Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background This is the fifth of our 11-paper supplement on “Community Health Workers at the Dawn of a New Era.” When planning new community health worker (CHW) roles or expanding existing roles, programme planners need to analyse global and local research evidence and evidence-based guidance on the effectiveness and safety of relevant tasks performed by CHWs. Methods In this paper, we explore key areas of consideration when selecting roles and tasks; present current knowledge regarding these issues; and suggest how decision-makers could consider these issues when assigning tasks in their setting. This paper draws on the chapter “Community Health Worker Roles and Tasks” in Developing and Strengthening Community Health Worker Programs at Scale: A Reference Guide and Case Studies for Program Managers and Policymakers , as well as on a recently published compendium of 29 case studies of national CHW programmes and on recently published literature pertaining to roles and tasks of CHWs. Results This paper provides a list of questions that aim to help programme planners think about important issues when determining CHW roles and tasks in their setting. Planners need to assess whether the recommended roles and tasks are considered acceptable and appropriate by their target population and by the CHWs themselves and those who support them. Planners also need to think about the practical and organizational implications of each task for their particular setting with regard to training requirements, health systems support, work location, workload, and programme costs. Conclusion When planning CHW roles and tasks, planners, programme implementers, and policy-makers should draw from global guidance and research evidence, but they also need to engage with the experiences, needs, and concerns of local communities and health workers. By drawing from both sources of information, they will stand a better chance of developing programmes that are effective in achieving their goals while remaining acceptable to those affected by them, feasible to implement, and sustainable over time.

Despite growing recognition of neglectful, abusive, and disrespectful treatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, there is no consensus at a global level on how these occurrences are defined and measured. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence on the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities to inform the development of an evidence-based typology of the phenomenon. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases and grey literature using a predetermined search strategy to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on the mistreatment of women during childbirth across all geographical and income-level settings. We used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesize the qualitative evidence and assessed the confidence in the qualitative review findings using the CERQual approach. In total, 65 studies were included from 34 countries. Qualitative findings were organized under seven domains: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) verbal abuse, (4) stigma and discrimination, (5) failure to meet professional standards of care, (6) poor rapport between women and providers, and (7) health system conditions and constraints. Due to high heterogeneity of the quantitative data, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; instead, we present descriptions of study characteristics, outcome measures, and results. Additional themes identified in the quantitative studies are integrated into the typology. This systematic review presents a comprehensive, evidence-based typology of the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, and demonstrates that mistreatment can occur at the level of interaction between the woman and provider, as well as through systemic failures at the health facility and health system levels. We propose this typology be adopted to describe the phenomenon and be used to develop measurement tools and inform future research, programs, and interventions.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has set unprecedented demand on the healthcare workforce around the world. The UK has been one of the most affected countries in Europe. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) in relation to COVID-19 and care delivery models implemented to deal with the pandemic in the UK.MethodsThe study was designed as a rapid appraisal combining: (1) a review of UK healthcare policies (n=35 policies), (2) mass media and social media analysis of front-line staff experiences and perceptions (n=101 newspaper articles, n=1 46 000 posts) and (3) in-depth (telephone) interviews with front-line staff (n=30 interviews). The findings from all streams were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsLimited personal protective equipment (PPE) and lack of routine testing created anxiety and distress and had a tangible impact on the workforce. When PPE was available, incorrect size and overheating complicated routine work. Lack of training for redeployed staff and the failure to consider the skills of redeployed staff for new areas were identified as problems. Positive aspects of daily work reported by HCWs included solidarity between colleagues, the establishment of well-being support structures and feeling valued by society.ConclusionOur study highlighted the importance of taking into consideration the experiences and concerns of front-line staff during a pandemic. Staff working in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated clear and consistent guidelines, streamlined testing of HCWs, administration of PPE and acknowledgement of the effects of PPE on routine practice.

Effective postnatal care is important for optimal care of women and newborns-to promote health and wellbeing, identify and treat clinical and psychosocial concerns, and to provide support for families. Yet uptake of formal postnatal care services is low and inequitable in many countries. As part of a larger study examining the views of women, partners, and families requiring both routine and specialised care, we analysed a subset of data on the views and experiences of women related to routine postnatal care. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis, using a framework analysis approach. We included studies published up to December 2019 with extractable qualitative data, with no language restriction. We focused on women in the general population and their accounts of routine postnatal care utilization. We searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, EBM-Reviews, and grey literature. Two reviewers screened each study independently; inclusion was agreed by consensus. Data abstraction and scientific quality assessment were carried out using a study-specific extraction form and established quality assessment tools. The analysis framework was developed a priori based on previous knowledge and research on the topic and adapted. Due to the number of included texts, the final synthesis was developed inductively from the initial framework by iterative sampling of the included studies, until data saturation was achieved. Findings are presented by high versus low/middle income country, and by confidence in the finding, applying the GRADE-CERQual approach. Of 12,678 papers, 512 met the inclusion criteria; 59 articles were sampled for analysis. Five themes were identified: access and availability; physical and human resources; external influences; social norms; and experience of care. High confidence study findings included the perceived low value of postnatal care for healthy women and infants; concerns around access and quality of care; and women's desire for more emotional and psychosocial support during the postnatal period. These findings highlight multiple missed opportunities for postnatal care promotion and ensuring continuity of care. Factors that influence women's utilization of postnatal care are interlinked, and include access, quality, and social norms. Many women recognised the specific challenges of the postnatal period and emphasised the need for emotional and psychosocial support in this time, in addition to clinical care. While this is likely a universal need, studies on mental health needs have predominantly been conducted in high-income settings. Postnatal care programmes and related research should consider these multiple drivers and multi-faceted needs, and the holistic postpartum needs of women and their families should be studied in a wider range of settings. This protocol is registered in the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews: CRD42019139183.

In 2015, the United Nations’ (UN) Member States adopted a bold and holistic agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), integrating a vision of peace and prosperity for people and planet. Extensive work within, between, across sectors is required for this bold and holistic agenda to be implemented. It is in this context that this special article collection showcases multisectoral approaches to achieving SDG 3—Good Health and Well-Being—which, though focused explicitly on health, is connected to almost all other goals. A confluence of social and health inequities, within a context of widespread environmental degradation demands systems thinking and intersectoral action. Articles in this issue focus on the SDGs as a stimulus for renewed multisectoral action: processes, policies, and programs primarily outside the health sector, that have health implications through social, commercial, economic, environmental, and political determinants of health. Case studies offer critical lessons on effectively engaging other sectors to enhance their health outputs, identifying co-benefits and ‘win-wins’ that enhance human health.

Background Evidence-informed decision-making for health is far from the norm, particularly in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has an important role in providing the context-sensitive and -relevant evidence that is needed. However, there remain significant challenges both on the supply side, in terms of capacity for generation of policy-relevant knowledge such as HPSR, and on the demand side in terms of the demand for and use of evidence for policy decisions. This paper brings together elements from both sides to analyse institutional capacity for the generation of HPSR and the use of evidence (including HPSR) more broadly in LMICs. Methods The paper uses literature review methods and two survey instruments (directed at research institutions and Ministries of Health, respectively) to explore the types of institutional support required to enhance the generation and use of evidence. Results Findings from the survey of research institutions identified the absence of core funding, the lack of definitional clarity and academic incentive structures for HPSR as significant constraints. On the other hand, the survey of Ministries of Health identified a lack of locally relevant evidence, poor presentation of research findings and low institutional prioritisation of evidence use as significant constraints to evidence uptake. In contrast, improved communication between researchers and decision-makers and increased availability of relevant evidence were identified as facilitators of evidence uptake. Conclusion The findings make a case for institutional arrangements in research that provide support for career development, collaboration and cross-learning for researchers, as well as the setting up of institutional arrangements and processes to incentivise the use of evidence among Ministries of Health and other decision-making institutions. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to build institutional capacity in HPSR through engaging multiple stakeholders in identifying and maintaining incentive structures, improving research (including HPSR) training, and developing stronger tools for synthesising non-traditional forms of local, policy-relevant evidence such as grey literature. Addressing challenges on both the supply and demand side can build institutional capacity in the research and policy worlds and support the enhanced uptake of high quality evidence in policy decisions.

The Health TAPESTRY (Health Teams Advancing Patient Experience: STRengthening QualitY) intervention was designed to improve primary care teamwork and promote optimal aging. We evaluated the effectiveness of Health TAPESTRY in attaining goals of older adults (e.g., physical activity, productivity, social connection, medical status) and other outcomes. We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial between January and October 2015 in a primary care practice in Hamilton, Ontario. Older adults were randomized (1:1) to Health TAPESTRY (n = 158) or control (n = 154). Trained community volunteers gathered information on people’s goals, needs and risks in their homes, using electronic forms. Interprofessional primary care teams reviewed summaries and addressed issues. Participants reported goal attainment (primary outcome), self-efficacy, quality of life, optimal aging, social support, empowerment, physical activity, falls, and access to and comprehensiveness of the health system. We determined use of health care resources through chart audit. There were no differences between groups in goal attainment or many other patient-reported outcome and experience assessments at 6 months. More primary care visits took place in the intervention versus control group over 6 months (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 4.93±3.86 v. 3.50 ± 3.53; difference of 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 2.19]). The odds of having 1 or more hospital admission were lower for the intervention group (odds ratio [OR] 0.44 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.95]). Health TAPESTRY did not improve the primary outcome of goal attainment but showed signals of shifting care from reactive to active preventive care. Further evaluation will help in understanding effective components, costs and consequences of the intervention. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02283723

BackgroundBetter understanding, documentation and evaluation of different refugee health interventions and their means of health system integration and intersectoral collaboration are needed.ObjectivesExplore the barriers and facilitators to the integration of health services for refugees; the processes involved and the different stakeholders engaged in levaraging intersectoral approaches to protect refugees’ right to health on resettlement.DesignScoping review.MethodsA search of articles from 2000 onward was done in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Global Health and PsycINFO, Embase. Two frameworks were applied in our analysis, the ‘framework for analysing integration of targeted health interventions in systems’ and ‘Health in All Policies’ framework for country action. A comprehensive description of the methods is included in our published protocol.Results6117 papers were identified, only 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Facilitators in implementation included: training for providers, colocation of services, transportation services to enhance access, clear role definitions and appropriate budget allocation and financing. Barriers included: lack of a participatory approach, insufficient resources for providers, absence of financing, unclear roles and insufficient coordination of interprofessional teams; low availability and use of data, and turf wars across governance stakeholders. Successful strategies to address refugee health included: networks of service delivery combining existing public and private services; system navigators; host community engagement to reduce stigma; translation services; legislative support and alternative models of care for women and children.ConclusionLimited evidence was found overall. Further research on intersectoral approaches is needed. Key policy insights gained from barriers and facilitators reported in available studies include: improving coordination between existing programmes; supporting colocation of services; establishing formal system navigator roles that connect relevant programmes; establishing formal translation services to improve access and establishing training and resources for providers.

Background Given the paradigmatic shift represented by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as compared to the Millennium Development Goals - in particular their broad and interconnected nature - a new set of health policy and systems research (HPSR) priorities are needed to inform strategies to address these interconnected goals. Objectives To identify high priority HPSR questions linked to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Methods We focused on three themes that we considered to be central to achieving the health related SDGs: (i) Protecting and promoting access to health services through systems of social protection (ii) Strengthening multisectoral collaborations for health and (iii) Developing more participatory and accountable institutions. We conducted 54 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions to investigate policy-maker perspectives on evidence needs. We also conducted an overview of literature reviews in each theme. Information from these sub-studies was extracted into a matrix of possible research questions and developed into three domain-specific lists of 30–36 potential priority questions. Topic experts from the global research community then refined and ranked the proposed questions through an online platform. A final webinar on each theme sought feedback on findings. Results Policy-makers continue to demand HPSR for many well-established issues such as health financing, human resources for health, and service delivery. In terms of service delivery, policy-makers wanted to know how best to strengthen primary health care and community-based systems. In the themes of social protection and multisectoral collaboration, prioritized questions had a strong emphasis on issues of practical implementation. For participatory and accountable institutions, the two priority questions focused on political factors affecting the adoption of accountability measures, as well as health worker reactions to such measures. Conclusions To achieve the SDGs, there is a continuing need for research in some already well established areas of HPSR as well as key areas highlighted by decision-makers. Identifying appropriate conceptual frameworks as well as typologies of examples may be a prerequisite for answering some of the substantive policymaker questions. In addition, implementation research engaging non-traditional stakeholders outside of the health sector will be critical.

BackgroundAdolescent pregnancy is associated with increased risk of maternal and child morbidity and mortality globally. Access to safe, appropriate and affordable antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care (PNC) is essential in mitigating this risk. PNC is an often undervalued, underused, and understudied component of the continuum of maternal health services; however, it provides an important opportunity for adolescent girls to have access to health information and resources as they navigate the transition to motherhood and/or recovery from childbirth. This qualitative evidence synthesis seeks to highlight the experiences and perspectives of adolescent girls and their partners in accessing and using routine PNC.MethodsPapers were selected from a primary review on PNC where a global search of databases was conducted to identify studies with qualitative data focused on PNC utilisation. Within this primary review, a subset of studies focused on adolescents was tagged for subanalysis. A data extraction form drawing on an a priori framework was used to extract data from each study. Review findings were grouped across studies and mapped onto relevant themes, which were then adapted, as appropriate, to best reflect emergent themes from included studies.ResultsOf 662 papers identified for full text review, 15 were included in this review on adolescents’ experiences. Fourteen review findings were mapped onto four themes including: resources and access, social norms, experiences of care, and tailored support needs.ConclusionImproving uptake of PNC by adolescent girls requires multipronged approaches in improving availability of and access to adolescent-sensitive maternal health services and reducing feelings of shame and stigma in the postpartum period. Much should be done to address structural barriers to access, but tangible steps to improving the quality and responsiveness of available services can be taken immediately.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139183.