استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Community participation is widely believed to be beneficial to the development, implementation and evaluation of health services. However, many challenges to successful and sustainable community involvement remain. Importantly, there is little evidence on the effect of community participation in terms of outcomes at both the community and individual level. Our systematic review seeks to examine the evidence on outcomes of community participation in high and upper-middle income countries. This review was developed according to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those that involved the community, service users, consumers, households, patients, public and their representatives in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health services, policy or interventions. We searched the following databases from January 2000 to September 2016: Medline, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and LILACs. We independently screened articles for inclusion, conducted data extraction, and assessed studies for risk of bias. No language restrictions were made. 27,232 records were identified, with 23,468 after removal of duplicates. Following titles and abstracts screening, 49 met the inclusion criteria for this review. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted. Outcomes were categorised as process outcomes, community outcomes, health outcomes, empowerment and stakeholder perspectives. Our review reports a breadth of evidence that community involvement has a positive impact on health, particularly when substantiated by strong organisational and community processes. This is in line with the notion that participatory approaches and positive outcomes including community empowerment and health improvements do not occur in a linear progression, but instead consists of complex processes influenced by an array of social and cultural factors. This review adds to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of community participation in yielding positive outcomes at the organizational, community and individual level. Prospero record number: CRD42016048244.

Hypertension and diabetes are becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Telemedicine is an accessible and cost-effective means of supporting hypertension and diabetes management, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technological solutions for care. However, to date, no review has examined the contextual factors that influence the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension or diabetes worldwide. We adopted a comprehensive implementation research perspective to synthesize the barriers to and facilitators of implementing telemedicine interventions for the management of hypertension, diabetes, or both. We performed a scoping review involving searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies published in English from 2017 to 2022 describing barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes management. The coding and synthesis of barriers and facilitators were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Of the 17,687 records identified, 35 (0.2%) studies were included in our scoping review. We found that facilitators of and barriers to implementation were dispersed across the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Barriers related to cost, patient needs and resources (eg, lack of consideration of language needs, culture, and rural residency), and personal attributes of patients (eg, demographics and priorities) were the most common. Facilitators related to the design and packaging of the intervention (eg, user-friendliness), patient needs and resources (eg, personalized information that leveraged existing strengths), implementation climate (eg, intervention embedded into existing infrastructure), knowledge of and beliefs about the intervention (eg, convenience of telemedicine), and other personal attributes (eg, technical literacy) were the most common. Our findings suggest that the successful implementation of telemedicine interventions for hypertension and diabetes requires comprehensive efforts at the planning, execution, engagement, and reflection and evaluation stages of intervention implementation to address challenges at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and environmental levels.

Ensuring healthcare systems provide equitable, high quality care is critical to their users' overall health and wellbeing. Typically, systems use various performance frameworks and related indicators to monitor and improve healthcare. Although these frameworks usually include equity, the extent that equity is reflected in these measurements remains unclear. In order to create a system that meets patients' needs, addressing this uncertainty is important. This paper presents findings from a scoping review that sought to answer the question 'How is equity conceptualized in healthcare systems when assessing healthcare system performance?'. Levac's scoping review approach was used to locate relevant articles and create a protocol. Included, peer-reviewed articles were published between 2015 to 2020, written in English and did not discuss oral health and clinician training. These healthcare areas were excluded as they represent large, specialized bodies of literature beyond the scope of this review. Online databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus) were used to locate articles. Eight thousand six hundred fifty-five potentially relevant articles were identified. Fifty-four were selected for full review. The review yielded 16 relevant articles. Six articles emanated from North America, six from Europe and one each from Africa, Australia, China and India respectively. Most articles used quantitative methods and examined various aspects of healthcare. Studies centered on: indicators; equity policies; evaluating the equitability of healthcare systems; creating and/or testing equity tools; and using patients' sociodemographic characteristics to examine healthcare system performance. Although equity is framed as an important component of most healthcare systems' performance frameworks, the scarcity of relevant articles indicate otherwise. This scarcity may point to challenges systems face when moving from conceptualizing to measuring equity. Additionally, it may indicate the limited attention systems place on effectively incorporating equity into performance frameworks. The disjointed and varied approaches to conceptualizing equity noted in relevant articles make it difficult to conduct comparative analyses of these frameworks. Further, these frameworks' strong focus on users' social determinants of health does not offer a robust view of performance. More work is needed to shift these narrow views of equity towards frameworks that analyze healthcare systems and not their users.

Behavior change interventions that aim to improve rational antibiotic use in prescribers and users have been widely conducted in both high- and LMICs. However, currently, no review has systematically examined challenges unique to LMICs and offered insights into the underlying contextual factors that influence these interventions. We adopted an implementation research perspective to systematically synthesize the implementation barriers and facilitators in LMICs. We conducted literature searches in five electronic databases and identified studies that involved the implementation of behavior change interventions to improve appropriate antibiotic use in prescribers and users in LMICs and reported implementation barriers and facilitators. Behavior change interventions were defined using the behavior change wheel, and the coding and synthesis of barriers and facilitators were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified 52 eligible studies, with the majority targeting prescribers practicing at tertiary facilities (N=39, 75%). The most commonly reported factors influencing implementation were found in the inner setting domain of the CFIR framework, particularly related to constraints in resources and the infrastructure of the facilities where interventions were implemented. Barriers related to the external policy environment (e.g., lack of national initiatives and policies on antibiotic use), and individual characteristics of target populations (e.g., reluctance to change prescribing behaviors) were also common, as well as facilitators related to intervention characteristics (e.g., embedding interventions in routine practice) and process (e.g., stakeholder engagement). We also provided insights into the interrelationships between these factors and the underlying causes contributing to the implementation challenges in LMICs. We presented a comprehensive overview of the barriers and facilitators of implementing behavior change interventions to promote rational antibiotic use in LMICs. Our findings suggest that facilitating the implementation of interventions to improve rational antibiotic use needs comprehensive efforts to address challenges at policy, organizational, and implementation levels. Specific strategies include (1) strengthening political commitment to prompt mobilization of domestic resources and formulation of a sustainable national strategy on AMR, (2) improving the infrastructure of health facilities that allow prescribers to make evidence-based clinical decisions, and (3) engaging local stakeholders to improve their buy-in and facilitate contextualizing interventions. PROSPERO: CRD42021252715 .

ObjectiveThe aim of this review, conducted in April 2020, is to examine available national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 and to explore the ways in which these guidelines support primary care facilities in responding to the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRapid review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and Google, as well as the websites of relevant national health departments, were searched from 1 January 2020 to 24 April 2020.Eligibility criteriaDocuments included must be issued by a national health authority, must be specific to COVID-19 care, directed at healthcare workers or managers, and must refer to the role of primary care in the COVID-19 response.ResultsWe identified 17 documents from 14 countries. An adapted framework on primary care challenges and responses to pandemic influenza framed our analysis. Guidelines generally reported on COVID-19 service delivery and mostly made specific recommendations for ensuring continued delivery of essential primary care services through telehealth or other virtual care modalities. Few offered guidance to support surveillance as a public health function. All offered guidance on implementing outbreak control measures, largely through flexible and coordinated organisational models with partners from various sectors. There was a lack of guidance to support supply chain management and practice resilience in primary care, and lack of personal protective equipment represents a serious threat to the provision of quality care during the pandemic.ConclusionsCurrent national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 provide guidance on infection control and minimising the risk of spread in primary care practices, while supporting the use of new technology and coordinated partnerships. However, to ensure primary care practice resilience and quality of care are upheld, guidelines must offer recommendations on supply chain management and operational continuity, supported by adequate resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified pre-existing challenges to health promotion and care across the world, and particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This qualitative study draws on data from a panel of immunisation experts and uses a novel framework of vaccine delivery domains to explore perspectives from those who live and work in these settings on the challenges to implementing COVID-19 vaccine programs in LMICs. We conducted a thematic content analysis of 96 participant free text replies to questions from Round I of a three-round Delphi consensus study amongst global experts on COVID-19 vaccine implementation. Participant responses highlighted challenges to vaccine program implementation including issues related to equity; governance, decision-making, and financing; regulatory structures, planning, and coordination; prioritisation, demand generation, and communication; vaccine, cold chain, logistics, and infrastructure; service delivery, human resources, and supplies; and surveillance, monitoring, and evaluation. We reflect on our findings in light of global efforts to address vaccine inequity and emphasise three key areas salient to improving vaccination efforts during novel infectious disease outbreaks: 1) Ensuring safe and sustainable service delivery in communities and at points of care; 2) Strengthening systems for end-to-end delivery of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and essential supplies; 3) Transforming structural paradigms towards vaccine equity.

Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease and leading cause of premature death globally. In 2008, approximately 40% of adults were diagnosed with hypertension, with more than 1.5 billion people estimated to be affected globally by 2025. Hypertension disproportionally affects low- and middle-income countries, where the prevalence is higher and where the health systems are more fragile. This qualitative study explored patients' experiences on the management and control of hypertension in rural Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. We conducted sixty semi-structured interviews, with 20 participants in each country. Hypertensive individuals were recruited based on age, gender and hypertensive status. Overall, patients' reported symptoms across the three countries were quite similar, although perceptions of hypertension were mixed. The majority of patients reported low knowledge on how to prevent or treat hypertension. The main barriers to accessing health services, as reported by participants, were inadequate services and poor quality of existing facilities, shortage of medicine supplies, busyness of doctors due to high patient load, long travel distance to facilities, and long waiting times once facilities were reached. Patients also mentioned that cost was a barrier to accessing services and adhering to medication. Many patients, when asked for areas of improvement, reported on the importance of the provider-patient relationship and mentioned valuing doctors who spent time with them, provided advice, and could be trusted. However, most patients reported that, especially at primary health care level and in government hospitals, the experience with their doctor did not meet their expectations. Patients in the three countries reported desire for good quality local medical services, the need for access to doctors, medicine and diagnostics and decreased cost for medication and medical services. Patients also described welcoming health care outreach activities near their homes. Areas of improvement could focus on reorienting community health workers' activities; involving family members in comprehensive counseling for medication adherence; providing appropriate training for health care staff to deliver effective information and services for controlling hypertension to patients; enhancing primary health care and specialist services; improving supplies of hypertensive medication in public facilities; taking into account patients' cultural and social background when providing services; and facilitating access and treatment to those who are most vulnerable.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed gaps in global health systems, especially in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Evidence shows that patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and suffering direct and indirect health consequences. Considering the future challenges such as environmental disasters and pandemics to the LMICs health systems, digital health interventions (DHI) are well poised to strengthen health care resilience. This study aims to implement and evaluate a comprehensive package of DHIs of integrated COVID-NCD care to manage NCDs in primary care facilities in rural Pakistan. The study is designed as a pragmatic, parallel two-arm, multi-centre, mix-methods cluster randomised controlled trial. We will randomise 30 primary care facilities in three districts of Punjab, where basic hypertension and diabetes diagnosis and treatment are provided, with a ratio of 1:1 between intervention and control. In each facility, we will recruit 50 patients who have uncontrolled hypertension. The intervention arm will receive training on an integrated COVID-NCD guideline, and will use a smartphone app-based telemedicine platform where patients can communicate with health providers and peer-supporters, along with a remote training and supervision system. Usual care will be provided in the control arm. Patients will be followed up for 10 months. Our primary indicator is systolic blood pressure measured at 10 months. A process evaluation guided by implementation science frameworks will be conducted to explore implementation questions. A cost-effectiveness evaluation will be conducted to inform future scale up in Pakistan and other LMICs. Our study is one of the first randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of DHIs to manage NCDs to strengthen health system resilience in LMICs. We will also evaluate the implementation process and cost-effectiveness to inform future scale-up in similar resource constrained settings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier-NCT05699369.

Amidst ongoing calls for increased health systems resilience, gaps remain in our understanding of how health systems can reach further into communities to ensure resilient service delivery. Indeed, public health emergencies caused by infectious hazards reveal both the value and vulnerability of the workforce delivering health services in communities. This study explores ways in which a non-governmental organization (NGO) in the Philippines protected their frontline workforce during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Guided by a qualitative descriptive approach, 34 in-depth interviews were conducted with community-based health actors employed by the NGO between June 2020 and February 2021. Data analysis was guided by an iterative deductive and inductive approach. We identified four key activities that enabled the NGO and their staff to provide health and social services in communities in a safe and consistent manner as part of the organization's pandemic response. These include (1) ensuring adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and hygiene supplies; (2) providing contextualized and role-specific infection prevention and control (IPC) training; (3) ensuring access to testing for all staff; and (4) providing support during quarantine or isolation. Learning from the implementation of these activities offers a way forward toward health emergency preparedness and response that is crucially needed for NGOs to safely leverage their workforce during pandemics. Further, we describe how community-based health actors employed by NGOs can contribute to broader health systems resilience in the context of health emergency preparedness and response.

Cervical cancer is a major public health problem. Even though readily preventable, it is the fourth leading cause of death in women globally. Women living with HIV are at increased risk of invasive cervical cancer, highlighting the need for access to screening and treatment for this population. Integration of services has been proposed as an effective way of improving access to cervical cancer screening especially in areas of high HIV prevalence as well as lower resourced settings. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of programs integrating cervical cancer and HIV services globally, including feasibility, acceptability, clinical outcomes and facilitators for service delivery. This is part of a larger systematic review on integration of services for HIV and non-communicable diseases. To be considered for inclusion studies had to report on programs to integrate cervical cancer and HIV services at the level of service delivery. We searched multiple databases including Global Health, Medline and Embase from inception until December 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion and data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias. 11,057 records were identified initially. 7,616 articles were screened by title and abstract for inclusion. A total of 21 papers reporting interventions integrating cervical cancer care and HIV services met the criteria for inclusion. All but one study described integration of cervical cancer screening services into existing HIV services. Most programs also offered treatment of minor lesions, a 'screen-and-treat' approach, with some also offering treatment of larger lesions within the same visit. Three distinct models of integration were identified. One model described integration within the same clinic through training of existing staff. Another model described integration through co-location of services, with the third model describing programs of integration through complex coordination across the care pathway. The studies suggested that integration of cervical cancer services with HIV services using all models was feasible and acceptable to patients. However, several barriers were reported, including high loss to follow up for further treatment, limited human-resources, and logistical and chain management support. Using visual screening methods can facilitate screening and treatment of minor to larger lesions in a single 'screen-and-treat' visit. Complex integration in a single-visit was shown to reduce loss to follow up. The use of existing health infrastructure and funding together with comprehensive staff training and supervision, community engagement and digital technology were some of the many other facilitators for integration reported across models. This review shows that integration of cervical cancer screening and treatment with HIV services using different models of service delivery is feasible as well as acceptable to women living with HIV. However, the descriptive nature of most papers and lack of data on the effect on long-term outcomes for HIV or cervical cancer limits the inference on the effectiveness of the integrated programs. There is a need for strengthening of health systems across the care continuum and for high quality studies evaluating the effect of integration on HIV as well as on cervical cancer outcomes.