Explore the vast range of titles available.

New drugs for infectious diseases often need to be evaluated in low-resource settings. While people working in such settings often provide high-quality care and perform operational research activities, they generally have less experience in conducting clinical trials designed for drug approval by stringent regulatory authorities. We carried out a capacity-building programme during a multi-centre randomized controlled trial of delamanid, a new drug for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The programme included: (i) site identification and needs assessment; (ii) achieving International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) standards; (iii) establishing trial management; and (iv) increasing knowledge of global and local regulatory issues. Trials were conducted at 17 sites in nine countries (China, Egypt, Estonia, Japan, Latvia, Peru, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America). Eight of the 10 sites in low-resource settings had no experience in conducting the requisite clinical trials. Extensive capacity-building was done in all 10 sites. The programme resulted in improved local capacity in key areas such as trial design, data safety and monitoring, trial conduct and laboratory services. Clinical trials designed to generate data for regulatory approval require additional efforts beyond traditional research-capacity strengthening. Such capacity-building approaches provide an opportunity for product development partnerships to improve health systems beyond the direct conduct of the specific trial.

The monkeypox pandemic has highlighted lessons learned — and sometimes ignored — from Covid-19 and has illustrated the inadequacy of sexual health infrastructure and pandemic preparedness in the United States.

Background Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers’ experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations. Methods We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach. Results This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October – November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication. Discussion Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

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.

Objective: We implemented routine HIV screening as part of the 4-year Care and Prevention in the United States Demonstration Project, whose aim was to reduce HIV/AIDS–related morbidity and mortality among racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States. We describe the capacity-building efforts to implement routine HIV screening and provide lessons learned and implications for practice. Methods: From January 2013 through September 2015, the Public Health Institute of Metropolitan Chicago (PHIMC) implemented routine HIV screening in 7 health care systems in Illinois by providing capacity-building assistance focused on systems and operational infrastructure, staff member skills and organizational structure, and clinic culture. Each site received funding to integrate routine HIV screening into the existing clinic flow, engage the entire health care team in the process, and transform the system and shift clinic culture to sustain HIV screening. Results: All 7 systems established policies and procedures to implement routine screening, 5 systems integrated HIV test ordering and documentation into their electronic health records, and 4 systems established a third-party billing and reimbursement process for testing. The 7 systems conducted a total of 49 285 tests and identified 160 people living with HIV. The number of tests increased by more than 40% each year. Conclusions: PHIMC identified the following practices for consideration when implementing routine HIV screening in general medical settings: create a culture that supports HIV screening, use champions in clinics, integrate HIV screening into clinic flow and electronic health records, and train clinic staff members on HIV messaging. Incorporating these practices can help other clinical settings build capacity to make routine HIV screening a standard of care.

Evidence-based public health (EBPH) practice, also called evidence-informed public health, can improve population health and reduce disease burden in populations. Organizational structures and processes can facilitate capacity-building for EBPH in public health agencies. This study involved 51 structured interviews with leaders and program managers in 12 state health department chronic disease prevention units to identify factors that facilitate the implementation of EBPH. Verbatim transcripts of the de-identified interviews were consensus coded in NVIVO qualitative software. Content analyses of coded texts were used to identify themes and illustrative quotes. Facilitator themes included leadership support within the chronic disease prevention unit and division, unit processes to enhance information sharing across program areas and recruitment and retention of qualified personnel, training and technical assistance to build skills, and the ability to provide support to external partners. Chronic disease prevention leaders’ role modeling of EBPH processes and expectations for staff to justify proposed plans and approaches were key aspects of leadership support. Leaders protected staff time in order to identify and digest evidence to address the common barrier of lack of time for EBPH. Funding uncertainties or budget cuts, lack of political will for EBPH, and staff turnover remained challenges. In conclusion, leadership support is a key facilitator of EBPH capacity building and practice. Section and division leaders in public health agencies with authority and skills can institute management practices to help staff learn and apply EBPH processes and spread EBPH with partners.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of 2 hospital-wide interventions on achieving a discharge-before-noon rate of 40%. BACKGROUND:A multidisciplinary team led by administrative and physician leadership developed a plan to diminish capacity constraints by minimizing late afternoon hospital discharges using 2 patient flow management techniques. METHODS:The study was a preintervention/postintervention retrospective analysis observing all inpatients discharged across 19 inpatient units in a 484-bed, academic teaching hospital measuring calendar month discharge-before-noon percentage, patient satisfaction, and readmission rates. Patient satisfaction and readmission rates were used as baseline metrics. RESULTS:The discharge-before-noon percentage increased from 14% in the 11-month preintervention period to an average of 24% over the 11-month postintervention period, whereas patient satisfaction scores and readmission rates remained stable. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of the 2 interventions successfully increased the percentage of discharges before noon yet did not achieve the goal of 40%. Patient satisfaction and readmission rates were not negatively impacted by the program.

Healthcare organizations face challenges in efficiently accommodating increased patient demand with limited resources and capacity. The modern reimbursement environment prioritizes the maximization of operational efficiency and the reduction of unnecessary costs (i.e., waste) while maintaining or improving quality. As healthcare organizations adapt, significant pressures are placed on leaders to make difficult operational and budgetary decisions. In lieu of hard data, decision makers often base these decisions on subjective information. Discrete event simulation (DES), a computerized method of imitating the operation of a real-world system (e.g., healthcare delivery facility) over time, can provide decision makers with an evidence-based tool to develop and objectively vet operational solutions prior to implementation. DES in healthcare commonly focuses on (1) improving patient flow, (2) managing bed capacity, (3) scheduling staff, (4) managing patient admission and scheduling procedures, and (5) using ancillary resources (e.g., labs, pharmacies). This article describes applicable scenarios, outlines DES concepts, and describes the steps required for development. An original DES model developed to examine crowding and patient flow for staffing decision making at an urban academic emergency department serves as a practical example.

Background Owing to the infrequent emergence of disasters and the challenges associated with their management, responders need appropriate training beyond doubt. Ensuring the highest standard of disaster management (DM) training is of paramount importance for high-quality DM. However, the literature concerning DM training monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is scarce. The primary objective of this review was to document the existing M&E strategies for DM training. Methods The authors conducted a systematic literature search on June 28, 2023, on the PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases, including studies that described the learning objectives and the M&E strategy of DM training. The authors categorized the learning objectives and the evaluation methodology according to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and the New World Kirkpatrick model, respectively. Results Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, described DM training targeting healthcare and non-healthcare professionals and employed diverse teaching methods and topics. Five studies reported using monitoring, while all reported an evaluation methodology. The learning objectives focused on students’ ability to “Remember” ( N  = 50) and “Apply”( N  = 44). The evaluations centred around the second level of the New World Kirkpatrick model ( N  = 57), with only 7 articles investigating the third level. Sixteen authors used existing, validated M&E frameworks. When corelating the learning objectives with the evaluation methodology, the authors observed a mismatch, as skills like the students’ ability to “Apply” and “Create” were evaluated using the second level of the New World Kirkpatrick model. Conclusions The great heterogeneity in DM training highlights the particularity of these educational programs. The lack of monitoring and the low usage of existing M&E frameworks highlighted a lack of awareness and standardization in the field. The mismatch between the learning objectives and the evaluation process led to deceptive evaluations, which may have resulted in graduates being deemed ready to deploy despite facing hardships in real-world settings, potentially leading to unprepared responders.

Background The need to build capacity for health policy and systems research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries has been underscored as this encompasses the processes of decision-making at all levels of the health system. This implementation research project was undertaken in Southeast Nigeria to evaluate whether the capacity-building intervention improves the capacity to produce and use research evidence for decision making in endemic disease control. Methods Three training workshops were organized for purposively selected participants comprising “producers of evidence” such as health research scientists in three universities and “users of evidence” such as policy makers, program managers, and implementers in the public health sector. Participants also held step-down workshops in their organizations. The last workshop was used to facilitate the formation of knowledge networks comprising of both producers and users, which is a critical step for getting research into policy and practice (GRIPP). Three months after the workshops, a subset, 40, of workshop participants was selected for in-depth interviews. Information was collected on (i) perceptions of usefulness of capacity-building workshops, (ii) progress with proposed research and research uptake activities, (iii) effects of these activities on evidence-informed decision making, and (iv) constraints and enablers to implementation of proposed activities. Results Most participants felt the workshops provided them with new competencies and skills in one or more of research priority setting, evidence generation, communication, and use for the control of endemic diseases. Participants were at different stages of planning and implementing their proposed research and research uptake activities, and were engaging across professional and disciplinary boundaries to ensure relevance and usefulness of outputs for decision making. Key enablers of successful implementation of activities were positive team dynamics, good balance of competencies, effective communication and engagement within teams, team leader’s capacity to innovate, and personal interests such as career progress. Lack of funding, limited decision space, organizational bureaucracies, and poor infrastructure were the key constraints to the implementation of proposed activities. Lack of mentorship and continuous support from trainers delayed progress with implementing proposed activities. Conclusions The capacity-building interventions contributed to the development of a critical mass of research scientists, policy makers, and practitioners who have varying levels of competencies in HPSR for endemic disease control and would require further support in carrying out their medium and long-term goals.