How do reminder systems in follow-up screening for women with previous gestational diabetes work? - a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Women with previous gestational diabetes have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life. Recommendations therefore urge these women to participate in follow-up screening, 4-12 weeks postpartum and every 1-3 years thereafter. We sought to theorize how reminder interventions to support early detection of diabetes work, for whom, and in what circumstances. METHODS: We used a method informed by realist review and synthesis. A systematic, iterative search in six electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE Ovid, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE) had a primary focus on experimental intervention studies and included additional information in relation to identified intervention studies. Analysis inductively identified context-mechanism-outcome configurations present in the evidence. RESULTS: We located 16 articles eligible for inclusion. A cross-case comparison identified seven grouped context-mechanism-outcome configurations leading to intervention mechanisms relating to changes in women's reasoning and behavior. Configurations were thematically ordered in relation to Systems Resources, Women's Circumstances, and Continuity of Care. These were mapped onto a socio-ecological model and discussed according to identified middle-range theories. CONCLUSION: Our findings adds to the body of evidence, that reminders have the potential to be effective in increasing participation in the recommended follow-up screening. Our study may assist researchers and policy and decision makers to analyze and judge if reminders are feasible and/or likely to succeed in their specific context. Further research into the perspective of socially disadvantaged and overweight women is needed to avoid unintended consequences such as social inequality in service use and stigmatization in future programs

Co-production as an emerging methodology for developing school-based health interventions with students aged 11-16: Systematic review of intervention types, theories and processes and thematic synthesis of stakeholders’ experiences

Co-production affords an intervention’s target population the opportunity to participate in intervention theory decision-making during the development process. This addresses the over-reliance on developing interventions through academic theories which can be devoid of contextual understanding and result in challenges to implementing school-based health programmes. There is an emergent empirical literature on co-producing school-based health interventions, but an understanding of appropriate theoretical types and processes and stakeholders’ experiences is lacking. Through the conduct of a systematic review, this study seeks to understand the types and underlying theories and processes for co-production in school-based health interventions with students aged 11–16. A thematic synthesis explored stakeholders’ experiences of the different types of co-production. A systematic search of five electronic bibliographic databases, citation tracking of included studies, and consultation with an expert international panel were employed. Of 27,433 unique papers, 30 papers representing 22 studies were retained to describe types, and 23 papers of 18 studies used to synthesise stakeholders’ experiences. Three types were identified: external, individual-level, and system-level capacity-building. Whilst this review showed variability in co-production types, stakeholders involved and processes, shared functions were identified. Students’, school staff, facilitators’ and researchers’ experiences in terms of acceptability, feasibility and undertaking decision-making are discussed. Recommendations for conceptualising and reporting co-production and process evaluations of co-produced school-based health interventions are highlighted

Evaluating implementation strategies for essential newborn care interventions in low- and low middle-income countries: a systematic review

Neonatal mortality remains a significant health problem in low income settings. Low-cost essential newborn care (ENC) interventions with proven efficacy and cost-effectiveness exist but have not reached high coverage (≥90%). Little is known about the strategies used to implement these interventions or how they relate to improved coverage. We conducted a systematic review of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes for ENC in low- and low middle-income countries capturing evidence from five medical and global health databases from 1990-2018. We included studies of implementation of delayed cord clamping, immediate drying, skin-to-skin contact, and/or early initiation of breastfeeding implemented in the first hour (facility-based studies) or the first day (community-based studies) of life. Implementation strategies and outcomes were categorised according to published frameworks (Powell et al (2015): Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), Proctor et al (2013): Outcomes for Implementation Research). The relationship between implementation strategies and outcomes was evaluated using standardised mean differences and correlation coefficients. Forty-three papers met inclusion criteria. Interventions included community-based care/health promotion and facility-based support and health care provider training. Included studies used 3-31 implementation strategies, , though the consistency with which strategies were applied was variable. Conduct educational meetings was the most frequently used strategy. Included studies reported 1-4 implementation outcomes with coverage reported most frequently. Heterogeneity was high and no statistically significant association was found between the number of implementation strategies used and coverage of ENC. This review highlights several challenges in learning from implementation of ENC in low- and low middle-income countries, particularly poor description of interventions and implementation outcomes. We recommend use of UK Medical Research Council guidelines (2015) for process evaluations and checklists for reporting implementation studies. Improved reporting of implementation research in this setting is necessary to learn how to improve service delivery and outcomes and thereby reduce neonatal mortality