Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa. METHODS: This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified. RESULTS: The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement. ...

Background There is increased international focus on improving the rigour of clinical practice guideline (CPG) development practices. However, few empirical studies on CPG development have been conducted in low- and middle-income countries. This paper explores national stakeholders' perceptions of processes informing CPG development for primary healthcare in South Africa, focusing on both their aspirations and views of what is actually occurring. Methods A qualitative study design was employed including individual interviews with 37 South African primary care CPG development role-players. Participants represented various disciplines, sectors and provinces. The data were analysed through thematic analysis and an interpretivist conceptual framework. Results Strongly reflecting current international standards, participants identified six 'aspirational' processes that they thought should inform South African CPG development, as follows: (1) evidence; (2) stakeholder consultation; (3) transparency; (4) management of interests; (5) communication/co-ordination between CPG development groups; and (6) fit-for-context. While perceptions of a transition towards more robust processes was common, CPG development was seen to face ongoing challenges with regards to all six aspirational processes. Many challenges were attributed to inadequate financial and human resources, which were perceived to hinder capacity to undertake the necessary methodological work, respond to stakeholders' feedback, and document and share decision-making processes. Challenges were also linked to a complex web of politics, power and interests. The CPG development arena was described as saturated with personal and financial interests, groups competing for authority over specific territories and unequal power dynamics which favour those with the time, resources and authority to make contributions. These were all perceived to affect efforts for transparency, collaboration and inclusivity in CPG development. Conclusion While there is strong commitment amongst national stakeholders to advance CPG development processes, a mix of values, politics, power and capacity constraints pose significant challenges. Contrasting perspectives regarding managing interests and how best to adapt to within-country contexts requires further exploration. Dedicated resources for CPG development, standardised systems for managing conflicting interests, and the development of a political environment that fosters collaboration and more equitable inclusion within and between CPG development groups are needed. These initiatives may enhance CPG quality and acceptability, with associated positive impact on patient care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are common tools in policy and clinical practice informing clinical decisions at the bedside, governance of health facilities, health insurer and government spending, and patient choices. South Africa's health sector is transitioning to a national health insurance system, aiming to build on other primary health care initiatives to transform the previously segregated, inequitable services. Within these plans CPGs are an integral tool for delivering standardised and cost effective care. Currently, there is no accepted standard approach to developing, adapting or implementing CPGs efficiently or effectively in South Africa. We explored the current players; drivers; and the context and processes of primary care CPG development from the perspective of stakeholders operating at national level. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach. Sampling was initially purposeful, followed by snowballing and further sampling to reach representivity of primary care service providers. Individual in-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used thematic content analysis to analyse the data. RESULTS: We conducted 37 in-depth interviews from June 2014-July 2015. We found CPG development and implementation were hampered by lack of human and funding resources for technical and methodological work; fragmentation between groups, and between national and provincial health sectors; and lack of agreed systems for CPG development and implementation. Some CPG contributors steadfastly work to improve processes aiming to enhance communication, use of evidence, and transparency to ensure credible guidance is produced. Many interviewed had shared values, and were driven to address inequity, however, resource gaps were perceived to create an enabling environment for commercial interests or personal agendas to drive the CPG development process. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified strengths and gaps in CPG development processes, and a need for national standards to guide CPG development and implementation. Based on our findings and suggestions from participants, a possible way forward would be for South Africa to have a centrally coordinated CPG unit to address these needs and aspects of fragmentation by devising processes that support collaboration, transparency and credibility across sectors and disciplines. Such an initiative will require adequate resourcing to build capacity and ensure support for the delivery of high quality CPGs for South African primary care.

Abstract Dialogue and exchange between researchers and policy personnel may increase the use of research evidence in policy. We piloted and evaluated a programme of formalised dialogue between researchers and provincial health policymakers in South Africa, called the buddying programme. An external evaluation examined implementation and short-term impact, drawing on documents, in-depth interviews with policymakers, a researcher buddies focus group and our own reflection on what we learnt. We set up buddying with seven policymakers and five researchers on six policy questions. Researchers knew little about policymaking or needs of policymakers. Policymakers respected the contact with researchers, respected researchers' objectivity and appreciated the formalised approach. Having policymaker champions facilitated the dialogue. Scenarios for policy questions and use were different. One topic was at problem identification stage (contraceptives and HIV risk), four at policy formulation stage (healthy lifestyles, chronic illness medication adherence, integrated care of chronic illness and maternal transmission of HIV to infants) and one at implementation stage (task shifting). Research evidence were used to identify or solve a policy problem (two scenarios), to legitimise a predetermined policy position (three scenarios) or the evidence indirectly influenced the policy (one scenario). The formalised dialogue required in this structured buddying programme took time and commitment from both sides. The programme illustrated the importance of researchers listening, and policymakers understanding what research can offer. Both parties recognised that the structured buddying made the dialogue happen. Often the evidence was helpful in supporting provincial policy decisions that were in the roll-out phase from the national government.

Background Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) poses a substantial burden in sub-Saharan Africa and is the leading cause of death amongst infectious diseases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. We aimed to describe published TB treatment trials conducted in Africa. Methods This is a cross-sectional study of published TB trials conducted in at least one African country. In November 2019, we searched three databases using the validated Africa search filter and Cochrane's sensitive trial string. Published RCTs conducted in at least one African country were included for analysis. Records were screened for eligibility. Co-reviewers assisted with duplicate data extraction. Extracted data included: the country where studies were conducted, publication dates, ethics statement, trial registration number, participant's age range. We used Cochrane's Risk of Bias criteria to assess methodological quality. Results We identified 10,495 records; 175 trials were eligible for inclusion. RCTs were published between 1952 and 2019. The median sample size was 206 participants (interquartile range: 73–657). Most trials were conducted in South Africa (n = 83) and were drug therapy trials (n = 130). First authors were from 30 countries globally. South Africa had the most first authors (n = 55); followed by the United States of America (USA) (n = 28) and Great Britain (n = 14) with fewer other African countries contributing to the first author tally. Children under 13 years of age eligible to participate in the trials made up 17/175 trials (9.71%). International governments (n = 29) were the most prevalent funders. Ninety-four trials provided CONSORT flow diagrams. Methodological quality such as allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported or unclear in most trials. Conclusions By mapping African TB trials, we were able to identify potential research gaps. Many of the global north's researchers were found to be the lead authors in these African trials. Few trials tested behavioural interventions compared to drugs, and far fewer tested interventions on children compared to adults to improve TB outcomes. Lastly, funders and researchers should ensure better methodological quality reporting of trials.

Background The translation of research into policy and practice is enhanced by policymakers who can recognise and articulate their information needs and researchers that understand the policymakers' environment. As researchers, we sought to understand the policymaking process and how research evidence may contribute in South Africa and Cameroon. Methods We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews in South Africa and focus group discussions in Cameroon with purposively sampled subnational (provincial and regional) government health programme managers. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed, thematically coded and analysed. Results Participants in both countries described the complex, often lengthy nature of policymaking processes, which often include back-and-forth consultations with many diverse stakeholder groups. These processes may be influenced by political structures, relationships between national and subnational levels, funding and international stakeholder agendas. Research is not a main driver of policy, but rather current contextual realities, costs, logistics and people (clinicians, NGOs, funders) influence the policy, and research plays a part. Research evidence is frequently perceived as unavailable, inaccessible, ill-timed or not applicable. The reliability of research on the internet was questioned. Evidence-informed health decision-making (EIDM) is regarded as necessary in South Africa but is less well understood in Cameroon. Insufficient time and capacity were hindrances to EIDM in both countries. Good relationships between researchers and policymakers may facilitate EIDM. Researchers should have a good understanding of the policymaking environment if they want to influence it. Greater interaction between policymakers and researchers is perceived as beneficial when formulating research and policy questions as it raises researchers' awareness of implementation challenges and enables the design of tailored and focused strategies to respond to policymakers' needs. Conclusions Policymaking is complicated, lengthy and mostly done at national level. Provinces/regions are tasked with implementation, with more room for adaptation in South Africa than in Cameroon. Research evidence plays a role in policy but does not drive it and is seen as mostly unavailable. Researchers need a thorough understanding of the policy process and environment, how the health system operates, as well as the priorities of policymakers. This can inform effective dialogue between researchers and policymakers, and contribute to enhancing use of research evidence in decision-making.

AbstractBackgroundWell‐conducted systematic reviews contribute to informing clinical practice and public health guidelines. Between 2008 and 2018 Cochrane authors in sub‐Saharan Africa were publishing progressively fewer Cochrane Reviews, compared to non‐Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to determine what motivated trained Cochrane authors in sub‐Saharan Africa to conduct and publish non‐Cochrane reviews over Cochrane Reviews.MethodsWe conducted a mixed‐methods exploratory sequential study. We purposely selected 12 authors, who had published at least one Cochrane‐ and one non‐Cochrane review, for in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews. We manually coded and analysed the qualitative data using Grounded Theory approach and used the results to inform the survey questions. Subsequently we surveyed 60 authors with similar publishing experience. We analysed the quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsFacilitators to publish with Cochrane were a high‐impact factor, rigorous research, and visibility. From barriers, the main categories were protracted time to complete Cochrane Reviews, complex title registration process, and inconsistencies between Cochrane Review groups regarding editorial practices. From the survey, authors confirmed rigorous research and reviewing process (84%), high impact factor (77%), and good mentorship (73%). The major barriers included Cochrane's long reviewing process (70%) and Cochrane's complicated title registration (50%). Authors with publishing experience in the previous 10 years at <95 percentile of systematic review publications, there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (1) and non‐Cochrane (0) reviews, p = 0.06. Similarly, for those with publishing experience of ≥95 percentile of systematic review publication there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (4) and non‐Cochrane (6), p = 0.344.ConclusionAuthors considered the visibility and relevance of Cochrane research as a trade‐off point. They continued publishing with Cochrane despite the barriers that they encountered. However, the concerns raised by many authors are worth addressing.

Background The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. Methods We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. Discussion Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.

BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. DISCUSSION: Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the ...