Stakeholder views on the incorporation of traditional birth attendants into the formal health systems of low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative analysis of the HIFA2015 and CHILD2015 email discussion forums.

BACKGROUND: Health workforce shortages are key obstacles to the achievement of the health-related Millennium Development Goals. Task shifting is seen as a way to improve access to pregnancy and childbirth care. However, the role of traditional birth attendants (TBAs) within task shifting initiatives remains contested. The objective of this study was to explore stakeholder views and justifications regarding the incorporation of TBAs into formal health systems. METHODS: Data were drawn from messages submitted to the HIFA2015 and CHILD2015 email discussion forums. The forums focus on the healthcare information needs of frontline health workers and citizens in low - and middle-income countries, and how these needs can be met, and also include discussion of diverse aspects of health systems. Messages about TBAs submitted between 2007-2011 were analysed thematically. RESULTS: We identified 658 messages about TBAs from a total of 193 participants. Most participants supported the incorporation of trained TBAs into primary care systems to some degree, although their justifications for doing so varied. Participant viewpoints were influenced by the degree to which TBA involvement was seen as a long-term or short-term solution and by the tasks undertaken by TBAs. CONCLUSIONS: Many forum members indicated that they were supportive of trained TBAs being involved in the provision of pregnancy care. Members noted that TBAs were already frequently used by women and that alternative options were lacking. However, a substantial minority regarded doing so as a threat to the quality and equity of healthcare. The extent of TBA involvement needs to be context-specific and should be based on evidence on effectiveness as well as evidence on need, acceptability and feasibility

Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study

Objective To examine the use of qualitative approaches alongside randomised trials of complex healthcare interventions

User experiences of evidence-based online resources for health professionals: user testing of The Cochrane Library.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based decision making relies on easy access to trustworthy research results. The Cochrane Library is a key source of evidence about the effect of interventions and aims to "promote the accessibility of systematic reviews to anyone wanting to make a decision about health care". We explored how health professionals found, used and experienced The Library, looking at facets of user experience including findability, usability, usefulness, credibility, desirability and value. METHODS: We carried out 32 one-hour usability tests on participants from Norway and the UK. Participants both browsed freely and attempted to perform individually tailored tasks while "thinking aloud". Sessions were recorded and viewed in real time by researchers. Transcriptions and videos were reviewed by one researcher and one designer. Findings reported here reflect issues receiving a high degree of saturation and that we judge to be critical to the user experience of evidence-based web sites, based on principles for usability heuristics, web guidelines and evidence-based practice. RESULTS: Participants had much difficulty locating both the site and its contents. Non-native English speakers were at an extra disadvantage when retrieving relevant documents despite high levels of English-language skills. Many participants displayed feelings of ineptitude, alienation and frustration. Some made serious mistakes in correctly distinguishing between different information types, for instance reviews, review protocols, and individual studies. Although most expressed a high regard for the site's credibility, some later displayed a mistrust of the independence of the information. Others were overconfident, thinking everything on The Cochrane Library site shared the same level of quality approval. CONCLUSION: Paradoxically, The Cochrane Library, established to support easy access to research evidence, has its own problems of accessibility. Health professionals' experiences of this and other evidence-based online resources can be improved by applying existing principles for web usability, prioritizing the development of simple search functionality, emitting "researcher" jargon, consistent marking of site ownership, and clear signposting of different document types and different content quality

Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the effects of a summary-of-findings (SoF) table on user satisfaction, understanding, and time spent finding key results in a Cochrane review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We randomized participants in an evidence-based practice workshop (randomized controlled trial [RCT] I) and a Cochrane Collaboration entities meeting (RCT II) to receive a Cochrane review with or without an SoF table. In RCT I, we measured user satisfaction. In RCT II, we measured correct comprehension and time spent finding key results. RESULTS: RCT I: Participants with the SoF table (n=47) were more likely to "agree" or "strongly agree" that it was easy to find results for important outcomes than (n=25) participants without the SoF table-68% vs. 40% (P=0.021). RCT II: Participants with the SoF table (n=18) were more likely to correctly answer two questions regarding results than (n=15) those without the SoF table: 93% vs. 44% (P=0.003) and 87% vs. 11% (P<0.001). Participants with the SoF table spent an average of 90 seconds to find key information compared with 4 minutes for participants without the SoF table (P=0.002). CONCLUSION: In two small trials, we found that inclusion of an SoF table in a review improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key findings compared with reviews with no SoF table

Blueprints for informed policy decisions: A review of laws and policies requiring routine evaluation

publishedVersio

Portals to Wonderland: Health portals lead to confusing information about the effects of health care

BACKGROUND: The Internet offers a seemingly endless amount of health information of varying quality. Health portals, which provide entry points to quality-controlled collections of websites, have been hailed as a solution to this problem. The objective of this study is to assess the extent to which government-run health portals provide access to relevant, valid and understandable information about the effects of health care. METHODS: We selected eight clinically relevant questions for which there was a systematic review, searched four portals for answers, and compared the answers we found to the results of the systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our searches resulted in 3400 hits, 155 of which mentioned both the condition and the intervention in one of the eight questions. Sixty-three of the 155 web pages did not give any information about the effect of the intervention. Seventy-seven qualitatively described the effects of the intervention. Twenty-six of these had information that was too unclear to be categorised; 15 were not consistent with the systematic review; and 36 were consistent with the review, but usually did not mention what happens without the intervention, what outcomes have been measured or when they were measured. Fifteen web pages quantitatively described effects. Four of these were abstracts from the systematic review, nine had information that was incomplete and potentially misleading because of a lack of information about people not receiving the intervention and the length of follow-up; one had information that was consistent with the review, but only referred to three trials whereas the review included six; and one was consistent with the review. CONCLUSION: Information accessible through health portals is unlikely to be based on systematic reviews and is often unclear, incomplete and misleading. Portals are only as good as the websites they lead to. Investments in national health portals are unlikely to benefit consumers without investments in the production and maintenance of relevant, valid and understandable information to which the portals lead

Using the COMMVAC taxonomy to map vaccination communication interventions in Mozambique

Improved communication about childhood vaccination is fundamental to increasing vaccine uptake in low-income countries. Mozambique, with 64% of children fully vaccinated, uses a range of communication interventions to promote uptake of childhood immunisation.; Using a taxonomy developed by the 'Communicate to Vaccinate' (COMMVAC) project, the study aims to identify and classify the existing communication interventions for vaccination in Mozambique and to find the gaps.; We used a qualitative research approach to identify the range of communication interventions used in Mozambique. In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with key purposively selected personnel at national level and relevant documents were collected and analysed. These data were complemented with observations of communication during routine vaccination and campaigns in Nampula province. We used the COMMVAC taxonomy, which organises vaccination communication intervention according to its intended purpose and the population targeted, to map both routine and campaign interventions.; We identified interventions used in campaign and routine vaccination, or in both, fitting five of the seven taxonomy purposes, with informing or educating community members predominating. We did not identify any interventions that aimed to provide support or facilitate decision-making. There were interventions for all main target groups, although fewer for health providers. Overlap occurred: for example, interventions often targeted both parents and community members.; We consider that the predominant focus on informing and educating community members is appropriate in the Mozambican context, where there is a high level of illiteracy and poor knowledge of the reasons for vaccination. We recommend increasing interventions for health providers, in particular training them in better communication for vaccination. The taxonomy was useful for identifying gaps, but needs to be more user-friendly if it is to be employed as a tool by health service managers

The TRANSFER Approach for assessing the transferability of systematic review findings

publishedVersio

User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a Summary of Findings (SoF) table for use in Cochrane reviews that is understandable and useful for health professionals, acceptable to Cochrane Collaboration stakeholders, and feasible to implement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We gathered stakeholder feedback on the format and content of an SoF table from an advisory group of more than 50 participants and their constituencies through e-mail consultations. We conducted user tests using a think-aloud protocol method, collecting feedback from 21 health professionals and researchers in Norway and the UK. We analyzed the feedback, defined problem areas, and generated new solutions in brainstorming workshops. RESULTS: Stakeholders were concerned about precision in the data representation and about production feasibility. User testing revealed unexpected comprehension problems, mainly confusion about what the different numbers referred to (class reference). Resolving the tension between achieving table precision and table simplicity became the main focus of the working group. CONCLUSION: User testing led to a table more useful and understandable for clinical audiences. We arrived at an SoF table that was acceptable to the stakeholders and in principle feasible to implement technically. Some challenges remain, including presenting continuous outcomes and technical/editorial implementation

Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: A case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is used increasingly alongside trials of complex interventions to explore processes, contextual factors, or intervention characteristics that may have influenced trial outcomes. Qualitative research conducted alongside trials can also be used to shed light on the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness by looking for factors that can help explain heterogeneous results across trials. In a Cochrane review on the effects of using lay health workers on maternal and child health and infectious disease control, we identified 82 trials. These trials showed promising benefits but results were heterogeneous. OBJECTIVE: To use qualitative studies conducted alongside these trials to explore factors and processes that might have influenced intervention outcomes. METHODS: We attempted to identify qualitative research carried out alongside the trials by contacting trial authors, checking papers for references to qualitative research, searching Pubmed for related studies, and carrying out citation searches. For those qualitative studies that we included, we extracted information regarding study objective, data collection and analysis methods, and key themes and categories. RESULTS: For 52 (63%) of the trials, we found no qualitative research that had been conducted alongside the trials. For 16 (20%) trials, some form of qualitative data collection had been done but was unavailable or had been done before the trial. For 14 (17%) trials, qualitative research had been done during or shortly after the trial, although descriptions of qualitative methods and results were often sparse. Most of these 14 studies aimed to elicit trial participants' perspectives and experiences of the intervention. A common theme was participants' appreciation of the lay health workers' shared circumstances, for instance with regard to social background or experience of the health condition. In six studies, researchers explored the experiences of the lay health workers themselves. Issues included the importance of regular supervision and health professionals' support or lack of support. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative studies carried out alongside trials of complex interventions could offer opportunities to authors of systematic reviews of effectiveness wishing to understand the heterogeneity of trial results. For interventions of lay health worker programmes at least, too few such studies exist at present for these opportunities to be realised