Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement

Community-based person-centred integrated care (PIC) networks for healthy ageing in place: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The economic case for preventive care delivered in or near citizens' homes is strong, and there is growing evidence of the role of local-level support in supporting people's health and well-being as they age. However, effective and consistent delivery of person-centred integrated care (PIC) at the community level remains elusive. Previous systematic reviews have focused on specific processes such as case management, but none have focused on the operational delivery of community-based care networks. In this study, we aim to identify what practice-based models of PIC networks exist at the local/neighbourhood level and what evidence is available as to their effectiveness for healthy ageing in place.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a scoping review following the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and updated guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Peer-reviewed sources will be identified through searches of seven databases, and relevant grey literature will be identified through websites of policy and voluntary sector organisations focused on integrated care and/or healthy ageing. Data from included studies will be extracted for relevance to the research questions, including aims and anticipated outcomes of network models, financial and management structures of networks, and evidence of evaluation. Summary tables and narrative comparisons of key PIC network features across settings will be presented.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As no primary data will be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct this scoping review. In addition to publication as a peer-reviewed article, the results of this review will be summarised as shorter discussion papers for use in follow-up research.

Evaluation of collaborative mental health services in Latin America: Theoretical and methodological basis

OBJECTIVES

Approaches to collaborative mental health care (CMHC) have been implemented in many countries to strengthen the accessibility and delivery of mental health services in primary care. However, there are not well-defined frameworks to evaluate CMHC models. The purpose of this article is to identify, contextualize and discuss relevant health services research approaches, theory, and evaluation models for the development of an appropriate evaluation framework in order to foster effective CMHC in Latin America.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review informed a critical analysis of relevant theories and alternative methods to be considered in the development of the framework.

RESULTS

Specific health services research frameworks are discussed in the context of evaluating CMHC. Two theoretical perspectives - collaboration theory and systems theory - and three evaluation models- realistic, developmental and collaborative - are analyzed in terms of their relevance. Methodological implications are identified.

CONCLUSION

An appropriate evaluation framework for CMHC in Latin America needs to reflect theoretical and contextual considerations and relevant evaluation approaches and methods, including key dimensions and attributes/variables, core indicators, and recommendations for implementation.

Cross-sector Collaboration Between Public Health, Healthcare and Social Services Improves Retention: Findings from a Nurse Home Visiting Program

The study aimed to examine the association between cross-sector collaboration in Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), a model home visiting program, and participant retention. We used the 2018 NFP Collaboration Survey that measured agency-level collaboration, operationalized as relational coordination and structural integration, among nine community provider types (including obstetrics care, substance use treatment, child welfare). This dataset was linked to 2014-2018 NFP program implementation data (n = 36,900). We used random-intercept models with nurse-level random effects to examine the associations between provider-specific collaborations and participant retention adjusting for client, nurse, and agency characteristics. The adjusted models suggest that stronger relational coordination between nurses and substance use treatment providers (OR:1.177, 95% CI: 1.09-1.26) and greater structural integration with child welfare (OR: 1.062, CI: 1.04-1.09) were positively associated with participant retention at birth. Stronger structural integration between other home visiting programs and supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children was negatively associated with participant retention at birth (OR: 0.985, CI: 0.97-0.99). Structural integration with child welfare remained significantly associated with participant retention at 12-month postpartum (OR: 1.032, CI: 1.01-1.05). In terms of client-level characteristics, clients who were unmarried, African-American, or visited by nurses who ceased NFP employment prior to their infant's birth were more likely to drop out of the NFP program. Older clients and high school graduates were more likely to remain in NFP. Visits by a nurse with a master's degree, agency rurality, and healthcare systems that implement the program were associated with participant retention. Cross-sector collaboration in a home visiting setting that bridges healthcare and addresses social determinants of health has potential to improve participant retention. This study sets the groundwork for future research to explore the implications of collaborative activities between preventive services and community providers.

Governance of Intersectoral Collaborations for Population Health and to Reduce Health Inequalities in High-Income Countries: A Complexity-Informed Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) approach has been widely advocated as a way to involve multiple government sectors in addressing health inequalities, but implementation attempts have not always produced the expected results. Explaining how HiAP-style collaborations have been governed may offer insights into how to improve population health and reduce health inequalities.

METHODS

Theoretically focused systematic review. Synthesis of evidence from evaluative studies into a causal logic model.

RESULTS

Thirty-one publications based on 40 case studies from nine high-income countries were included. Intersectoral collaborations for population health and equity were multi-component and multi-dimensional with collaborative activity spanning policy, strategy, service design and service delivery. Governance of intersectoral collaboration included structural and relational components. Both internal and external legitimacy and credibility delivered collaborative power, which in turn enabled intersectoral collaboration. Internal legitimacy was driven by multiple structural elements and processes. Many of these were instrumental in developing (often-fragile) relational trust. Internal credibility was supported by multi-level collaborations that were adequately resourced and shared power. External legitimacy and credibility was created through meaningful community engagement, leadership that championed collaborations and the identification of 'win-win' strategies. External factors such as economic shocks and short political cycles reduced collaborative power.

CONCLUSION

This novel review, using systems thinking and causal loop representations, offers insights into how collaborations can generate internal and external legitimacy and credibility. This offers promise for future collaborative activity for population health and equity; it presents a clearer picture of what structural and relational components and dynamics collaborative partners can focus on when planning and implementing HiAP initiatives. The limits of the literature base, however, does not make it possible to identify if or how this might deliver improved population health or health equity.

The Role of Intersectoral Action in Response to COVID-19: A Qualitative Study of the Roles of Academia and the Private Sector in Colombia

BACKGROUND

The integration of health services with other sectors is hypothesised to support adaptation of health systems in response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study identified barriers and enablers associated with intersectoral coordination at an early stage of the pandemic. The study focused on the roles played by the academic and private sector in different areas of public health planning and delivery concerning COVID-19 in Colombia.

METHODS

A qualitative approach was used to understand stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of intersectoral working in response to COVID-19 in three Colombian cities (Bogotá, Cali and Cartagena). Between March and November 2020, data was collected via semi-structured interviews conducted online with 42 key actors, including representatives of governmental bodies, universities, and professional associations. The dataset was analysed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive methods.

RESULTS

Organizations adjacent to the health system, including universities and the private sector, supported responses to COVID-19 by providing evidence to inform decision-making, additional service capacity, and supporting coordination (eg, convening intersectoral "roundtables"). The academic and private sector involvement in intersectoral coordination was stimulated by solidarity (being the "right thing to do") and motivation for supporting local companies (reopening the economy). Intersectoral working was influenced by pre-existing (substantive) and emerging (situational) enablers and barriers.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that intersectoral coordination has played an important role in responding to COVID-19 in Colombia. Coordination was influenced by substantive and situational enablers and barriers. Based on our findings, policy-makers should focus on addressing substantive barriers to coordination, including the pre-existing tensions and mistrust among national and local healthcare actors, strict regulations and limited financial and human resources, while providing support for situational enablers, including alignment of public and private actors' interests, intersectoral government support and establishing frequent communication channels and formal spaces of interaction among sector, in processes of decision-making.

A cure for everything and nothing? Local partnerships for improving health in England

Collaboration between local agencies is no replacement for national policy and investment, argue Hugh Alderwick, Andrew Hutchings, and Nicholas Mays

The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data.

RESULTS

The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse.

CONCLUSIONS

In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health.

Creation of consensus recommendations for collaborative practice in the Malaysian psychiatric system: a modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

There is strong evidence that collaborative practice in mental healthcare improves outcomes for patients. The concept of collaborative practice can include collaboration between healthcare workers of different professional backgrounds and collaboration with patients, families and communities. Most models of collaborative practice were developed in Western and high-income countries and are not easily translatable to settings which are culturally diverse and lower in resources. This project aimed to develop a set of recommendations to improve collaborative practice in Malaysia.

METHODS

In the first phase, qualitative research was conducted to better understand collaboration in a psychiatric hospital (previously published). In the second phase a local hospital level committee from the same hospital was created to act on the qualitative research and create a set of recommendations to improve collaborative practice at the hospital for the hospital. Some of these recommendations were implemented, where feasible and the outcomes discussed. These recommendations were then sent to a nationwide Delphi panel. These committees consisted of healthcare staff of various professions, patients and carers.

RESULTS

The Delphi panel reached consensus after three rounds. The recommendations include ways to improve collaborative problem solving and decision making in the hospital, ways to improve the autonomy and relatedness of patients, carers and staff and ways to improve the levels of resources (e.g. skills training in staff, allowing people with lived experience of mental disorder to contribute).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the Delphi method is a feasible method of developing recommendations and guidelines in Malaysia and allowed a wider range of stakeholders to contribute than traditional methods of developing guidelines and recommendations.Trial registration Registered in the National Medical Research Register, Malaysia, NMRR-13-308-14792.

Overview of "Systematic Reviews" of the Built Environment's Effects on Mental Health

Good mental health is related to mental and psychological well-being, and there is growing interest in the potential role of the built environment on mental health, yet the evidence base underpinning the direct or indirect effects of the built environment is not fully clear. The aim of this overview is to assess the effect of the built environment on mental health-related outcomes. Methods. This study provides an overview of published systematic reviews (SRs) that assess the effect of the built environment on mental health. We reported the overview according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases searched until November 2019 included the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OVID 1946 to present), LILACS, and PsycINFO. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2). Results. In total, 357 records were identified from a structured search of five databases combined with the references of the included studies, and eleven SRs were included in the narrative synthesis. Outcomes included mental health and well-being, depression and stress, and psychological distress. According to AMSTAR-2 scores, the quality assessment of the included SRs was categorized as "high" in two SRs and as "critically low" in nine SRs. According to the conclusions of the SRs reported by the authors, only one SR reported a "beneficial" effect on mental health and well-being outcomes. Conclusion. There was insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions on the effects of built environment interventions on mental health outcomes (well-being, depression and stress, and psychological distress). The evidence collected reported high heterogeneity (outcomes and measures) and a moderate- to low-quality assessment among the included SRs.

Quality Improvement Goals for Acute Kidney Injury

AKI is a global concern with a high incidence among patients across acute care settings. AKI is associated with significant clinical consequences and increased health care costs. Preventive measures, as well as rapid identification of AKI, have been shown to improve outcomes in small studies. Providing high-quality care for patients with AKI or those at risk of AKI occurs across a continuum that starts at the community level and continues in the emergency department, hospital setting, and after discharge from inpatient care. Improving the quality of care provided to these patients, plausibly mitigating the cost of care and improving short- and long-term outcomes, are goals that have not been universally achieved. Therefore, understanding how the management of AKI may be amenable to quality improvement programs is needed. Recognizing this gap in knowledge, the 22nd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting was convened to discuss the evidence, provide recommendations, and highlight future directions for AKI-related quality measures and care processes. Using a modified Delphi process, an international group of experts including physicians, a nurse practitioner, and pharmacists provided a framework for current and future quality improvement projects in the area of AKI. Where possible, best practices in the prevention, identification, and care of the patient with AKI were identified and highlighted. This article provides a summary of the key messages and recommendations of the group, with an aim to equip and encourage health care providers to establish quality care delivery for patients with AKI and to measure key quality indicators.

Identifying health policy and systems research priorities on multisectoral collaboration for health in low-income and middle-income countries

Introduction

While efforts to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have reinvigorated interest in multisectoral collaborations (MSCs) among the global health and development community, there remains a plethora of questions about how best to conceptualise, plan, implement, evaluate and sustain MSCs. The objective of this paper is to present research priorities on MSC for health from researchers and policymakers around the globe, with an emphasis on low-income and middle-income countries.

Methods

The authors identified 30 priority research questions from two sources: (1) 38 review articles on MSC for health, and (2) interviews and focus groups with a total of 81 policymakers, including government officials (largely from ministries of health and state/provincial departments of health, but also offices of planning, public service, social development, the prime minister and others), large multilateral or bilateral organisations, and non-governmental organisations. In a third phase, questions were refined and ranked by a diverse group of researchers from around the globe using an online voting platform.

Results

The top-ranked questions focused predominantly on pragmatic questions, such as how best to structure, implement and sustain MSCs, as well as how to build stakeholder capacity and community partnerships. Despite substantial variation between review articles, policymakers’ reflections and online ranking by researchers, two topics emerged as research priorities for all three: (1) leadership, partnership and governance structures for MSCs; and (2) MSC implementation strategies and mechanisms. The review articles underscored the need for more guidance on appropriate study designs and methods for investigating MSCs, which may be a prerequisite for other identified research priorities.

Conclusion

These findings could inform efforts within and beyond the health sector to better align research objectives and funding with the evidence needs of policymakers grappling with questions about how best to leverage MSCs to achieve UHC and the SDGs.

Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

Our goal is to conceptualise a clinical governance framework for the effective management of chronic diseases in the primary care setting, which will facilitate a reorganisation of healthcare services that systematically improves their performance.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Chronic Care Model by Wagner et aland Clinical Governance statement by Scally et alwere taken for reference. Each was reviewed, including their various components. We then conceptualised a new framework, merging the relevant aspects of both.

INTERVENTIONS

We conducted an umbrella review of all systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group to identify organisational interventions in primary care with demonstrated evidence of efficacy.

RESULTS

All primary healthcare systems should be patient-centred. Interventions for patients and their families should focus on their values; on clinical, professional and institutional integration and finally on accountability to patients, peers and society at large. These interventions should be shaped by an approach to their clinical management that achieves the best clinical governance, which includes quality assurance, risk management, technology assessment, management of patient satisfaction and patient empowerment and engagement. This approach demands the implementation of a system of organisational, functional and professional management based on a population health needs assessment, resource management, evidence-based and patient-oriented research, professional education, team building and information and communication technologies that support the delivery system. All primary care should be embedded in and founded on an active partnership with the society it serves.

CONCLUSIONS

A framework for clinical governance will promote an integrated effort to bring together all related activities, melding environmental, administrative, support and clinical elements to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach that sustains the provision of better care for chronic conditions in primary care setting.

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview.

METHODS

We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.

Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of the potential effectiveness of a programme's objectives (health or otherwise) is important in demonstrating how programmes work. However, evaluations are expensive and can focus on unrealistic outcomes not grounded in strong theory, especially where there is pressure to show effectiveness. The aim of this research was to demonstrate that the evaluability assessment (a cost-effective pre-evaluation tool that primarily gives quick, constructive feedback) can be used to help develop programme and outcome objectives to improve programmes while they run and to assist in producing more effective evaluations. This was done using the example of a community development programme aiming to improve health and reduce health inequalities in its target population.

METHODS

The setting was Glasgow, Scotland, UK and focused on the Health Issues in the Community programme. Data were collected from documents and nine individual stakeholder interviews. Thematic analysis and a realist approach were used to analyse both datasets and, in conjunction with a workshop with stakeholders, produce a logic model of the programme theory and related evaluation options to explore further.

RESULTS

Five main themes emerged from the analysis: History; Framework; Structure and Delivery of the Course; Theory of Action; and Barriers to Delivery and Successful Outcomes. These themes aided in drafting the logic model which revealed they key programme activities (e.g. facilitating group learning) and 23 potential outcomes. The majority of these outcomes (16) were deemed to be short-term outcomes (more easily measured within the timeframe of an individual being involved in the programme) e.g. increased self-esteem or awareness of individual/community health. The remaining 6 outcomes were deemed longer-term and included outcomes such as increased social capital and individual mental health and wellbeing.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that the evaluability assessment tool can be applied to the evaluation of community health programmes, providing short- and long-term outcomes that could be evaluated to demonstrate effectiveness and avoid unnecessary or poorly designed full-scale evaluations. This type of pre-evaluation method is already a useful resource for national policy evaluations, but could be a valuable evaluation tool for other regional or community health programmes.

Implications for public health research of models and theories of disability: a scoping study and evidence synthesis

Background

Public health interventions that are effective in the general population are often assumed to apply to people with impairments. However, the evidence to support this is limited and hence there is a need for public health research to take a more explicit account of disability and the perspectives of people with impairments.

Objectives

(1) To examine the literature on theories and models of disability; (2) to assess whether or not, and how, intervention studies of effectiveness could incorporate more inclusive approaches that are consistent with these theories and models; and (3) to use the findings to draw out implications for improving evaluative study designs and evidence-based practice.

Review methods

The project is a scoping review of the literature. The first stage examines theories and models of disability and reflects on possible connections between theories of disability and public health paradigms. This discussion is used to develop an ethical–empirical decision aid/checklist, informed by a human rights approach to disability and ecological approaches to public health. We apply this decision aid in the second stage of the review to evaluate the extent to which the 30 generic public health reviews of interventions and the 30 disability-specific public health interventions include the diverse experiences of disability. Five deliberation panels were also organised to further refine the decision aid: one with health-care professionals and four with politically and socially active disabled people.

Results

The evidence from the review indicated that there has been limited public health engagement with theories and models of disability. Outcome measures were often insensitive to the experiences of disability. Even when disabled people were included, studies rarely engaged with their experiences in any meaningful way. More inclusive research should reflect how people live and ‘flourish’ with disability.

Limitations

The scoping review provides a broad appraisal of a particular field. It generates ideas for future practice rather than a definite framework for action.

Conclusions

Our ethical–empirical decision aid offers a critical framework with which to evaluate current research practice. It also offers a resource for promoting more ethical and evidence-based public health research that is methodologically robust while being sensitive to the experiences of disability.

Future work

Developing more inclusive research and interventions that avoid conceptualising disability as either a ‘burden’ or ‘problem’ is an important starting point. This includes exploring ways of refining and validating current common outcome measures to ensure that they capture a diverse range of disabling experiences, as well as generating evidence on meaningful ways of engaging a broad range of disabled children and adults in the research process.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Collaborative mental health services in primary care systems in Latin America: contextualized evaluation needs and opportunities

AIM

This study examined Latin American evaluation needs regarding the development of a collaborative mental health care (CMHC) evaluation framework as seen by local key health-care leaders and professionals. Potential implementation challenges and opportunities were also identified.

METHODS

This multisite research study used an embedded mixed methods approach in three public health networks in Mexico, Nicaragua and Chile. Local stakeholders participated: decision-makers in key informant interviews, front-line clinicians in focus groups and other stakeholders through a survey. The analysis was conducted within site and then across sites.

RESULTS

A total of 22 semi-structured interviews, three focus groups and 27 questionnaires (52% response rate) were conducted. Participants recognized a strong need to evaluate different areas of CMHC in Latin America, including access, types and quality of services, human resources and outcomes related to mental disorders, including addiction. A priority was to evaluate collaboration within the health system, including the referral system. Issues of feasibility, including the weaknesses of information systems, were also identified.

CONCLUSION

Local stakeholders strongly supported the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework for CMHC in Latin America and cited several dimensions and contextual factors critical for inclusion. Implementation must allow flexibility and adaptation to the local context.

Adult community health-promoting interventions in primary health care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To examine evidence on the effectiveness of health-promoting community interventions carried out in primary health care.

METHODS

Systematic review of originals and systematic reviews of health-promoting community interventions with the participation of primary health care. A working definition of community activities was used in the inclusion criteria. Databases searched up to 2013: PUBMED, EMBASE, CINHAL, Web of SCIENCE, IBECS, IME, and PSICODOC. No restrictions on year of publication or design. Articles were reviewed by separate researchers to identify risks of bias.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles published between 1966 and 2013 were included: 11 systematic reviews and 40 originals that described 39 community interventions. There is evidence on the effectiveness of community interventions in reducing cardiovascular risk factors, encouraging physical exercise, preventing falls and improving self-care among chronic patients compared with usual individual care. The effectiveness of some interventions increases when the community is involved in their development. Most assessments show positive results despite design limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The community approach may be more effective than the individual in usual preventive interventions in primary care. There is a lack of evidence on many community interventions in primary care and further research is needed.

Evidence in public health: steps to make it real

This study addresses the methodological trends in the development of systematic reviews in public health, and examines the reviews of the Cochrane Public Health Group in order to exemplify syntheses of evidence in public health and its implementation and impact on practice and research.

Improving health care for the vulnerable elderly in society

Professor Alan Glasper discusses the Department of Health's latest initiative to improve health and care for the vulnerable elderly in society.