Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health reported that pollution was responsible for 9 million premature deaths in 2015, making it the world's largest environmental risk factor for disease and premature death. We have now updated this estimate using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuriaes, and Risk Factors Study 2019. We find that pollution remains responsible for approximately 9 million deaths per year, corresponding to one in six deaths worldwide. Reductions have occurred in the number of deaths attributable to the types of pollution associated with extreme poverty. However, these reductions in deaths from household air pollution and water pollution are offset by increased deaths attributable to ambient air pollution and toxic chemical pollution (ie, lead). Deaths from these modern pollution risk factors, which are the unintended consequence of industrialisation and urbanisation, have risen by 7% since 2015 and by over 66% since 2000. Despite ongoing efforts by UN agencies, committed groups, committed individuals, and some national governments (mostly in high-income countries), little real progress against pollution can be identified overall, particularly in the low-income and middle-income countries, where pollution is most severe. Urgent attention is needed to control pollution and prevent pollution-related disease, with an emphasis on air pollution and lead poisoning, and a stronger focus on hazardous chemical pollution. Pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss are closely linked. Successful control of these conjoined threats requires a globally supported, formal science-policy interface to inform intervention, influence research, and guide funding. Pollution has typically been viewed as a local issue to be addressed through subnational and national regulation or, occasionally, using regional policy in higher-income countries. Now, however, it is increasingly clear that pollution is a planetary threat, and that its drivers, its dispersion, and its effects on health transcend local boundaries and demand a global response. Global action on all major modern pollutants is needed. Global efforts can synergise with other global environmental policy programmes, especially as a large-scale, rapid transition away from all fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy is an effective strategy for preventing pollution while also slowing down climate change, and thus achieves a double benefit for planetary health.

The GRADE-CERQual ('Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research') approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners.

The field of implementation research is growing, but it is not well understood despite the need for better research to inform decisions about health policies, programmes, and practices. This article focuses on the context and factors affecting implementation, the key audiences for the research, implementation outcome variables that describe various aspects of how implementation occurs, and the study of implementation strategies that support the delivery of health services, programmes, and policies. We provide a framework for using the research question as the basis for selecting among the wide range of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods that can be applied in implementation research, along with brief descriptions of methods specifically suitable for implementation research. Expanding the use of well designed implementation research should contribute to more effective public health and clinical policies and programmes. Implementation research attempts to solve a wide range of implementation problems; it has its origins in several disciplines and research traditions (supplementary table A). Although progress has been made in conceptualising implementation research over the past decade,1 considerable confusion persists about its terminology and scope.2–,4 The word “implement” comes from the Latin “implere,” meaning to fulfil or to carry into effect.5 This provides a basis for a broad definition of implementation research that can be used across research traditions and has meaning for practitioners, policy makers, and the interested public: “Implementation research is the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation—the act of carrying an intention into effect, which in health research can be policies, programmes, or individual practices (collectively called interventions).” Implementation research can consider any aspect of implementation, including the factors affecting implementation, the processes of implementation, and the results of implementation, including how to introduce potential solutions into a health system or how to promote their large scale use and …

The importance of health research utilisation in policy-making, and of understanding the mechanisms involved, is increasingly recognised. Recent reports calling for more resources to improve health in developing countries, and global pressures for accountability, draw greater attention to research-informed policy-making. Key utilisation issues have been described for at least twenty years, but the growing focus on health research systems creates additional dimensions.The utilisation of health research in policy-making should contribute to policies that may eventually lead to desired outcomes, including health gains. In this article, exploration of these issues is combined with a review of various forms of policy-making. When this is linked to analysis of different types of health research, it assists in building a comprehensive account of the diverse meanings of research utilisation.Previous studies report methods and conceptual frameworks that have been applied, if with varying degrees of success, to record utilisation in policy-making. These studies reveal various examples of research impact within a general picture of underutilisation.Factors potentially enhancing utilisation can be identified by exploration of: priority setting; activities of the health research system at the interface between research and policy-making; and the role of the recipients, or 'receptors', of health research. An interfaces and receptors model provides a framework for analysis.Recommendations about possible methods for assessing health research utilisation follow identification of the purposes of such assessments. Our conclusion is that research utilisation can be better understood, and enhanced, by developing assessment methods informed by conceptual analysis and review of previous studies.

While World Health Organization member countries embraced the concept of universal coverage as early as 2005, few low-income countries have yet achieved the objective. This is mainly due to numerous barriers that hamper access to needed health services. In this paper we provide an overview of the various dimensions of barriers to access to health care in low-income countries (geographical access, availability, affordability and acceptability) and outline existing interventions designed to overcome these barriers. These barriers and consequent interventions are arranged in an analytical framework, which is then applied to two case studies from Cambodia. The aim is to illustrate the use of the framework in identifying the dimensions of access barriers that have been tackled by the interventions. The findings suggest that a combination of interventions is required to tackle specific access barriers but that their effectiveness can be influenced by contextual factors. It is also necessary to address demand-side and supply-side barriers concurrently. The framework can be used both to identify interventions that effectively address particular access barriers and to analyse why certain interventions fail to tackle specific barriers.

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.

Most health system strengthening interventions ignore interconnections between systems components. In particular, complex relationships between medicines and health financing, human resources, health information and service delivery are not given sufficient consideration. As a consequence, populations' access to medicines (ATM) is addressed mainly through fragmented, often vertical approaches usually focusing on supply, unrelated to the wider issue of access to health services and interventions. The objective of this article is to embed ATM in a health system perspective. For this purpose, we perform a structured literature review: we examine existing ATM frameworks, review determinants of ATM and define at which level of the health system they are likely to occur; we analyse to which extent existing ATM frameworks take into account access constraints at different levels of the health system. Our findings suggest that ATM barriers are complex and interconnected as they occur at multiple levels of the health system. Existing ATM frameworks only partially address the full range of ATM barriers. We propose three essential paradigm shifts that take into account complex and dynamic relationships between medicines and other components of the health system. A holistic view of demand-side constraints in tandem with consideration of multiple and dynamic relationships between medicines and other health system resources should be applied; it should be recognized that determinants of ATM are rooted in national, regional and international contexts. These are schematized in a new framework proposing a health system perspective on ATM.

Health systems are complex. Failing to take this complexity into account will continue to hinder efforts to achieve better and more equitable health outcomes. Understanding and working with complexity requires a paradigm shift from linear reductionist approaches to dynamic and holistic approaches that appreciate the multifaceted and interconnected relationships among health system components as well as the views interests and power of its different actors and stakeholders. Systems thinking helps to re-orient our perspectives by expanding our understanding of the characteristics of complex adaptive systems and identifying how this learning may be applied to system problems and the creation of potential solutions. Long used in other disciplines systems thinking holds great yet largely untapped potential for health systems particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systems thinking is primarily a way of thinking in approaching problems and in designing solutions. It is an approach to problem solving that appreciates the very nature of complex systems as dynamic constantly changing governed by history and by feedback where the role and influence of stakeholders and context is critical and where new policies and actions (of different stakeholders) often generate counterintuitive and unpredictable effects sometimes long after policies have been implemented. (Excerpts)

An insufficient surgical workforce is a major barrier to safe surgical care for billions of people worldwide.1Meara JG Leather AJM Hagander L et al.Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development.Lancet. 2015; (published online April 27.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-XGoogle Scholar Although a critical shortage of a spectrum of surgical providers has been described in many countries, the global number and distribution remain poorly assessed.2Hoyler M Finlayson SR McClain CD Meara JG Hagander L Shortage of doctors, shortage of data: a review of the global surgery, obstetrics, and anesthesia workforce literature.World J Surg. 2014; 38: 269-280Crossref PubMed Scopus (136) Google Scholar Meanwhile, more data on the surgical workforce are crucial for international comparisons and the development of national workforce plans tailored to populations needs. We aimed to quantify the global surgical specialist workforce by country, and to build a WHO surgical workforce database in the process. Data on the number of licensed, qualified physician surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians (see appendix for full definitions) were retrieved from Ministries of Health, WHO country offices, professional societies, members of the WHO Global Initiative for Emergency & Essential Surgical Care, and from publicly available sources (see appendix p 4) for full details of data sources). Data were entered in the WHO Global Surgical Workforce Database. Data were obtained for 167 countries representing 92% of the global population (for characteristics see appendix p 9). Estimates of missing values were developed using multiple imputation based on national health system indicators (appendix p 10). Median and IQR were calculated from the imputed data, and used together with primary data to provide global estimates. Estimated total number of providers and density per 100 000 population were calculated and tabulated and heat maps were created to show the surgical specialist workforce density by country. Worldwide, there are an estimated 1 112 727 specialist surgeons (IQR 1 059 158–1 177 912), 550 134 anaesthesiologists (529 008–572 916) and 483 357 obstetricians (456 093–517 638; appendix p 11 and p 16). Low-income and lower-middle-income countries, representing 48% of the global population, have 20% of this workforce, or 19% of all surgeons, 15% of anaesthesiologists, and 29% of obstetricians. Africa and southeast Asia are particularly underserved. In terms of density, low-income countries have 0·7 providers per 100 000 population (IQR 0·5–1·9), compared with 5·5 (1·8–28·2) in lower-middle income countries, 22·6 (11·6–56·7) in upper-middle-income countries, and 56·9 (32·0–85·3) in high-income countries. There are also significant differences by WHO region (appendix p 17; figure). The results of this study represent the first truly global compilation of national surgical specialist workforce data and constitute a first step towards routinely collecting surgical workforce data through the WHO Global Surgical Workforce Database.3World Health OrganizationWHO Global Surgical Workforce Database data collection tool.http://www.who.int/surgery/eesc_database/en/Google Scholar The workforce of fully trained surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians is critically inadequate in many parts of the world, and grossly inequitably distributed. The results of this study must be interpreted carefully. Our database, consisting of official or published country-level data, will need to be validated and expanded. Through emphasising aggregate numbers and by using imputations based on general health-system indicators, we have sought to minimise the role of missing or potentially erroneous data points. More importantly, our data do not fully describe the health workforce that does surgery and anaesthesia, since physicians and other health-care providers who were not licensed as surgeons were excluded from the current study to facilitate international comparisons. Adjunct data regarding the considerable number of associate clinicians who do surgery would add a valuable level of granularity and nuance to the current description of the global surgical workforce. Our results do, however, confirm the global misdistribution of surgical specialists, and indicate that most of the world's surgical patients are either served by non-physicians or non-specialists, or they are not served at all. This also affects the many low-resource countries where surgical task-shifting is used. Defined as the redistribution of responsibilities from highly qualified professionals to those with fewer qualifications, task shifting has been used as a way to increase access to surgical care and reduce surgical costs. However, without trained surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians to act as supervisors and educators, such systematised and formally structured task-shifting programmes are challenged.1Meara JG Leather AJM Hagander L et al.Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development.Lancet. 2015; (published online April 27.)http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-XGoogle Scholar Also, our results do not capture the actual access to specialist providers, affected by factors such as financial barriers and the urban–rural distribution. National and subnational assessments will need to be undertaken to assess these national specifics. Our data provide a snapshot of the specialist surgeon, anaesthesiologist, and obstetrician workforce today, but say little about the dynamics of that workforce. Continued data collection over time and longitudinal follow-up of the surgical specialist workforce will allow for detection of trends in workforce distribution as well as assessments of strategic workforce investments. In summary, the surgical specialist workforce is critically inadequate in large parts of the world and grossly inequitably distributed. To tackle the growing global burden of surgical disease, there is an acute need to increase both the number and the distribution of the surgical specialist workforce. Although we encourage validation and expansion of our dataset, we believe that the data presented here can inform further efforts to improve access to surgical care worldwide. At a minimum, our results represent a baseline against which future workforce surveys—and, hopefully, surgical workforce growth—can be measured. We acknowledge the help of WHO country offices, Ministries of Health, WHO Global Initiative for Emergency & Essential Surgical Care members, and the Workforce, Training and Education Working Group of The Lancet's Commission on Global Surgery in collecting data for this study. Ties Boerma, Director of the WHO Department of Health Statistics and Informatics, contributed substantially to reviewing the report. We declare no competing interests. Download .pdf (.86 MB) Help with pdf files Supplementary appendix Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic developmentRemarkable gains have been made in global health in the past 25 years, but progress has not been uniform. Mortality and morbidity from common conditions needing surgery have grown in the world's poorest regions, both in real terms and relative to other health gains. At the same time, development of safe, essential, life-saving surgical and anaesthesia care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) has stagnated or regressed. In the absence of surgical care, case-fatality rates are high for common, easily treatable conditions including appendicitis, hernia, fractures, obstructed labour, congenital anomalies, and breast and cervical cancer. Full-Text PDF

A search (precision value 94%, recall value 93%) of the ISI Web of Science database (1992-2001) revealed that mental health publications accounted for 3-4% of the health literature. A 10/90 divide in internationally accessible mental health literature was evident and remained undiminished through 10 years as low- and middle-income countries (n=152) contributed only 6%, high-income countries (n=54) 94%, and 14 leading high-income countries (with more than 1% contribution for majority of years under consideration) contributed 90% of internationally accessible mental health research. Steps should be taken to improve the research infrastructure and capacity to conduct and disseminate mental health research in general, and on a priority basis in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the socioeconomic, geographical and demographic inequities in the use of postnatal health-care services in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases and grey literature for experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies that had been conducted in low- and middle-income countries. We summarized the relevant studies qualitatively and performed meta-analyses of the use of postnatal care services according to selected indicators of socioeconomic status and residence in an urban or rural setting. FINDINGS: A total of 36 studies were included in the narrative synthesis and 10 of them were used for the meta-analyses. Compared with women in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status, the pooled odds ratios for use of postnatal care by women in the second, third, fourth and fifth quintiles were: 1.14 (95% confidence interval, CI : 0.96-1.34), 1.32 (95% CI: 1.12-1.55), 1.60 (95% CI: 1.30-1.98) and 2.27 (95% CI: 1.75-2.93) respectively. Compared to women living in rural settings, the pooled odds ratio for the use of postnatal care by women living in urban settings was 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.81). A qualitative assessment of the relevant published data also indicated that use of postnatal care services increased with increasing level of education. CONCLUSION: In low- and middle-income countries, use of postnatal care services remains highly inequitable and varies markedly with socioeconomic status and between urban and rural residents.

BACKGROUND: As demand grows for health policies based on evidence, questions exist as to the capacity of developing countries to produce the health policy and systems research (HPSR) required to meet this challenge. METHODS: A postal/web survey of 176 HPSR producer institutions in developing countries assessed institutional structure, capacity, critical mass, knowledge production processes and stakeholder engagement. Data were projected to an estimated population of 649 institutions. RESULTS: HPSR producers are mostly small public institutions/units with an average of 3 projects, 8 researchers and a project portfolio worth $155,226. Experience, attainment of critical mass and stakeholder engagement are low, with only 19% of researchers at PhD level, although researchers in key disciplines are well represented and better qualified. Research capacity and funding are similar across income regions, although inequalities are apparent. Only 7% of projects are funded at $100,000 or more, but they account for 54% of total funding. International sources and national governments account for 69% and 26% of direct project funding, respectively. A large proportion of international funds available for HPSR in support of developing countries are either not spent or spent through developed country institutions. CONCLUSIONS: HPSR producers need to increase their capacity and critical mass to engage effectively in policy development and to absorb a larger volume of resources. The relationship between funding and critical mass needs further research to identify the best funding support, incentives and capacity strengthening approaches. Support should be provided to network institutions, concentrate resources and to attract funding.

Reducing maternal and child mortality is a priority in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and will likely remain so after 2015. Evidence exists on the investments, interventions and enabling policies required. Less is understood about why some countries achieve faster progress than other comparable countries. The Success Factors for Women's and Children's Health studies sought to address this knowledge gap using statistical and econometric analyses of data from 144 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) over 20 years; Boolean, qualitative comparative analysis; a literature review; and country-specific reviews in 10 fast-track countries for MDGs 4 and 5a. There is no standard formula--fast-track countries deploy tailored strategies and adapt quickly to change. However, fast-track countries share some effective approaches in addressing three main areas to reduce maternal and child mortality. First, these countries engage multiple sectors to address crucial health determinants. Around half the reduction in child mortality in LMICs since 1990 is the result of health sector investments, the other half is attributed to investments made in sectors outside health. Second, these countries use strategies to mobilize partners across society, using timely, robust evidence for decision-making and accountability and a triple planning approach to consider immediate needs, long-term vision and adaptation to change. Third, the countries establish guiding principles that orient progress, align stakeholder action and achieve results over time. This evidence synthesis contributes to global learning on accelerating improvements in women's and children's health towards 2015 and beyond.

Reducing maternal and child mortality is a priority in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and will likely remain so after 2015. Evidence exists on the investments, interventions and enabling policies required. Less is understood about why some countries achieve faster progress than other comparable countries. The Success Factors for Women’s and Children’s Health studies sought to address this knowledge gap using statistical and econometric analyses of data from 144 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) over 20 years; Boolean, qualitative comparative analysis; a literature review; and country-specific reviews in 10 fast-track countries for MDGs 4 and 5a. There is no standard formula – fast-track countries deploy tailored strategies and adapt quickly to change. However, fast-track countries share some effective approaches in addressing three main areas to reduce maternal and child mortality. First, these countries engage multiple sectors to address crucial health determinants. Around half the reduction in child mortality in LMICs since 1990 is the result of health sector investments, the other half is attributed to investments made in sectors outside health. Second, these countries use strategies to mobilize partners across society, using timely, robust evidence for decision-making and accountability and a triple planning approach to consider immediate needs, long-term vision and adaptation to change. Third, the countries establish guiding principles that orient progress, align stakeholder action and achieve results over time. This evidence synthesis contributes to global learning on accelerating improvements in women’s and children’s health towards 2015 and beyond.

### Summary box As many countries are developing policies addressing universal health coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals, there is increasing demand for relevant and contextualised evidence to inform health policy and systems decision-making.1 Policy-makers and health systems managers require valid evidence to support time-sensitive decisions regarding the coverage, quality, efficiency and equity of health systems. There are several health system challenges for which decision-makers require timely evidence, including integrated service delivery models, effective health financing schemes and equitable access to quality health systems interventions (table 1). Progressing towards UHC requires evidence to address a range of questions including the effectiveness of health systems interventions and policies, how and in what settings these interventions work, their cost-effectiveness, as well as the legal, ethical and societal implications of implementing these interventions.2 3 View this table: Table 1 Examples of health …

In recent years, there have been several calls for rigorous health policy and systems research to inform efforts to strengthen health systems (HS) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including the use of systems thinking concepts in designing and evaluating HS strengthening interventions. The objectives of this paper are to assess recent evaluations of HS strengthening interventions to examine the extent to which they ask a broader set of questions, and provide an appropriately comprehensive assessment of the effects of these interventions across the health system. A review of evaluations conducted in 2009-10 was performed to answer these questions. Out of 106 evaluations, less than half (43%) asked broad research questions to allow for a comprehensive assessment of the intervention's effects across multiple HS building blocks. Only half of the evaluations referred to a conceptual framework to guide their impact assessment. Overall, 24% and 9% conducted process and context evaluations, respectively, to answer the question of whether the intervention worked as intended, and if so, for whom, and under what circumstances. Almost half of the evaluations considered HS impact on one building block, while most interventions were complex targeting two or more building blocks. None incorporated evaluation designs that took into account the characteristics of complex adaptive systems such as non-linearity of effects or interactions between the HS building blocks. While we do not argue that all evaluations should be comprehensive, there is a need for more comprehensive evaluations of the wider range of the intervention's effects, when appropriate. Our findings suggest that the full range of barriers to more comprehensive evaluations need to be examined and, where appropriate, addressed. Possible barriers may include limited capacity, lack of funding, inadequate time frames, lack of demand from both researchers and research funders, or difficulties in undertaking this type of evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementation research is increasingly used to identify common implementation problems and key barriers and facilitators influencing efficient access to health interventions. OBJECTIVE: To develop and propose an equity-based framework for Implementation Research (EquIR) of health programs, policies and systems. METHODS: A systematic search of models and conceptual frameworks involving equity in the implementation of health programs, policies and systems was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, LILACS, Scopus and grey literature. Key characteristics of models and conceptual frameworks were summarized. We identified key aspects of equity in the context of seven Latin American countries-focused health programs We gathered information related to the awareness of inequalities in health policy, systems and programs, the potential negative impact of increasing inequalities in disadvantaged populations, and the strategies used to reduce them. RESULTS: A conceptual framework of EquIR was developed. It includes elements of equity-focused implementation research, but it also links the population health status before and after the implementation, including relevant aspects of health equity before, during and after the implementation. Additionally, health sectors were included, linked with social determinants of health through the "health in all policies" proposal affecting universal health and the potential impact of the public health and public policies. CONCLUSION: EquIR is a conceptual framework that is proposed for use by decision makers and researchers during the implementation of programs, policies or health interventions, with a focus on equity, which aims to reduce or prevent the increase of existing inequalities during implementation.

OBJECTIVE: This paper seeks to review the available evidence to determine whether a systems approach is employed in the implementation and evaluation of task shifting for mental health using lay providers in low- and middle-income countries, and to highlight system-wide effects of task-shifting strategies in order to better inform efforts to strength community mental health systems. METHODS: Pubmed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Two stages of screens were done to ensure sensitivity. Studies were analysed using the World Health Organization's building blocks framework with the addition of a community building block, and systems thinking characteristics to determine the extent to which system-wide effects had been considered. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included. Almost all studies displayed positive findings on mental health using task shifting. One study showed no effect. No studies explicitly employed systems thinking tools, but some demonstrated systems thinking characteristics, such as exploring various stakeholder perspectives, capturing unintended consequences, and looking across sectors for system-wide impact. Twenty-five of the 30 studies captured elements other than the most directly relevant building blocks of service delivery and health workforce. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of systematic approaches to exploring complexity in the evaluation of task-shifting interventions. Systems thinking tools should support evidence-informed decision making for a more complete understanding of community-based systems strengthening interventions for mental health.