Cargando…

Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda

BACKGROUND: Translating research evidence from global guidance into policy can help strengthen health systems. A workbook was developed to support the contextualization of the WHO’s ‘Optimizing health worker roles to improve maternal and newborn health’ (OptimizeMNH) guidance. This study evaluated t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alvarez, Elizabeth, Lavis, John N., Brouwers, Melissa, Carmona Clavijo, Gloria, Sewankambo, Nelson, Solari, Lely, Schwartz, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6868683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31752888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0488-0
_version_ 1783472319632506880
author Alvarez, Elizabeth
Lavis, John N.
Brouwers, Melissa
Carmona Clavijo, Gloria
Sewankambo, Nelson
Solari, Lely
Schwartz, Lisa
author_facet Alvarez, Elizabeth
Lavis, John N.
Brouwers, Melissa
Carmona Clavijo, Gloria
Sewankambo, Nelson
Solari, Lely
Schwartz, Lisa
author_sort Alvarez, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Translating research evidence from global guidance into policy can help strengthen health systems. A workbook was developed to support the contextualization of the WHO’s ‘Optimizing health worker roles to improve maternal and newborn health’ (OptimizeMNH) guidance. This study evaluated the use of the workbook for the development of evidence briefs in two countries — Peru and Uganda. Findings surrounding contextual factors, steps in the process and evaluation of the workbook are presented. METHODS: A qualitative embedded case study was used. The case was the process of using the workbook to support the contextualization of global health systems guidance, with local evidence, to develop evidence briefs. Criterion sampling was used to select the countries, participants for interviews and documents included in the study. A template-organizing style and constant comparison were used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 participant-observation sessions and 8 interviews were conducted, and 50 documents were reviewed. Contextual factors, including the cadres, or groups, of health workers available in each country, the way the problem and its causes were framed, potential policy options to address the problem, and implementation considerations for these policy options, varied substantially between Peru and Uganda. However, many similarities were found in the process of using the workbook. Overall, the workbook was viewed positively and participants in both countries would use it again for other topics. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that produce global guidance, such as WHO, need to consider institutionalizing the application of the workbook into their guidance development processes to help users at the national/subnational level create actionable and context-relevant policies. Feedback mechanisms also need to be established so that the evidence briefs and health policies arising from global guidance are tracked and the findings coming out of such guideline contextualization processes can be taken into consideration during future guidance development and research priority-setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6868683
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68686832019-12-12 Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda Alvarez, Elizabeth Lavis, John N. Brouwers, Melissa Carmona Clavijo, Gloria Sewankambo, Nelson Solari, Lely Schwartz, Lisa Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Translating research evidence from global guidance into policy can help strengthen health systems. A workbook was developed to support the contextualization of the WHO’s ‘Optimizing health worker roles to improve maternal and newborn health’ (OptimizeMNH) guidance. This study evaluated the use of the workbook for the development of evidence briefs in two countries — Peru and Uganda. Findings surrounding contextual factors, steps in the process and evaluation of the workbook are presented. METHODS: A qualitative embedded case study was used. The case was the process of using the workbook to support the contextualization of global health systems guidance, with local evidence, to develop evidence briefs. Criterion sampling was used to select the countries, participants for interviews and documents included in the study. A template-organizing style and constant comparison were used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 participant-observation sessions and 8 interviews were conducted, and 50 documents were reviewed. Contextual factors, including the cadres, or groups, of health workers available in each country, the way the problem and its causes were framed, potential policy options to address the problem, and implementation considerations for these policy options, varied substantially between Peru and Uganda. However, many similarities were found in the process of using the workbook. Overall, the workbook was viewed positively and participants in both countries would use it again for other topics. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations that produce global guidance, such as WHO, need to consider institutionalizing the application of the workbook into their guidance development processes to help users at the national/subnational level create actionable and context-relevant policies. Feedback mechanisms also need to be established so that the evidence briefs and health policies arising from global guidance are tracked and the findings coming out of such guideline contextualization processes can be taken into consideration during future guidance development and research priority-setting. BioMed Central 2019-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6868683/ /pubmed/31752888 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0488-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Alvarez, Elizabeth
Lavis, John N.
Brouwers, Melissa
Carmona Clavijo, Gloria
Sewankambo, Nelson
Solari, Lely
Schwartz, Lisa
Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda
title Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda
title_full Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda
title_fullStr Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda
title_full_unstemmed Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda
title_short Developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in Peru and Uganda
title_sort developing evidence briefs for policy: a qualitative case study comparing the process of using a guidance-contextualization workbook in peru and uganda
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6868683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31752888
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0488-0
work_keys_str_mv AT alvarezelizabeth developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda
AT lavisjohnn developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda
AT brouwersmelissa developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda
AT carmonaclavijogloria developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda
AT sewankambonelson developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda
AT solarilely developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda
AT schwartzlisa developingevidencebriefsforpolicyaqualitativecasestudycomparingtheprocessofusingaguidancecontextualizationworkbookinperuanduganda