need to take into account public health principles of inclusion, universal health coverage and the right to health. In addition, the migrant health agenda has been compromised by the suspension of asylum processes and resettlement, border closures, increased deportations and lockdown of camps and excessively restrictive public health measures. International organizations including the World Health Organization and the World Bank have recommended measures to actively counter racism, xenophobia and discrimination by systemically including migrants in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Such recommendations include issuing additional support, targeted communication and reducing barriers to accessing health services and information. Some countries have had specific policies and outreach to migrant groups, including facilitating vaccination. Measures and policies targeting migrants should be evaluated, and good models disseminated widely.

Understanding the health needs of internally displaced persons: A scoping review

We seek to strengthen understanding of the health needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in contexts of conflict or violence. Based upon a scoping review, our paper identified limited evidence on IDP health, but nevertheless indicates that IDPs tend to experience worse health outcomes than other conflict-affected populations across a range of health issues; and this is due to the particularly vulnerable situation of IDPs relative to these other populations, including reduced access to health services. Further research is required to better understand these needs and the interventions that can most effectively address these needs.

When Refugees Care for Refugees in Lebanon: Providing Contextually Appropriate Care from the Ground Up

Despite a surge in initiatives to integrate foreign-trained physicians into local health systems and a drive to learn from localised humanitarian initiatives under the COVID-19 pandemic, we still know little about the on-the-ground strategies developed by refugee doctors to meet the needs of refugee patients. In Lebanon, displaced Syrian health professionals have mounted informal, local responses to care for displaced Syrian patients. Drawing on ethnographic work shadowing these healthcare providers across their medical and non-medical activities, we explore how clinical encounters characterised by shared histories of displacement can inform humanitarian medicine. Our findings shed light on the creation of breathing spaces in crises. In particular, our study reveals how displaced healthcare workers cope with uncertainty, documents how displaced healthcare workers expand the category of ‘appropriate care’ to take into account the economic and safety challenges faced by patients, and locates the category of ‘informality’ within a complex landscape of myriad actors in Lebanon. This research article shows that refugee-to-refugee healthcare is not restricted to improvised clinical encounters between ‘frontliners’ and ‘victims of war’. Rather, it is proactively enacted from the ground up to foster appropriate care relationships in the midst of violent, repeated, and protracted disruptions to systems of care.

Sanctioned countries in the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign: the forgotten 70

COVAX, the global initiative on COVID-19 vaccines, has set the target of achieving a COVID-19 vaccination coverage of up to 30% of the population of 135 countries in 2 years. Here, we argue that COVAX should anticipate important and unforeseen challenges with regard to sanctioned countries. For those, COVAX needs to provide a higher percentage of the vaccines. Otherwise, the problems of vaccination will linger, risking the advent of new variants and preventing an effective global response in reigning the pandemic under control.

A health systems resilience research agenda: moving from concept to practice

Health system resilience, known as the ability for health systems to absorb, adapt or transform to maintain essential functions when stressed or shocked, has quickly gained popularity following shocks like COVID-19. The concept is relatively new in health policy and systems research and the existing research remains mostly theoretical. Research to date has viewed resilience as an outcome that can be measured through performance outcomes, as an ability of complex adaptive systems that is derived from dynamic behaviour and interactions, or as both. However, there is little congruence on the theory and the existing frameworks have not been widely used, which as diluted the research applications for health system resilience. A global group of health system researchers were convened in March 2021 to discuss and identify priorities for health system resilience research and implementation based on lessons from COVID-19 and other health emergencies. Five research priority areas were identified: (1) measuring and managing systems dynamic performance, (2) the linkages between societal resilience and health system resilience, (3) the effect of governance on the capacity for resilience, (4) creating legitimacy and (5) the influence of the private sector on health system resilience. A key to filling these research gaps will be longitudinal and comparative case studies that use cocreation and coproduction approaches that go beyond researchers to include policy-makers, practitioners and the public.

Building a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic

The current global systemic crisis reveals how globalised societies are unprepared to face a pandemic. Beyond the dramatic loss of human life, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered widespread disturbances in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems in many countries across the world. Resilience describes the capacities of natural and human systems to prevent, react to and recover from shocks. Societal resilience to the current COVID-19 pandemic relates to the ability of societies in maintaining their core functions while minimising the impact of the pandemic and other societal effects. Drawing on the emerging evidence about resilience in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems, this paper delineates a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to COVID-19. Such an understanding provides the foundation for an integrated approach to build societal resilience to current and future pandemics.

Models of care for patients with hypertension and diabetes in humanitarian crises: a systematic review

Care for non-communicable diseases, including hypertension and diabetes (HTN/DM), is recognized as a growing challenge in humanitarian crises, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where most crises occur. There is little evidence to support humanitarian actors and governments in designing efficient, effective, and context-adapted models of care for HTN/DM in such settings. This article aimed to systematically review the evidence on models of care targeting people with HTN/DM affected by humanitarian crises in LMICs. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Global Indexus Medicus, Web of Science, and EconLit bibliographic databases and grey literature sources was performed. Studies were selected that described models of care for HTN/DM in humanitarian crises in LMICs. We descriptively analysed and compared models of care using a conceptual framework and evaluated study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We report our findings according to PRISMA guidelines. The search yielded 10 645 citations, of which 45 were eligible for this review. Quantitative methods were most commonly used (n = 34), with four qualitative, three mixed methods, and four descriptive reviews of specific care models were also included. Most studies detailed primary care facility-based services for HTN/DM, focusing on health system inputs. More limited references were made to community-based services. Health care workforce and treatment protocols were commonly described framework components, whereas few studies described patient centredness, quality of care, financing and governance, broader health policy, and sociocultural contexts. There were few programme evaluations or effectiveness studies, and only one study reported costs. Most studies were of low quality. We concluded that an increasing body of literature describing models of care for patients with HTN/DM in humanitarian crises demonstrated the development of context-adapted services but showed little evidence of impact. Our conceptual framework could be used for further research and development of NCD models of care.

Violence against healthcare in conflict: a systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research

BACKGROUND

Attacks on health care in armed conflict, including those on health workers, facilities, patients and transports, represent serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Information about these incidents and their characteristics are available in myriad forms: as published research or commentary, investigative reports, and within online data collection initiatives. We review the research on attacks on health to understand what data they rely on, what subjects they cover and what gaps exist in order to develop a research agenda going forward.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This study utilizes a systematic review of peer-reviewed to identify and understand relevant data about attacks on health in situations of conflict. We identified 1479 papers published before January 1, 2020 using systematic and hand-searching and chose 45 articles for review that matched our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on geographical and conflict foci, methodology, objectives and major themes. Among the included articles, 26 focused on assessment of evidence of attacks, 15 on analyzing their impacts, three on the legal and human rights principles and one on the methods of documentation. We analyzed article data to answer questions about where and when attacks occur and are investigated, what types of attacks occur, who is perpetrating them, and how and why they are studied. We synthesized cross-cutting themes on the impacts of these attacks, mitigation efforts, and gaps in existing data.

CONCLUSION

Recognizing limitations in the review, we find there have been comparatively few studies over the past four decades but the literature is growing. To deepen the discussions of the scope of attacks and to enable cross-context comparisons, documentation of attacks on health must be enhanced to make the data more consistent, more thorough, more accessible, include diverse perspectives, and clarify taxonomy. As the research on attacks on health expands, practical questions on how the data is utilized for advocacy, protection and accountability must be prioritized.

An Integrated eDiagnosis Approach (IeDA) versus standard IMCI for assessing and managing childhood illness in Burkina Faso: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The Integrated eDiagnosis Approach (IeDA), centred on an electronic Clinical Decision Support System (eCDSS) developed in line with national Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) guidelines, was implemented in primary health facilities of two regions of Burkina Faso. An evaluation was performed using a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design with the aim of determining whether the IeDA intervention increased Health Care Workers' (HCW) adherence to the IMCI guidelines.

METHODS

Ten randomly selected facilities per district were visited at each step by two trained nurses: One observed under-five consultations and the second conducted a repeat consultation. The primary outcomes were: overall adherence to clinical assessment tasks; overall correct classification ignoring the severity of the classifications; and overall correct prescription according to HCWs' classifications. Statistical comparisons between trial arms were performed on cluster/step-level summaries.

RESULTS

On average, 54 and 79% of clinical assessment tasks were observed to be completed by HCWs in the control and intervention districts respectively (cluster-level mean difference = 29.9%; P-value = 0.002). The proportion of children for whom the validation nurses and the HCWs recorded the same classifications (ignoring the severity) was 73 and 79% in the control and intervention districts respectively (cluster-level mean difference = 10.1%; P-value = 0.004). The proportion of children who received correct prescriptions in accordance with HCWs' classifications were similar across arms, 78% in the control arm and 77% in the intervention arm (cluster-level mean difference = - 1.1%; P-value = 0.788).

CONCLUSION

The IeDA intervention improved substantially HCWs' adherence to IMCI's clinical assessment tasks, leading to some overall increase in correct classifications but to no overall improvement in correct prescriptions. The largest improvements tended to be observed for less common conditions. For more common conditions, HCWs in the control districts performed relatively well, thus limiting the scope to detect an overall impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02341469 ; First submitted August 272,014, posted January 19, 2015.