Design of financial incentive interventions to improve lifestyle behaviors and health outcomes: A systematic review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Background: Financial incentives may improve the initiation and engagement of behaviour change that reduce the negative outcomes associated with non-communicable diseases. There is still a paucity in guidelines or recommendations that help define key aspects of incentive-oriented interventions, including the type of incentive (e.g. cash rewards, vouchers), the frequency and magnitude of the incentive, and its mode of delivery. We aimed to systematically review the literature on financial incentives that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or improve health profiles, and focused on the methodological approach to define the incentive intervention and its delivery. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on 26 July 2018 (CRD42018102556). Methods: We sought studies in which a financial incentive was delivered to improve a health-related lifestyle behaviour (e.g., physical activity) or a health profile (e.g., HbA1c in people with diabetes). The search (which took place on March 3rd 2018) was conducted using OVID (MEDLINE and Embase), CINAHL and Scopus. Results: The search yielded 7,575 results and 37 were included for synthesis. Of the total, 83.8% (31/37) of the studies were conducted in the US, and 40.5% (15/37) were randomised controlled trials. Only one study reported the background and rationale followed to develop the incentive and conducted a focus group to understand what sort of incentives would be acceptable for their study population. There was a degree of consistency across the studies in terms of the direction, form, certainty, and recipient of the financial incentives used, but the magnitude and immediacy of the incentives were heterogeneous. Conclusions: The available literature on financial incentives to improve health-related lifestyles rarely reports on the rationale or background that defines the incentive approach, the magnitude of the incentive and other relevant details of the intervention, and the reporting of this information is essential to foster its use as potential effective interventions

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND:Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). METHODS:Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. RESULTS:The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. CONCLUSION:This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

“proyecto para la reestructuración de un complejo eco- turístico en las cascadas de manuel en el cantón El Guabo”

Las Cascadas de Manuel es un lugar que puede aportar mucho para el turismo en el Ecuador siendo éste uno de los factores más influyentes en la economía del país; pero es un lugar que aún no ha sido explotado en su totalidad debido a la falta de infraestructura que posee la zona. El objetivo de este proyecto está enfocado a la reestructuración del complejo eco-turístico y en la preparación e implementación de un plan estratégico de marketing, para explotar el potencial turístico inactivo y desperdiciado en esta zona; gracias a este proyecto se mejorara la calidad de vida de los habitantes de la zona y a su vez la economía del país. Mediante la ejecución del proyecto; se espera obtener resultados positivos y que consecuentemente a esto; pueda ser implantado para de ésta forma incrementar los ingresos del país mediante el turismo; atraído por un lugar que brindará a las personas un ambiente acogedor donde pasarán agradables momentos de esparcimiento y diversión junto a sus familiares y amigos, además de conocer y disfrutar del variado ecosistema que posee ésta parte costera del país; los que serán explotados de manera correcta mediante el desarrollo del proyecto en cuestión

[Healthcare challenges for people with diabetes during the national state of emergency due to COVID-19 in Lima, Peru: primary healthcare recommendations]

Patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, who then become infected with SARS-CoV-2, are at greater risk of developing complications from COVID-19, which may even lead to death. Diabetes is a chronic condition that requires continuous contact with healthcare facilities; therefore, this type of patients should have regular access to medicines, tests and appointments with healthcare personnel. In Peru, care and treatment continuity have been affected since the national state of emergency due to COVID-19 began; because many healthcare facilities suspended outpatient consultations. The strategies presented in this study were developed by different Peruvian health providers in the pandemic context to ensure care continuity for people with diabetes. This article provides recommendations to strengthen primary healthcare, because it is the first level of healthcare contact for patients with diabetes

Process evaluation in the field: Global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background: Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods: Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results: The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion: This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts