Explore the vast range of titles available.

Context: This article presents the main results from a large-scale analytical systematic review on knowledge exchange interventions at the organizational and policymaking levels. The review integrated two broad traditions, one roughly focused on the use of social science research results and the other focused on policymaking and lobbying processes. Methods: Data collection was done using systematic snowball sampling. First, we used prospective snowballing to identify all documents citing any of a set of thirty-three seminal papers. This process identified 4,102 documents, 102 of which were retained for in-depth analysis. The bibliographies of these 102 documents were merged and used to identify retrospectively all articles cited five times or more and all books cited seven times or more. All together, 205 documents were analyzed. To develop an integrated model, the data were synthesized using an analytical approach. Findings: This article developed integrated conceptualizations of the forms of collective knowledge exchange systems, the nature of the knowledge exchanged, and the definition of collective-level use. This literature synthesis is organized around three dimensions of context: level of polarization (politics), cost-sharing equilibrium (economics), and institutionalized structures of communication (social structuring). Conclusions: The model developed here suggests that research is unlikely to provide context-independent evidence for the intrinsic efficacy of knowledge exchange strategies. To design a knowledge exchange intervention to maximize knowledge use, a detailed analysis of the context could use the kind of framework developed here.

The scholarship on responsible research and innovation (RRI) aims to align the processes and outcomes of innovation with societal values by involving a broad range of stakeholders from a very early stage. Though this scholarship offers a new lens to consider the challenges new health technologies raise for health systems around the world, there is a need to define the dimensions that specifically characterise responsible innovation in health (RIH). The present article aims to introduce an integrative RIH framework drawing on the RRI literature, the international literature on health systems as well as specific bodies of knowledge that shed light on key dimensions of health innovations. Combining inductive and deductive theory-building strategies and concomitant with the development of a formal tool to assess the responsibility of innovations, we developed a framework that is comprised of nine dimensions organised within five value domains, namely population health, health system, economic, organisational and environmental. RIH provides health and innovation policy-makers with a common framework that supports the development of innovations that can tackle significant system-level challenges, including sustainability and equity.

Innovation has the potential to improve the quality of care and health service delivery, but maximising the reach and impact of innovation to achieve large-scale health system transformation remains understudied. Interest is growing in three processes of the innovation journey within health systems, namely the spread, sustainability and scale-up (3S) of innovation. Recent reviews examine what we know about these processes. However, there is little research on how to support and operationalise the 3S. This study aims to improve our understanding of the 3S of healthcare innovations. We focus specifically on the definitions of the 3S, the mechanisms that underpin them, and the conditions that either enable or limit their potential. We conducted a scoping review, systematically investigating six bibliographic databases to search, screen and select relevant literature on the 3S of healthcare innovations. We screened 641 papers, then completed a full-text review of 112 identified as relevant based on title and abstract. A total of 24 papers were retained for analysis. Data were extracted and synthesised through descriptive and inductive thematic analysis. From this, we develop a framework of actionable guidance for health system actors aiming to leverage the 3S of innovation across five key areas of focus, as follows: (1) focus on the why, (2) focus on perceived-value and feasibility, (3) focus on what people do, rather than what they should be doing, (4) focus on creating a dialogue between policy and delivery, and (5) focus on inclusivity and capacity building. While there is no standardised approach to foster the 3S of healthcare innovations, a variety of practical frameworks and tools exist to support stakeholders along this journey.

Introduction Responsive, integrated and sustainable health systems require that communities take an active role in service design and delivery. Much of the current literature focuses on provider‐led initiatives to gain community input, raising concerns about power imbalances inherent in invited forms of participation. This paper provides an alternate view, exploring how, in a period following reforms, community actors forge network alliances to (re)gain legitimacy and capacities to coproduce health services with system providers. Methods A longitudinal case study traced the network‐building efforts over 3 years of a working group formed by citizens and community actors working with seniors, minorities, recent immigrants, youth and people with disabilities. The group came together over concerns about reforms that impacted access to health services and the ability of community groups to mediate access for vulnerable community residents. Data were collected from observation of the group's meetings and activities, documents circulated within and by the group, and semi‐directed interviews. The first stage of analysis used social network mapping to reveal the network development achieved by the working group; a second traced network maturation, based on actor–network theory. Results Network mapping revealed how the working group mobilized existing links and created new links with health system actors to explore access issues. Problematization appeared as an especially important stage in network development in the context of reforms that disrupted existing collaborative relationships and introduced new structures and processes. Conclusion Network‐building strategies enable community actors to enhance their capacity for coproduction. A key contribution lies in the creation of ‘organizational infrastructure’. Patient or Public Contribution The lead researcher was embedded over 3 years in the activities of the community groups and community residents. Several group members provided comments on an initial draft of this paper. To preserve the anonymity of the group, their names do not appear in the acknowledgements section.

Background While there is an extensive literature on Health System (HS) strengthening and on the performance of specific HSs, there are few exhaustive syntheses of the challenges HSs are facing worldwide. This paper reports the findings of a scoping review aiming to classify the challenges of HSs investigated in the scientific literature. Specifically, it determines the kind of research conducted on HS challenges, where it was performed, in which health sectors and on which populations. It also identifies the types of challenge described the most and how they varied across countries. Methods We searched 8 databases to identify scientific papers published in English, French and Italian between January 2000 and April 2016 that addressed HS needs and challenges. The challenges reported in the articles were classified using van Olmen et al.’s dynamic HS framework. Countries were classified using the Human Development Index (HDI). Our analyses relied on descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Results 292 articles were included in our scoping review. 33.6% of these articles were empirical studies and 60.1% were specific to countries falling within the very high HDI category, in particular the United States. The most frequently researched sectors were mental health (41%), infectious diseases (12%) and primary care (11%). The most frequently studied target populations included elderly people (23%), people living in remote or poor areas (21%), visible or ethnic minorities (15%), and children and adolescents (15%). The most frequently reported challenges related to human resources (22%), leadership and governance (21%) and health service delivery (24%). While health service delivery challenges were more often examined in countries within the very high HDI category, human resources challenges attracted more attention within the low HDI category. Conclusions This scoping review provides a quantitative description of the available evidence on HS challenges and a qualitative exploration of the dynamic relationships that HS components entertain. While health services research is increasingly concerned about the way HSs can adopt innovations, little is known about the system-level challenges that innovations should address in the first place. Within this perspective, four key lessons are drawn as well as three knowledge gaps.

PurposeArtificial intelligence (AI) raises many expectations regarding its ability to profoundly transform health care delivery. There is an abundant literature on the technical performance of AI applications in many clinical fields (e.g. radiology, ophthalmology). This article aims to bring forward the importance of studying organizational readiness to integrate AI into health care delivery.Design/methodology/approachThe reflection is based on our experience in digital health technologies, diffusion of innovations and healthcare organizations and systems. It provides insights into why and how organizational readiness should be carefully considered.FindingsAs an important step to ensure successful integration of AI and avoid unnecessary investments and costly failures, better consideration should be given to: (1) Needs and added-value assessment; (2) Workplace readiness: stakeholder acceptance and engagement; (3) Technology-organization alignment assessment and (4) Business plan: financing and investments. In summary, decision-makers and technology promoters should better address the complexity of AI and understand the systemic challenges raised by its implementation in healthcare organizations and systems.Originality/valueFew studies have focused on the organizational issues raised by the integration of AI into clinical routine. The current context is marked by a perplexing gap between the willingness of decision-makers and technology promoters to capitalize on AI applications to improve health care delivery and the reality on the ground, where it is difficult to initiate the changes needed to realize their full benefits while avoiding their negative impacts.

Pluralistic organizations characterized by multiple objectives, diffuse power and knowledge-based work processes present a complex challenge both for strategy theorists and for strategy practitioners because the very nature of strategy as usually understood (an explicit and unified direction for the organization) appears to contradict the natural dynamics of these organizations. Yet pluralism is to some extent always present in organizations and perhaps increasingly so. This article explores the usefulness of three alternate and complementary theoretical frames for understanding and influencing strategy practice in pluralistic contexts: Actor-Network Theory, Conventionalist Theory and the social practice perspective. Each of these frameworks has a predominant focus on one of the fundamental attributes of pluralism: power, values and knowledge. Together, they offer a multi-faceted understanding of the complex practice of strategizing in pluralistic contexts.

Background The concept of “mechanism” is central to realist approaches to research, yet research teams struggle to operationalize and apply the concept in empirical research. Our large, interdisciplinary research team has also experienced challenges in making the concept useful in our study of the implementation of models of integrated community-based primary health care (ICBPHC) in three international jurisdictions (Ontario and Quebec in Canada, and in New Zealand). Methods In this paper we summarize definitions of mechanism found in realist methodological literature, and report an empirical example of a realist analysis of the implementation ICBPHC. Results We use our empirical example to illustrate two points. First, the distinction between contexts and mechanisms might ultimately be arbitrary, with more distally located mechanisms becoming contexts as research teams focus their analytic attention more proximally to the outcome of interest. Second, the relationships between mechanisms, human reasoning, and human agency need to be considered in greater detail to inform realist-informed analysis; understanding these relationships is fundamental to understanding the ways in which mechanisms operate through individuals and groups to effect the outcomes of complex health interventions. Conclusions We conclude our paper with reflections on human agency and outline the implications of our analysis for realist research and realist evaluation.

Background: The health workforce is central to healthcare systems and population health, but marginal in comparative health policy. This study aims to highlight the crucial relevance of the health workforce and contribute comparative evidence to help improve the protection of healthcare workers and prevention of inequalities during a major public health crisis. Methods: Our integrated governance framework considers system, sector, organizational and socio-cultural dimensions of health workforce policy. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as the policy field and Brazil, Canada, Italy, and Germany as illustrative cases. We draw on secondary sources (literature, document analysis, public statistics, reports) and country expert information with a focus on the first COVID-19 waves until the summer of 2021. Results: Our comparative investigation illustrates the benefits of a multi-level governance approach beyond health system typologies. In the selected countries, we found similar problems and governance gaps concerning increased workplace stress, lack of mental health support, and gender and racial inequalities. Health policy across countries failed to adequately respond to the needs of HCWs, thus exacerbating inequalities during a major global health crisis. Conclusions: Comparative health workforce policy research may contribute new knowledge to improve health system resilience and population health during a crisis.