Explore the vast range of titles available.

  [...]reviews of qualitative studies can help to identify alternative framings of the problem, to understand how or why a policy or program option works, and to appreciate stakeholders' perspectives on particular options. * Policymakers and stakeholders now have access to many review-derived products: (1) summaries of systematic reviews highlighting decision-relevant information; (2) overviews of systematic reviews providing a \"map\" of the policy questions addressed by systematic reviews and the insights derived from them; and (3) policy briefs drawing on many systematic reviews to characterize a problem, policy or program options to address the problem, and implementation strategies. * A range of activities are being undertaken to support the use of reviews and review-derived products in policymaking, all of which warrant rigorous evaluation. * Future challenges include: (1) examining whether and when any apparent duplication of efforts occurs in the production of review-derived products at the international level; and (2) scaling up activities that are found to be effective in supporting the use of reviews and review-derived products in policymaking. [...]many activities to support the use of reviews are being piloted.

The preceding papers in this Series have outlined how underuse and overuse of health-care services occur within a complex system of health-care production, with a multiplicity of causes. Because poor care is ubiquitous and has considerable consequences for the health and wellbeing of billions of people around the world, remedying this problem is a morally and politically urgent task. Universal health coverage is a key step towards achieving the right care. Therefore, full consideration of potential levers of change must include an upstream perspective—ie, an understanding of the system-level factors that drive overuse and underuse, as well as the various incentives at work during a clinical encounter. One example of a system-level factor is the allocation of resources (eg, hospital beds and clinicians) to meet the needs of a local population to minimise underuse or overuse. Another example is priority setting using tools such as health technology assessment to guide the optimum diffusion of safe, effective, and cost-effective health-care services. In this Series paper we investigate a range of levers for eliminating medical underuse and overuse. Some levers could operate effectively (and be politically viable) across many different health and political systems (eg, increase patient activation with decision support) whereas other levers must be tailored to local contexts (eg, basing coverage decisions on a particular cost-effectiveness ratio). Ideally, policies must move beyond the purely incremental; that is, policies that merely tinker at the policy edges after underuse or overuse arises. In this regard, efforts to increase public awareness, mobilisation, and empowerment hold promise as universal methods to reset all other contexts and thereby enhance all other efforts to promote the right care.

Background The fields of implementation science and knowledge translation have evolved somewhat independently from the field of policy implementation research, despite calls for better integration. As a result, implementation theory and empirical work do not often reflect the implementation experience from a policy lens nor benefit from the scholarship in all three fields. This means policymakers, researchers, and practitioners may find it challenging to draw from theory that adequately reflects their implementation efforts. Methods We developed an integrated theoretical framework of the implementation process from a policy perspective by combining findings from these fields using the critical interpretive synthesis method. We began with the compass question: How is policy currently described in implementation theory and processes and what aspects of policy are important for implementation success? We then searched 12 databases as well as gray literature and supplemented these documents with other sources to fill conceptual gaps. Using a grounded and interpretive approach to analysis, we built the framework constructs, drawing largely from the theoretical literature and then tested and refined the framework using empirical literature. Results A total of 11,434 documents were retrieved and assessed for eligibility and 35 additional documents were identified through other sources. Eighty-six unique documents were ultimately included in the analysis. Our findings indicate that policy is described as (1) the context, (2) a focusing lens, (3) the innovation itself, (4) a lever of influence, (5) an enabler/facilitator or barrier, or (6) an outcome. Policy actors were also identified as important participants or leaders of implementation. Our analysis led to the development of a two-part conceptual framework, including process and determinant components. Conclusions This framework begins to bridge the divide between disciplines and provides a new perspective about implementation processes at the systems level. It offers researchers, policymakers, and implementers a new way of thinking about implementation that better integrates policy considerations and can be used for planning or evaluating implementation efforts.

Background One of the most consistent findings from clinical and health services research is the failure to translate research into practice and policy. As a result of these evidence-practice and policy gaps, patients fail to benefit optimally from advances in healthcare and are exposed to unnecessary risks of iatrogenic harms, and healthcare systems are exposed to unnecessary expenditure resulting in significant opportunity costs. Over the last decade, there has been increasing international policy and research attention on how to reduce the evidence-practice and policy gap. In this paper, we summarise the current concepts and evidence to guide knowledge translation activities, defined as T2 research (the translation of new clinical knowledge into improved health). We structure the article around five key questions: what should be transferred; to whom should research knowledge be transferred; by whom should research knowledge be transferred; how should research knowledge be transferred; and, with what effect should research knowledge be transferred? Discussion We suggest that the basic unit of knowledge translation should usually be up-to-date systematic reviews or other syntheses of research findings. Knowledge translators need to identify the key messages for different target audiences and to fashion these in language and knowledge translation products that are easily assimilated by different audiences. The relative importance of knowledge translation to different target audiences will vary by the type of research and appropriate endpoints of knowledge translation may vary across different stakeholder groups. There are a large number of planned knowledge translation models, derived from different disciplinary, contextual ( i.e. , setting), and target audience viewpoints. Most of these suggest that planned knowledge translation for healthcare professionals and consumers is more likely to be successful if the choice of knowledge translation strategy is informed by an assessment of the likely barriers and facilitators. Although our evidence on the likely effectiveness of different strategies to overcome specific barriers remains incomplete, there is a range of informative systematic reviews of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals and consumers ( i.e. , patients, family members, and informal carers) and of factors important to research use by policy makers. Summary There is a substantial (if incomplete) evidence base to guide choice of knowledge translation activities targeting healthcare professionals and consumers. The evidence base on the effects of different knowledge translation approaches targeting healthcare policy makers and senior managers is much weaker but there are a profusion of innovative approaches that warrant further evaluation.

Background Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice? Methods This rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented. Results Five systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of ‘shortcuts’ are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers. Conclusions Greater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice.

We developed a framework for assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. The framework has four elements. The first element assesses the general climate (how those who fund research, universities, researchers and users of research support or place value on efforts to link research to action). The second element addresses the production of research (how priority setting ensures that users' needs are identified and how scoping reviews, systematic reviews and single studies are undertaken to address these needs). The third element addresses the mix of four clusters of activities used to link research to action. These include push efforts (how strategies are used to support action based on the messages arising from research), efforts to facilitate \"user pull\" (how \"one-stop shopping\" is provided for optimally packaged high-quality reviews either alone or as part of a national electronic library for health, how these reviews are profiled during \"teachable moments\" such as intense media coverage, and how rapid-response units meet users' needs for the best research), \"user pull\" efforts undertaken by those who use research (how users assess their capacity to use research and how structures and processes are changed to support the use of research) and exchange efforts (how meaningful partnerships between researchers and users help them to jointly ask and answer relevant questions). The fourth element addresses approaches to evaluation (how support is provided for rigorous evaluations of efforts to link research to action).

Lifestyle or behavioural changes can help to address the burden associated with chronic diseases. However, they take time and use of multiple techniques or strategies tailored to a person's needs. The primary objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of the Healthy Lifestyles Program (HLP), a novel 12-month complex intervention based in cognitive behavioural therapy and theories of behaviour change, delivered in a community-based setting in Hamilton, Canada. The secondary objective of the study was to explore implementation factors of the HLP. This pilot pragmatic randomised controlled trial used quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. Participants were randomly allocated to either intervention group (n = 15) or comparator group (n = 15). The intervention group attended weekly group education sessions and met with the program intervention team monthly to create and review personalized health goals and action plans. The comparator group met with a trained research assistant every three months to develop health goals and action plans. We assessed program feasibility by measuring recruitment, participation and retention rates, missing data, and attendance. Implementation was assessed in accordance with the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Participant-directed and clinical outcome measures were analyzed for between and within group changes using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE). Thematic analysis was conducted for qualitative data. Retention rate was 60% (9/15) for the intervention group and 47% (7/15) for the comparator group. Less than 1% of participant-directed and clinical outcomes were missing for those that completed the study. Participants attended an average of 29 of 43 educational sessions and 100% of one-to-one sessions. The program intervention team valued the holistic approach to care, increased time and interaction with participants, professional collaboration, and the ability to provide counselling and health support. Location accessibility was an important factor facilitating implementation. Reducing the number of psycho-social education sessions and having access to a gym could improve retention and program delivery for a larger trial. This study demonstrated the feasibility of the HLP with minor modifications recommended for a larger trial and for the intervention.

Oral health is rarely a priority of health policy agendas,1-3 although the recent World Health Organization (WHO) Resolution on Oral Health (WHA74.5) highlighted that oral diseases affect over 3.5 billion people worldwide and are among the most expensive diseases to treat.3 Such diseases particularly affect poorer and marginalized groups and are a key driver of catastrophic health expenditures.2 For those without access to essential oral health care, oral diseases can result in reduced performance of essential daily functions, pain and discomfort, and systemic infections; they can also necessitate emergency hospital admission.1'2Scientists and WHO have repeatedly emphasized the need for oral health systems improvement.1-3 However, progress in oral health systems transformation has been slow. Concrete know-how for spurring evidence- and values-driven action has been lacking for multiple reasons.First, lack of clarity persists as to what constitutes - from citizens' perspectives - essential oral care and how it can be optimally governed, funded and delivered. Without comprehensive accountability for citizen values, divergent stakeholder interests complicate rather than address problems. Second, the oral health community remains disconnected from the broader health community. Although oral diseases and noncommunicable diseases share common risk factors and sequelae, oral health systems rarely benefit from innovations in other areas of health care.1 Third, a high level of provider influence exists within the oral health policy ecosystem. The traditional business models of organized dentistry often give precedence to private financing approaches, contributing to a culture of reluctance against public governance and delivery arrangements. Fourth, the level of idiosyncrasy is high within the dental research ecosystem. Traditionally anchored biomedical research targets clinical disease management rather than empowering citizens to maintain good oral health.1 Dental public health research has been successfully describing problems, but scaling up implementation research to improve oral health is needed.

The World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines has led to at least 137 national lists. Essential medicines should be grounded in evidence-based guideline recommendations and explicit decision criteria. Essential medicines should be available, accessible, affordable, and the supporting evidence should be accompanied by a rating of the certainty one can place in it. Our objectives were to identify criteria and considerations that should be addressed in moving from a guideline recommendation regarding a medicine to the decision of whether to add, maintain, or remove a medicine from an essential medicines list. We also seek to explore opportunities to improve organizational processes to support evidence-based health decision-making more broadly. We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of key informant stakeholders in the development and use of guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs). We used an interpretive descriptive analysis approach and thematic analysis of interview transcripts in NVIVO v12. We interviewed 16 key informants working at national and global levels across all WHO regions. We identified five themes: three descriptive/explanatory themes 1) EMLs and guidelines, the same, but different; 2) EMLs can drive price reductions and improve affordability and access; 3) Time lag and disconnect between guidelines and EMLs; and two prescriptive themes 4) An “evidence pipeline” could improve coordination between guidelines and EMLs; 5) Facilitating the link between the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) and national EMLs could increase alignment. We found significant overlap and opportunities for alignment between guideline and essential medicine decision processes. This finding presents opportunities for guideline and EML developers to enhance strategies for collaboration. Future research should assess and evaluate these strategies in practice to support the shared goal of guidelines and EMLs: improvements in health.

Background Intermediaries are organisations or programmes that work between policy-makers and service providers to facilitate effective implementation of evidence-informed policies, programmes and practices. A number of intermediaries now exist in well-established mental health systems; however, research on them, and how they may be optimised to support implementation is lacking. This research seeks to understand the puzzling variation in the system placement of intermediaries supporting policy implementation in the mental health systems of Canada (Ontario), New Zealand and Scotland. Methods Using a comparative case study approach, the analytic goal was to compare intermediaries across jurisdictions and explain differences in their placement using explanatory frameworks from political science. Data for this analysis were derived from several sources, including key informant interviews, a literature search of published and grey literature on intermediaries and on policy implementation in mental health systems, a review of relevant policy documents and websites, as well as documents and websites relating to the various intermediaries and other interest groups within each system. Results Through the analysis, we argue that the placement of intermediaries supporting policy implementation can be explained through an understanding of the political structures, the policy legacies leading to the current public/private mix of mental health service delivery, and the differing administrative capacities of mental health systems. Conclusions This research contributes to our growing understanding of policy-related intermediaries supporting implementation at scale and how we might build appropriate infrastructure in systems to support the implementation of policy and achieve better outcomes for citizens.