Stakeholder involvement in health research priority setting in low income countries: the case of Zambia

Social domains of poor mental health: A qualitative pilot study of community stakeholders' understanding and demarcation of mental illness and its interpretations in rural Nigeria

Background and Aims

Although previous studies on mental health/illness in Nigeria have explored knowledge and attitude of community members using quantitative approaches, few studies have engaged stakeholders within rural communities on the issue of mental illness using qualitative approaches. Community stakeholders play a critical role in influencing health behaviors. The objective of this pilot study was to explore community stakeholders' understanding and demarcation of mental illness, and its interpretations in a rural Nigerian town. This is with the aim of shaping stakeholders understanding of people when they experience mental distress within the community.

Methods

The study was conducted in Ijebu-Igbo town of Ogun State in south-west Nigeria. In-depth interviews were conducted among two religious' leaders: a Pastor and an Imam, a traditional healer, a medical doctor, and a registered nurse, and a focus group discussion was held in a church with members of its advisory committee.

Results

The findings showed that community stakeholders gave multiple interpretations of mental illness and many attribute mental illness to spiritual attack, ancestral curse, anger of the gods, and personal affliction (Ogun-Afowofa). This has been categorized as familial and individual attributes in this study which is part of the main themes derived. The study findings also show that the understanding of community members regarding the root causes of mental illness is somewhat vague based on their poor knowledge of mental illness. This is because of the various interpretations they gave to explain mental health is based on their cultural orientation, socialization, and belief system, and not based on any medical knowledge.

Conclusion

This pilot study was conducted to justify the main study. There is therefore a need for health education interventions to enlighten and educate community stakeholders with requisite knowledge for better understanding and interpretation of mental illness. Also, through mental health education interventions, community members will gain clarity on what mental health is and what it is not.

Implementation of Medicines Pricing Policies in Ghana: The Interplay of Policy Content, Actors' Participation, and Context

BACKGROUND

Implementing medicines pricing policy effectively is important for ensuring equitable access to essential medicines and ultimately achieving universal health coverage. However, published analyses of policy implementations are scarce from low- and middleincome countries. This paper contributes to bridging this knowledge gap by reporting analysis of implementation of two medicines pricing policies in Ghana: value-added tax (VAT) exemptions and framework contracting (FC) for selected medicines. We analysed implications of actor involvements, contexts, and contents on the implementation of these policies, and the interplay between these. This paper should be of interest, and relevance, to policy designers, implementers, the private sector and policy analysts.

METHODS

Data were collected through document reviews (n=18), in-depth interviews (n=30), focus groups (n=2) and consultative meetings (n=6) with purposefully identified policy actors. Data were analysed thematically, guided by the four components of the health policy triangle framework.

RESULTS

The nature and complexity of policy contents determined duration and degree of formality of implementation processes. For instance, in the FC policy, negotiating medicines prices and standardizing the tendering processes lengthened implementation. Highly varied stakeholder participation created avenues for decision-making and promoted inclusiveness, but also raised the need to manage different agendas and interests. Key contextual enablers and constraints to implementation included high political support and currency depreciation, respectively. The interrelatedness of policy content, actors, and context influenced the timeliness of policy implementations and achievement of intended outcomes, and suggest five attributes of effective policy implementation: (1) policy nature and complexity, (2) inclusiveness, (3) organizational feasibility, (4) economic feasibility, and (5) political will and leadership.

CONCLUSION

Varied contextual factors, active participation of stakeholders, nature, and complexity of policy content, and structures have all influenced the implementation of medicines pricing policies in Ghana.

Research prioritisation on prevention and management of preterm birth in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a special focus on Bangladesh using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method

Background

Fifteen million babies are born preterm globally each year, with 81% occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Preterm birth complications are the leading cause of newborn deaths and significantly impact health, quality of life, and costs of health services. Improving outcomes for newborns and their families requires prioritising research for developing practical, scalable solutions, especially in low-resource settings such as Bangladesh. We aimed to identify research priorities related to preventing and managing preterm birth in LMICs for 2021-2030, with a special focus on Bangladesh.

Methods

We adopted the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to set research priorities for preventing and managing preterm birth. Seventy-six experts submitted 490 research questions online, which we collated into 95 unique questions and sent for scoring to all experts. A hundred and nine experts scored the questions using five pre-selected criteria: answerability, effectiveness, deliverability, maximum potential for burden reduction, and effect on equity. We calculated weighted and unweighted research priority scores and average expert agreement to generate a list of top-ranked research questions for LMICs and Bangladesh.

Results

Health systems and policy research dominated the top 20 identified priorities for LMICs, such as understanding and improving uptake of the facility and community-based Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC), promoting breastfeeding, improving referral and transport networks, evaluating the impact of the use of skilled attendants, quality improvement activities, and exploring barriers to antenatal steroid use. Several of the top 20 questions also focused on screening high-risk women or the general population of women, understanding the causes of preterm birth, or managing preterm babies with illnesses (jaundice, sepsis and retinopathy of prematurity). There was a high overlap between research priorities in LMICs and Bangladesh.

Conclusions

This exercise, aimed at identifying priorities for preterm birth prevention and management research in LMICs, especially in Bangladesh, found research on improving the care of preterm babies to be more important in reducing the burden of preterm birth and accelerating the attainment of Sustainable Development Goal 3 target of newborn deaths, by 2030.

Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review

Background

Programme evaluation is an essential and systematic activity for improving public health programmes through useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate methods. Finite budgets require prioritisation of which programmes can be funded, first, for implementation, and second, evaluation. While criteria for programme funding have been discussed in the literature, a similar discussion around criteria for which programmes are to be evaluated is limited. We reviewed the criteria and frameworks used for prioritisation in public health more broadly, and those used in the prioritisation of programmes for evaluation. We also report on stakeholder involvement in prioritisation processes, and evidence on the use and utility of the frameworks or sets of criteria identified. Our review aims to inform discussion around which criteria and domains are best suited for the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation.

Methods

We reviewed the peer-reviewed literature through OVID MEDLINE (PubMed) on 11 March 2022. We also searched the grey literature through Google and across key websites including World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) (14 March 2022). Articles were limited to those published between 2002 and March 2022, in English, French or German.

Results

We extracted over 300 unique criteria from 40 studies included in the analysis. These criteria were categorised into 16 high-level conceptual domains to allow synthesis of the findings. The domains most frequently considered in the studies were “burden of disease” (33 studies), “social considerations” (30 studies) and “health impacts of the intervention” (28 studies). We only identified one paper which proposed criteria for use in the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation. Few prioritisation frameworks had evidence of use outside of the setting in which they were developed, and there was limited assessment of their utility. The existing evidence suggested that prioritisation frameworks can be used successfully in budget allocation, and have been reported to make prioritisation more robust, systematic, transparent, and collaborative.

Conclusion

Our findings reflect the complexity of prioritisation in public health. Development of a framework for the prioritisation of programmes to be evaluated would fill an evidence gap, as would formal assessment of its utility. The process itself should be formal and transparent, with the aim of engaging a diverse group of stakeholders including patient/public representatives.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme

OBJECTIVE

To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low.

CONCLUSION

Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Powers, engagements and resultant influences over the design and implementation of medicine pricing policies in Ghana

Introduction

Universal availability and affordability of essential medicines are determined by effective design and implementation of relevant policies, typically involving multiple stakeholders. This paper examined stakeholder engagements, powers and resultant influences over design and implementation of four medicines pricing policies in Ghana: Health Commodity Supply Chain Master Plan, framework contracting for high demand medicines, Value Added Tax (VAT) exemptions for selected essential medicines, and ring-fencing medicines for local manufacturing.

Methods

Data were collected using reviews of policy documentation (n=16), consultative meetings with key policy actors (n=5) and in-depth interviews (n=29) with purposefully identified national-level policymakers, public and private health professionals including members of the National Medicine Pricing Committee, pharmaceutical wholesalers and importers. Data were analysed using thematic framework.

Results

A total of 46 stakeholders were identified, including representatives from the Ministry of Health, other government agencies, development partners, pharmaceutical industry and professional bodies. The Ministry of Health coordinated policy processes, utilising its bureaucratic mandate and exerted high influences over each policy. Most stakeholders were highly engaged in policy processes. Whereas some led or coproduced the policies in the design stage and participated in policy implementation, others were consulted for their inputs, views and opinions. Stakeholder powers reflected their expertise, bureaucratic mandates and through participation in national level consultation meetings, influences policy contents and implementation. A wider range of stakeholders were involved in the VAT exemption policies, reflecting their multisectoral nature. A minority of stakeholders, such as service providers were not engaged despite their interest in medicines pricing, and consequently did not influence policies.

Conclusions

Stakeholder powers were central to their engagements in, and resultant influences over medicine pricing policy processes. Effective leadership is important for inclusive and participatory policymaking, and one should be cognisant of the nature of policy issues and approaches to policy design and implementation.

Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi

BACKGROUND

Inclusive engagement in healthcare policies and decision-making is essential to address the needs of patients and communities, reduce health inequities and increase the accountability of the government. In low income countries such as Malawi, with significant health challenges, stakeholder inclusion is particularly important to improve performance and service delivery. The 2017 National Health Plan II (NHP II) and accompanying Health Sector Strategic Plan II (HSSP II) aimed to improve the functioning of the healthcare system. The Ministry of Health for Malawi intended to involve all key health sector stakeholders in their development. This study explores the extent of stakeholder engagement in the health policy process through local level stakeholders' perceptions of their involvement in the NHP II and HSSP II.

METHODS

A qualitative study design was used. Interviews were conducted with 19 representatives of organisations operating at the local level, such as CSOs and local government. Open questions were asked about experiences and perceptions of the development of the NHP II and HSSP II. Inductive content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Stakeholders perceived barriers to inclusive and meaningful engagement in the health policy process. Five categories were identified: tokenistic involvement; stakeholder hierarchy; mutual distrust; preferred stakeholders; no culture of engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious challenges to the meaningful and equitable engagement of local level stakeholder groups in the health policy process were identified. Issues of trust, accountability and hierarchy in donor-citizen-government relations must be addressed to support stakeholder engagement. Engagement must go beyond tokenism to embed a range of stakeholders in the process with feedback mechanisms to ensure impact from their contributions. Local level stakeholders can be empowered to advocate for and participate in consultation exercises alongside greater top-down efforts to engage stakeholders via diverse and inclusive methods. These issues are not unique to Malawi or to health policy-making.

Creating a priority list of non-communicable diseases to support health research funding decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pilot a framework based on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to prioritize non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to support health research funding decision-making.

METHODS

The framework involves identifying NCDs to be prioritized, specifying prioritization criteria and determining their weights from a survey of stakeholders. The mean weights from the survey are applied to the NCDs' ratings on the criteria to generate a 'total score' for each NCD, by which the NCDs are prioritized.

RESULTS

Nineteen NCDs and five criteria were included. The criteria, in decreasing order of importance (mean weights in parentheses), are: deaths across the population (27.7 %), loss of quality-of-life across the population (23.0 %), cost to patients and families (18.6 %), cost to the health system (17.2 %), and whether vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected (13.4 %). The priority list of NCDs, stratified into four tiers of importance, is: 'Very critical' priority: coronary heart disease, back and neck pain, diabetes mellitus; 'Critical' priority: dementia and Alzheimer's disease, stroke; 'High' priority: colon and rectum cancer, depressive disorders, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, arthritis, lung cancer; and 'Medium' priority: asthma, hearing loss, melanoma skin cancer, addictive disorders, non-melanoma skin cancer, headaches.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate the framework for prioritizing NCDs for research funding is feasible and effective. The framework could also be used for other health conditions.

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review. We searched Medline and CINAHL databases in addition to Cochrane website and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 31 articles reporting on 29 studies: seven proposed approaches for prioritization and 25 conducted prioritization exercises (three studies did both). The included studies addressed the following fields: clinical (n = 19; 66%), public health (n = 10; 34%), and health policy and systems (n = 8; 28%), with six studies (21%) addressing more than one field. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Twenty-eight studies (97%) involved or proposed involving stakeholders in the priority-setting process. These 28 studies referred to twelve stakeholder categories, most frequently to health care providers (n = 24; 86%) and researchers (n = 21; 75%). A common framework of 25 prioritization criteria was derived, clustered in 10 domains.

CONCLUSION

We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context.

Alignment of Perceived Competencies and Perceived Job Tasks among Primary Care Managers

In this study we aimed to explore how managers in primary health care (PHC) organizations assess their managerial knowledge and skills, as well as the importance of these competencies for their job, and to identify whether there is an alignment between these two perceptions; therefore, whether there is a need for management competency improvement. With this study, we tried to address a high demand for information about health managers, especially in health systems in low- and middle-income countries. In a sample of 58 primary health care centers (n = 106 managers) in Serbia, we used a basic managerial competency matrix consisting of the following six competencies—communication, team-building, planning and priority-setting, performance assessment, problem-solving, and leading. Managerial perception of the importance of their job tasks differs by educational level and managerial position. The best alignment between the importance of knowledge and skills was for communication and leading. The study pointed out that managers were aware of the necessity to improve their level of managerial competencies, particularly in the domains of planning and priority-setting, performance assessment, and problem solving. The study highlights the need for formal managerial education for managers in PHC settings and commitment to continuously evaluate and improve management competencies in order to better manage PHC.

Priority setting for new systematic reviews: processes and lessons learned in three regions in Africa

Priority setting to identify topical and context relevant questions for systematic reviews involves an explicit, iterative and inclusive process. In resource-constrained settings of low-income and middle-income countries, priority setting for health related research activities ensures efficient use of resources. In this paper, we critically reflect on the approaches and specific processes adopted across three regions of Africa, present some of the outcomes and share the lessons learnt while carrying out these activities. Priority setting for new systematic reviews was conducted between 2016 and 2018 across three regions in Africa. Different approaches were used: Multimodal approach (Central Africa), Modified Delphi approach (West Africa) and Multilevel stakeholder discussion (Southern-Eastern Africa). Several questions that can feed into systematic reviews have emerged from these activities. We have learnt that collaborative subregional efforts using an integrative approach can effectively lead to the identification of region specific priorities. Systematic review workshops including discussion about the role and value of reviews to inform policy and research agendas were a useful part of the engagements. This may also enable relevant stakeholders to contribute towards the priority setting process in meaningful ways. However, certain shared challenges were identified, including that emerging priorities may be overlooked due to differences in burden of disease data and differences in language can hinder effective participation by stakeholders. We found that face-to-face contact is crucial for success and follow-up engagement with stakeholders is critical in driving acceptance of the findings and planning future progress.

From paper maps to digital maps: enhancing routine immunisation microplanning in Northern Nigeria

Geographical information systems (GIS) can be effective decision-support tools. In this paper, we detail a GIS approach implemented by the Bauchi and Sokoto state primary healthcare development agencies in Nigeria to generate and convert routine immunisation (RI) paper maps to digital maps for microplanning. The process involved three stages: primary and secondary data collection and reconciliation, geospatial data processing and analysis, and production and validation of maps. The data collection and reconciliation stage identified a number of challenges with secondary data sources, including the need to standardise and reconcile health facility and settlement names. The study team was unable to apply population estimates generated from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative to RI planning because operational boundaries for polio activities are defined differently from RI activities. Application of open-source GIS software enabled the combination of multiple datasets and analysis of geospatial data to calculate catchment areas for primary health centres (PHCs) and assign vaccination strategies to communities. The activity resulted in the development of PHC catchment area digital maps, and captured next steps and lessons learnt for RI microplanning in the two states. While the digital maps provided input into the microplanning process, more work is needed to build capacity, standardise processes and ensure the quality of data used to generate the maps. RI service providers and communities must be engaged in the process to validate, understand the data, the contextual factors that influence decisions about which vaccination strategies RI microplans include and how resources are allocated.

Research Methods and Ethics in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management: The Result of the Kobe Expert Meeting

In October 2018, at Asia Pacific Conference for Disaster Medicine (APCDM), an expert meeting to identify key research needs was organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) Centre for Health Development (WHO Kobe Centre (WKC)), convening the leading experts from Asia Pacific region, WHO, WHO Thematic Platform for Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (Health-EDRM) Research Network (TPRN), World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM), in collaboration with Asia Pacific Conference for Disaster Medicine (APCDM) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). International experts, who were pre-informed about the meeting, contributed experience-based priority issues in Health-EDRM research, ethics, and scientific publication. Two moderators, experienced in multi-disciplinary research interacted with discussants to transcribe practical issues into related methodological and ethical issues. Each issue was addressed in order to progress research and scientific evidence in Health-EDRM. Further analysis of interactive dialogues revealed priorities for action, proposed mechanism to address these and identified recommendations. Thematic discussion uncovered five priority areas: (1) the need to harmonize Health-EDRM research with universal terms and, definitions via a glossary; (2) mechanisms to facilitate and speed up ethical review process; (3) increased community participation and stakeholder involvement in generating research ideas and in assessing impact evaluation; (4) development of reference materials such as possible consensus statements; and (5) the urgent need for a research methods resource textbook for Health-EDRM addressing these issues.