EVIPNet Newsletter December 2011 (28)

EVIPNetNews

December 2011 Issue 28 1. Highlight 2. Empirical studies 3. Systematic reviews 4. Editorial articles 5. Relevant publications 6. Events 7. Relevant links

News from EVIPNet Members or Activities EVIPNet report: Policy brief workshop on Empowering Frontline workers in Evidence Informed Policymaking process in Durban, South Africa

Next EVIPNet Events Consultative Meeting on Building Regional NCD Research Agenda and Enhancing Implementation of NCD Action Plan, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 11 to 13 December 2011

Experiences, methods and tools for research translation to policy

1 - HIGHLIGHTS Happy holidays, a joyfull and productive 2012, and health for all 2011 was an extremely productive year to all of us working to improve the health of populations by promoting evidence‐informed policy making. In 2012 EVIPNet will continue to practice its values of Equity in the promotion of health for all; Trust with sustainable partnerships; Empowerment of individuals, institutions, national governments, and regions working together to develop their full potential in pursuit of evidence‐informed policy‐making and by fostering dynamic South‐ South partnerships; Ethics through the promotion of transparent, ethical and accountable operations; and Mutual respect. EVIPNet is a network of people who promote a culture of reciprocity in which members’ contributions, insights, motivations and concerns are recognized and respected. That is the spirit of the EVIPNetNews and in 2012 we look forward to continuing to work with all of you and many others. Happy New Year!

3rd SURE Annual Meeting with EVIPNet Africa on strengthening health

travelled for several days from different corners of Africa, Europe, Latin America, and Canada to share their experiences and discuss future endeavours.

The EVIPNet Africa meeting was held this year in Maputo, Mozambique, organized and hosted by the Ministry of Health, the Instituto Nacional de Saúde (National Institute of Health) and the Faculty of Medicine of the University Eduardo Mondlane. The event takes place annually with the SURE management meeting and workshops.

New forum HIFA-EVIPNet-Fr was launched at the 12th AHILA Congress in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, the 13th October 2010 to address the information needs of policymakers, researchers and others stakeholders in French-speaking Africa, in evidence informed policy making.

Join HIFA-EVIPNet-Fr To join, please email your name, job title, organisation, country of residence, and brief description of professional interests to: hifa-evipnet-fradmin@dgroups.org

Next year the 4th SURE meeting will take the format of the Evidence‐Informed Health Policymaking in Low and Middle‐Income Countries: An International Forum will take place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 27‐30 August 2012, with all the family of EVIPNet teams to promote best practices, discuss new methodologies and tools, present case‐studies, and identify cutting‐edge issues in guideline development and evidence‐based policy‐making.

Launch of the new Health Systems Evidence website Health Systems Evidence is a valuable resource for policymakers, stakeholders and researchers seeking to address today’s most pressing health challenges. It provides answers on questions about how to strengthen or reform health systems, or how to get cost‐effective programs, services and drugs to those who need them. The redeveloped website offers numerous enhancements, including new open search and advanced search functionalities, and is available in seven

Library that will be launched in 2012.

2nd Latin-American Conference on Research & Innovation for Health The 2nd Conference will focus on the following areas, which are key towards strengthening systems for research for health and innovation: ‐ Defining research for health and innovation in national policies and programs ‐ Financing for research for health ‐ Strengthening the existent networking EVIPNet Americas • • •

• •

•

•

Ecuador has formally joined EVIPNet Americas Chile, Ecuador and Paraguay have submitted their post‐Chile workshop policy‐briefs.

Peru contributed to a WHO initiative on micronutrients with a review on improving access to micronutrients in children < 2 years of age; the report was launched in PAHO on November 9, 2011.

Paraguay and Peru will conduct deliberative dialogues in December 2011 PAHO is coordinating the delivery of a workshop on Policy Briefs on Chronic Diseases in the US‐Mexico Border office in El Paso, with 70 participants, mainly policy makers and researchers that work on the US‐ Mexico border (and members of the Bi‐national border commission).

The newly formed MoH of Colombia is requesting technical cooperation to produce a Policy Brief on healthy drinks, and the formal initiation of EVIPNet Colombia.

EVIPNet workshops are being schedule for the 1st trimester of 2012 in Brazil and Chile

First Annual Collaboration for Evidence Based Healthcare in Africa Symposium held in Kampala, Uganda The first Annual Symposium of the Collaboration for Evidence Based Healthcare in Africa (CEBHA) was arranged by the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) and Makerere University and held on the 24th of November in Kampala Uganda with 80 participants from 8 African countries.

The symposium was led by Professor Harriet Mayjanja, Dean of the Medical Faculty at Makerere University in Kampala. The first part was devoted to presentations of some of the latest research findings from Uganda about topics like Malaria resistance, Prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS and Vaccination strategies for HPV. The second part was about the methods and processes to use evidence and topics

like Searching for evidence, Developing systematic reviews, Grading of Evidence, Guidelines development, Teaching and Disseminating the Evidence were included.

2 - EMPIRICAL STUDIES Maximizing the Impact of Systematic Reviews in Health Care Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Knowledge-Translation Resources CHAMBERS, D., WILSON, P. M., THOMPSON, C. A., HANBURY, A., FARLEY, K., & LIGHT, K. (2011). Reviews in Health Care Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Knowledge‐Translation Resources. Milbank Quarterly, 89(1), 131–156.

Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users’ needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding.

3 - SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS The McMaster Health Forum Health Systems Evidence provides links to graded systematic reviews that may be helpful for evidence‐informed policy‐making Knowledge translation strategies for facilitating evidence informed public health decision making among managers and policy-makers (Protocol) Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Dobbins, M., Lavis, JN., Petticrew, M., & Christensen, R.(2011). Knowledge translation strategies for facilitating evidence informed public health decision making amoung managers and policy‐makers (Protocol).London: The Cochrane Collaboration.

To determine the effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies aimed at facilitating evidence‐informed public health decision making by managers and policy‐ makers.

4 - EDITORIAL ARTICLES

Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews Anderson, L. M., Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Armstrong, R., Ueffing, E., Baker, P., et al. (2011). Using logic models to capture. Research Synthesis Method, 2, 33‐42.

Logic models have long been used to understand complex programs to improve social and health outcomes. They illustrate how a program is designed to achieve its intended outcomes. They also can be used to describe connections between determinants of outcomes, for example, low high‐school graduation rates or spiraling obesity rates, thus aiding the development of interventions that target causal factors. However, these models have not often been used in systematic reviews. This paper argues that logic models can be valuable in the systematic review process. First, they can aid in the conceptualization of the review focus and illustrate hypothesized causal links, identify effect mediators or moderators, specify intermediate outcomes and potential harms, and justify a priori subgroup analyses when differential effects are anticipated. Second, logic models can be used to direct the review process more specifically. They can help justify narrowing the scope of a review, identify the most relevant inclusion criteria, guide the literature search, and clarify interpretation of results when drawing policy relevant conclusions about review findings. We present examples that explain how logic models have been used and how they can be applied at different stages in a systematic review.

5 - RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS Setting Priorities in Health

Robinson, S., Dickinson, H., Williams, L., Freeman, T., Rumbold, B., & Spence, K. (2011). Setting priorities in Health. London: Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham and the Nuffield Trust.

The research reported in this document was designed to map the priority‐setting activities taking place across the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and to explore and assess the effectiveness of these practices within specific local contexts.

The questions that provided the basis for the research were as follows: • What priority‐setting tools, processes and activities are practised currently as part of the commissioning processes of English primary care trusts (PCTs)?

• What barriers are experienced by PCTs seeking to implement explicit priority setting, and how are these being addressed?

• What other strengths and weaknesses can be identified in current priority‐ setting practice?

• What learning can be derived that will be instructive for future priority setting within the NHS and elsewhere?

Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies The general issue of balancing the value of evidence about the performance of a technology and the value of access to a technology can be seen as central to a number of policy questions. This research was commissioned to inform when NICE should approve health technologies only in research (OIR) or with research (AWR).

It has implications for policy (e.g., NICE guidance and drug pricing), the process of appraisal (e.g., greater involvement of research commissioners) and methods of appraisal (e.g., should additional information, evidence and analysis be required).

However, establishing the key principles of what assessments are required and how they might be informed has much wider relevance beyond NICE and the UK NHS (e.g., informing the questions posed by coverage with evidence development initiatives).

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology Kielmann, K., Cataldo, F., Seeley, J. (2011). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methodology. London: Evidence for Action, LSHTM. The manual is aimed primarily at non‐ social scientists working in low‐ and middle income settings. It provides an accessible, interesting, and clear guide to using qualitative research methods in applied health settings. The manual is organised around three main goals: ‐ To introduce qualitative thinking in research; ‐ To assist in planning, choosing, and using qualitative research methods in health‐ related studies and; ‐ To enable the management of qualitative data with a view to preliminary analysis.

Sent to hugueti@who.int — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences WHO · 20 avenue appia · Geneve 1211