Research workshop to research work: initial steps in establishing health research systems on Malaita, Solomon Islands

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Atoifi Adventist Hospital is a 90 bed general hospital in East Kwaio, Malaita, Solomon Islands providing services to the population of subsistence villagers of the region. Health professionals at the hospital and attached College of Nursing have considerable human capacity and willingness to undertake health research. However they are constrained by limited research experience, training opportunities, research systems, physical infrastructure and access to resources. This brief commentary describes an 'Introduction to Health Research' workshop delivered at Atoifi Adventist Hospital in September 2009 and efforts to move from 'research workshop' to 'research work'.</p> <p>The Approach</p> <p>Using a participatory-action research approach underpinned by decolonising methodologies, staff from Atoifi Adventist Hospital and James Cook University (Queensland, Australia) collaboratively designed, implemented and evaluated a health research workshop. Basic health research principles and methods were presented using active learning methodologies. Following the workshop, Atoifi Adventist Hospital and Atoifi College of Nursing staff, other professionals and community members reported an increased awareness and understanding of health research. The formation of a local Research Committee, improved ethics review procedures and the identification of local research mentors followed the week long workshop. The workshop has acted as a catalyst for research activity, increasing structural and human resource capacity for local health professionals and community leaders to engage in research.</p> <p>Discussion and Conclusions</p> <p>Participants from a variety of educational backgrounds participated in, and received benefit from, a responsive, culturally and linguistically accessible health research workshop. Improving health research systems at a remote hospital and aligning these with local and national research agendas is establishing a base to strengthen public health research and practice on Malaita, Solomon Islands.</p

How and why do participatory women's groups (PWGs) improve the quality of maternal and child health (MCH) care? A systematic review protocol

Introduction: Community-based Participatory Women's Groups (PWGs) have proven to be an effective intervention to improve maternal and child health (MCH) outcomes in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Less is known about how PWGs exert their effects in LMICs and virtually nothing is known about the contextual issues, processes and power relationships that affect PWG outcomes in high resource settings. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise and critically analyse the current evidence on how and why PWGs improve the quality of MCH care. We aim to demonstrate how PWGs function and why PWG interventions contribute to social and health outcomes. Methods and Analysis: The protocol will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. The databases Medline (Ovid): Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Ebsco); Informit health suite Scopus, Australian HealthInfoNet, the Cochrane Library and other sources will be searched under broad categories: intervention, context and outcomes to 30 June 2019. Ethics and Dissemination: As only secondary data will be analysed; ethical approval is not required. The review will be disseminated to relevant organisations and presented in peer-reviewed papers and at conferences. This will be the first attempt to summarise the current available evidence on the characteristics, contextual influences and mechanisms that are associated with the outcomes and effectiveness of PWGs.Robyn Preston, Sam Rannard, Catrina Felton-Busch, Sarah Larkins, Karla Canuto, Karen Carlisle, Rebecca Evans, Michelle Redman-MacLaren, Judy Taylor, Nalita Nungarrayi Turner, Lee Yeomans, Emma Sanguineti, Megan Passey, Jane Farme

Rapid Ethical Appraisal: A tool to design a contextualized consent process for a genetic study of podoconiosis in Ethiopia

Background: Obtaining genuine informed consent from research participants in developing countries can be difficult, partly due to poor knowledge about research process and research ethics. The situation is complicated when conducting genomic research on a disease considered familial and a reason for stigmatisation. Methods: We used a Rapid Ethical Appraisal tool to assess local factors that were barriers to getting genuine informed consent prior to conducting a genetic study of podoconiosis (non-filarial elephantiasis) in two Zones of Ethiopia. The tool included in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with patients, healthy community members, field workers, researchers/Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, elders, religious leaders, and podoconiosis administrators who work closely with patients. Results: Most patients and healthy community members did not differentiate research from routine clinical diagnosis. Participants felt comfortable when approached in the presence of trusted community members. Field workers and podoconiosis administrators preferred verbal consent, whereas the majority of patients and healthy community members prefer both verbal and written consent. Participants better understood genetic susceptibility concepts when analogies drawn from their day-to-day experience were used. The type of biological sample sought and gender were the two most important factors affecting the recruitment process. Most researchers and IRB members indicated that reporting incidental findings to participants is not a priority in an Ethiopian context. Conclusions: Understanding the concerns of local people in areas where research is to be conducted facilitates the design of contextualized consent processes appropriate for all parties and will ultimately result in getting genuine consent

Contextualising social capital in online brand communities

Online brand communities (OBC) are growing in number and becoming an increasingly important interface where marketers can effectively facilitate the relationship between their brand and consumers. A qualitative study using a four-month netnography over three OBCs followed by focus groups with OBC members explored the dynamics of social capital in these communities. Findings indicate that social capital is an important driver in the success of OBCs, and all the elements of social capital including a shared language, shared vision, social trust and reciprocity are evident. Moreover, results from this study indicate that these elements are crucial in developing the network ties that are integral to building loyalty and brand equity

Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact.

Background: At a time of growing emphasis on both the use of research and accountability, it is important for research funders, researchers and other stakeholders to monitor and evaluate the extent to which research contributes to better action for health, and find ways to enhance the likelihood that beneficial contributions are realized. Past attempts to assess research 'impact' struggle with operationalizing 'impact', identifying the users of research and attributing impact to research projects as source. In this article we describe Contribution Mapping, a novel approach to research monitoring and evaluation that aims to assess contributions instead of impacts. The approach focuses on processes and actors and systematically assesses anticipatory efforts that aim to enhance contributions, so-called alignment efforts. The approach is designed to be useful for both accountability purposes and for assisting in better employing research to contribute to better action for health.Methods: Contribution Mapping is inspired by a perspective from social studies of science on how research and knowledge utilization processes evolve. For each research project that is assessed, a three-phase process map is developed that includes the main actors, activities and alignment efforts during research formulation, production and knowledge extension (e.g. dissemination and utilization). The approach focuses on the actors involved in, or interacting with, a research project (the linked actors) and the most likely influential users, who are referred to as potential key users. In the first stage, the investigators of the assessed project are interviewed to develop a preliminary version of the process map and first estimation of research-related contributions. In the second stage, potential key-users and other informants are interviewed to trace, explore and triangulate possible contributions. In the third stage, the presence and role of alignment efforts is analyzed and the preliminary results are shared with relevant stakeholders for feedback and validation. After inconsistencies are clarified or described, the results are shared with stakeholders for learning, improvement and accountability purposes.Conclusion: Contribution Mapping provides an interesting alternative to existing methods that aim to assess research impact. The method is expected to be useful for research monitoring, single case studies, comparing multiple cases and indicating how research can better be employed to contribute to better action for health. © 2012 Kok and Schuit; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

Background Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening. Main text The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. Conclusions The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches — conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.Health Evidence Network Evidence Synthesis; NIH

How and why do women's groups (WGs) improve the quality of maternal and child health (MCH) care? A systematic review of the literature

Background This systematic review was undertaken to assist the implementation of the WOmen’s action for Mums and Bubs (WOMB) project which explores Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community women’s group (WG) action to improve maternal and child health (MCH) outcomes. There is now considerable international evidence that WGs improve MCH outcomes, and we were interested in understanding how and why this occurs. The following questions guided the review: (1) What are the characteristics, contextual influences and group processes associated with the MCH outcomes of WGs? (2) What are the theoretical and conceptual approaches to WGs? (3) What are the implications likely to inform Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander WGs? Methods We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid); CINAHL (Ebsco); Informit health suite, Scopus, Emcare (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library and Informit), online search registers and grey literature using the terms mother, child, group, participatory and community and their variations during all time periods to January 2021. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Population: studies involving community WGs in any country. (2) Intervention: a program/intervention involving any aspect of community WGs planning, acting, learning and reviewing MCH improvements. (3) Outcome: studies with WGs reported a component of: (i) MCH outcomes; or (ii) improvements in the quality of MCH care or (iii) improvements in socioemotional well-being of mothers and/or children. (4) Context: the primary focus of initiatives must be in community-based or primary health care settings. (5) Process: includes some description of the process of WGs or any factors influencing the process. (6) Language: English. (7) Study design: all types of quantitative and qualitative study designs involving primary research and data collection. Data were extracted under 14 headings and a narrative synthesis identified group characteristics and analysed the conceptual approach to community participation, the use of theory and group processes. An Australian typology of community participation, concepts from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander group work and an adapted framework of Cohen and Uphoff were used to synthesise results. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Results Thirty-five (35) documents were included with studies conducted in 19 countries. Fifteen WGs used participatory learning and action cycles and the remainder used cultural learning, community development or group health education. Group activities, structure and who facilitated groups was usually identified. Intergroup relationships and decision-making were less often described as were important concepts from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander perspective (the primacy of culture, relationships and respect). All but two documents used an explicit theoretical approach. Using the typology of community participation, WGs were identified as predominantly developmental (22), instrumental (10), empowerment (2) and one was unclear. Discussion A framework to categorise links between contextual factors operating at micro, meso and macro levels, group processes and MCH improvements is required. Currently, despite a wealth of information about WGs, it was difficult to determine the methods through which they achieved their outcomes. This review adds to existing systematic reviews about the functioning of WGs in MCH improvement in that it covers WGs in both high-income and low-income settings, identifies the theory underpinning the WGs and classifies the conceptual approach to participation. It also introduces an Australian Indigenous perspective into analysis of WGs used to improve MCH.Karla Canuto, Robyn Preston, Sam Rannard, Catrina Felton-Busch, Lynore Geia, Lee Yeomans, Nalita Turner, Quitaysha Thompson, Karen Carlisle, Rebecca Evans, Megan Passey, Sarah Larkins, Michelle Redman-MacLaren, Jane Farmer, Melody Muscat, Judy Taylo