A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs

Determining the psychometric properties of the Enhancing Decision-making Assessment in Midwifery (EDAM) measure in a cross cultural context

© 2016 Jefford et al. Background: The ability to act on and justify clinical decisions as autonomous accountable midwifery practitioners, is encompassed within many international regulatory frameworks, yet decision-making within midwifery is poorly defined. Decision-making theories from medicine and nursing may have something to offer, but fail to take into consideration midwifery context and philosophy and the decisional autonomy of women. Using an underpinning qualitative methodology, a decision-making framework was developed, which identified Good Clinical Reasoning and Good Midwifery Practice as two conditions necessary to facilitate optimal midwifery decision-making during 2nd stage labour. This study aims to confirm the robustness of the framework and describe the development of Enhancing Decision-making Assessment in Midwifery (EDAM) as a measurement tool through testing of its factor structure, validity and reliability. Method: A cross-sectional design for instrument development and a 2 (country; Australia/UK) x 2 (Decision-making; optimal/sub-optimal) between-subjects design for instrument evaluation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency and known-groups validity. Two 'expert' maternity panels, based in Australia and the UK, comprising of 42 participants assessed 16 midwifery real care episode vignettes using the empirically derived 26 item framework. Each item was answered on a 5 point likert scale based on the level of agreement to which the participant felt each item was present in each of the vignettes. Participants were then asked to rate the overall decision-making (optimal/sub-optimal). Findings: Post factor analysis the framework was reduced to a 19 item EDAM measure, and confirmed as two distinct scales of 'Clinical Reasoning' (CR) and 'Midwifery Practice' (MP). The CR scale comprised of two subscales; 'the clinical reasoning process' and 'integration and intervention'. The MP scale also comprised two subscales; women's relationship with the midwife' and 'general midwifery practice'. Conclusion: EDAM would generally appear to be a robust, valid and reliable psychometric instrument for measuring midwifery decision-making, which performs consistently across differing international contexts. The 'women's relationship with midwife' subscale marginally failed to meet the threshold for determining good instrument reliability, which may be due to its brevity. Further research using larger samples and in a wider international context to confirm the veracity of the instrument's measurement properties and its wider global utility, would be advantageous

The Future of EU Cohesion Policy. Endogenous Development – Added Value of Intervention – Regulatory Frameworks

The successful operation of the regional development – or cohesion – policy of the European Union has a strategic importance from the point of view of the whole integration process. Strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion and decreasing disparities between member states and regions are not only one of the main priorities of the integration, but at the same time these are justified expectations of the people living in the member states of the union. The cohesion transfers should be spent on those factors which have the biggest contribution to the improvement of development prospects and competitiveness in the given regions. Theories on regional development have controversial conclusions about the long-term formation of development disparities. However, it has become evident that successful development policies are based on endogenous factors, innovation and well-functioning institutions. After examining theoretical considerations and regional disparities the study analyses the impacts of EU regional policy and evaluates the main elements of the proposed regulatory frameworks for the period 2014-2020

Improving the sustainability of hospital-based interventions: a study protocol for a systematic review

Introduction Sustaining effective interventions in hospital environments is essential to improving health outcomes, and reducing research waste. Current evidence suggests many interventions are not sustained beyond their initial delivery. The reason for this failure remains unclear. Increasingly research is employing theoretical frameworks and models to identify critical factors that influence the implementation of interventions. However, little is known about the value of these frameworks on sustainability. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence regarding the use of theoretical frameworks to maximise effective intervention sustainability in hospital-based settings in order to better understand their role in supporting long-term intervention use. Methods and analysis Systematic review. We will systematically search the following databases: Medline, AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA). We will also hand search relevant journals and will check the bibliographies of all included studies. Language and date limitations will be applied. We will include empirical studies that have used a theoretical framework (or model) and have explicitly reported the sustainability of an intervention (or programme). One reviewer will remove obviously irrelevant titles. The remaining abstracts and full-text articles will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine their eligibility for inclusion. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion, and may involve a third reviewer if required. Key study characteristics will be extracted (study design, population demographics, setting, evidence of sustained change, use of theoretical frameworks and any barriers or facilitators data reported) by one reviewer and cross-checked by another reviewer. Descriptive data will be tabulated within evidence tables, and key findings will be brought together within a narrative synthesis. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Dissemination of results will be through peer-reviewed journal publications, presentation at an international conference and social media