The Global strategy for women\u27s, children\u27s and adolescents\u27 health (2016-2030): a roadmap based on evidence and country experience.

The Global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health (2016–2030) provides a roadmap for ending preventable deaths of women, children and adolescents by 2030 and helping them achieve their potential for and rights to health and well-being in all settings.1 The global strategy has three objectives: survive (end preventable deaths); thrive (ensure health and well-being); and transform (expand enabling environments). These objectives are aligned with 17 targets within nine of the sustainable development goals (SDGs),2 including SDG 3 on health and other SDGs related to the political, social, economic and environmental determinants of health and sustainable development. Like the SDGs, the global strategy is universal in scope and multisectoral in action, aiming for transformative change across numerous challenging areas for health and sustainable development (Box 1).1The strategy was developed through evidence reviews and syntheses and a global stakeholder consultation,3,4 and draws on new thinking about priorities and approaches for health and sustainable development.4 Particular attention was given to experience gained and lessons learnt by countries during implementation of the previous Global strategy for women’s and children’s health (2010–2015)5 and achieving the millennium development goals (MDGs).6,7 A five-year operational framework with up-to-date technical resources has also been developed to support country-led implementation of the global strategy. This framework will be regularly updated until 2030.1,

Knowledge Summary 23: Human Rights & Accountability

Progress has been made in reducing maternal and child mortality, yet millions continue to die from preventable causes. These deaths represent an accountability challenge and a major concern shared by both the health and human rights communities. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) commit to reducing these deaths. Powerful complementarities exist between MDGs and human rights.1 The MDGs generate attention, mobilise resources and contribute technical health monitoring approaches. Human rights offer a fundamental emphasis on accountability, systematic and sustained attention to inequities and a legal grounding of commitments. This knowledge summary explores human rights accountability systems at community, country, regional and international levels and the potential synergies for achieving both human rights and public health goals including, and beyond, the MDGs

Building health research systems to achieve better health

Health research systems can link knowledge generation with practical concerns to improve health and health equity. Interest in health research, and in how health research systems should best be organised, is moving up the agenda of bodies such as the World Health Organisation. Pioneering health research systems, for example those in Canada and the UK, show that progress is possible. However, radical steps are required to achieve this. Such steps should be based on evidence not anecdotes. Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS) provides a vehicle for the publication of research, and informed opinion, on a range of topics related to the organisation of health research systems and the enormous benefits that can be achieved. Following the Mexico ministerial summit on health research, WHO has been identifying ways in which it could itself improve the use of research evidence. The results from this activity are soon to be published as a series of articles in HARPS. This editorial provides an account of some of these recent key developments in health research systems but places them in the context of a distinguished tradition of debate about the role of science in society. It also identifies some of the main issues on which 'research on health research' has already been conducted and published, in some cases in HARPS. Finding and retaining adequate financial and human resources to conduct health research is a major problem, especially in low and middle income countries where the need is often greatest. Research ethics and agenda-setting that responds to the demands of the public are issues of growing concern. Innovative and collaborative ways are being found to organise the conduct and utilisation of research so as to inform policy, and improve health and health equity. This is crucial, not least to achieve the health-related Millennium Development Goals. But much more progress is needed. The editorial ends by listing a wide range of topics related to the above priorities on which we hope to feature further articles in HARPS and thus contribute to an informed debate on how best to achieve such progress

Knowledge Summary 22: Reaching Child Brides

Child marriage affects 10 million girls under the age of 18 every year. The negative health and social impact of child marriage include higher rates of maternal and infant mortality, sexually transmitted infection, social separation, and domestic abuse compared with older married women. The UN defines Child Marriage as a Human Rights violation and is working to end this practice globally, however many girls still fall victim each year. While the importance of ending the practice of child marriage cannot be overlooked, targeted interventions are also needed to mitigate the negative health and development impacts. Health services can serve as an entry point for health and social interventions to decrease the risks associated with pregnancy and improve reproductive and child health. Health services can also facilitate opportunities for multi-sectoral connections such as formal and informal education and income generation to mitigate the negative impact of child marriage

Do medical students want to learn about global health?

Conflicts of interest and funding: We declare that we have no conflicts of interest. A grant from the Partnership of Maternal, Newborn and Child Health funded this studyPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly required to describe the impact of their work, e.g. in grant proposals, project reports, press releases and research assessment exercises. Specialised impact assessment studies can be difficult to replicate and may require resources and skills not available to individual researchers. Researchers are often hard-pressed to identify and describe research impacts and ad hoc accounts do not facilitate comparison across time or projects. METHODS: The Research Impact Framework was developed by identifying potential areas of health research impact from the research impact assessment literature and based on research assessment criteria, for example, as set out by the UK Research Assessment Exercise panels. A prototype of the framework was used to guide an analysis of the impact of selected research projects at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Additional areas of impact were identified in the process and researchers also provided feedback on which descriptive categories they thought were useful and valid vis-à-vis the nature and impact of their work. RESULTS: We identified four broad areas of impact: I. Research-related impacts; II. Policy impacts; III. Service impacts: health and intersectoral and IV. Societal impacts. Within each of these areas, further descriptive categories were identified. For example, the nature of research impact on policy can be described using the following categorisation, put forward by Weiss: Instrumental use where research findings drive policy-making; Mobilisation of support where research provides support for policy proposals; Conceptual use where research influences the concepts and language of policy deliberations and Redefining/wider influence where research leads to rethinking and changing established practices and beliefs. CONCLUSION: Researchers, while initially sceptical, found that the Research Impact Framework provided prompts and descriptive categories that helped them systematically identify a range of specific and verifiable impacts related to their work (compared to ad hoc approaches they had previously used). The framework could also help researchers think through implementation strategies and identify unintended or harmful effects. The standardised structure of the framework facilitates comparison of research impacts across projects and time, which is useful from analytical, management and assessment perspectives

Bridging the gaps among research, policy and practice in ten low- and middle-income countries: Development and testing of a questionnaire for health-care providers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The reliability and validity of instruments used to survey health-care providers' views about and experiences with research evidence have seldom been examined.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Country teams from ten low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania) participated in the development, translation, pilot-testing and administration of a questionnaire designed to measure health-care providers' views and activities related to improving their clinical practice and their awareness of, access to and use of research evidence, as well as changes in their clinical practice that they attribute to particular sources of research evidence that they have used. We use internal consistency as a measure of the questionnaire's reliability and, whenever possible, we use explanatory factor analyses to assess the degree to which questions that pertain to a single domain actually address common themes. We assess the questionnaire's face validity and content validity and, to a lesser extent, we also explore its criterion validity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The questionnaire has high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas between 0.7 and 0.9 for 16 of 20 domains and sub-domains (identified by factor analyses). Cronbach's alphas are greater than 0.9 for two domains, suggesting some item redundancy. Pre- and post-field work assessments indicate the questionnaire has good face validity and content validity. Our limited assessment of criterion validity shows weak but statistically significant associations between the general influence of research evidence among providers and more specific measures of providers' change in approach to preventing or treating a clinical condition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our analysis points to a number of strengths of the questionnaire - high internal consistency (reliability) and good face and content validity - but also to areas where it can be shortened without losing important conceptual domains.</p