Background: While there is an ample literature on the evaluation of knowledge translation interventions aimed at healthcare providers, managers, and policy-makers, there has been less focus on patients and their informal caregivers. Further, no overview of the literature on dissemination strategies aimed at healthcare users and their caregivers has been conducted. The overview has two specific research questions: (1) to determine the most effective strategies that have been used to disseminate knowledge to healthcare recipients, and (2) to determine the barriers (and facilitators) to dissemination of knowledge to this group. Methods: This overview used systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol. A comprehensive search of ten databases and five websites was conducted. Both published and unpublished reviews in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were included. A methodological quality assessment was conducted; low-quality reviews were excluded. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, informed by a matrix of strategy by outcome measure. The Health System Evidence taxonomy for "consumer targeted strategies" was used to separate strategies into one of six categories. Results: We identified 44 systematic reviews that describe the effective strategies to disseminate health knowledge to the public, patients, and caregivers. Some of these reviews also describe the most important barriers to the uptake of these effective strategies. When analyzing those strategies with the greatest potential to achieve behavioral changes, the majority of strategies with sufficient evidence of effectiveness were combined, frequent, and/or intense over time. Further, strategies focused on the patient, with tailored interventions, and those that seek to acquire skills and competencies were more effective in achieving these changes. In relation to barriers and facilitators, while the lack of health literacy or e-literacy could increase inequities, the benefits of social media were also emphasized, for example by widening access to health information for ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.

Background Many governments have introduced pay-for-performance programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care. Evidence on whether these programmes reduce or exacerbate disparities in health care is scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in the performance of family health teams under Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ). Methods For this longitudinal study, we analysed data on the quality of care delivered by family health teams participating in PMAQ over three rounds of implementation: round 1 (November, 2011, to March, 2013), round 2 (April, 2013, to September, 2015), and round 3 (October, 2015, to December, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of the maximum performance score obtainable by family health teams (the PMAQ score), based on several hundred (ranging from 598 to 914) indicators of health-care delivery. Using census data on household income of local areas, we examined the PMAQ score by income ventile. We used ordinary least squares regressions to examine the association between PMAQ scores and the income of each local area across implementation rounds, and we did an analysis of variance to assess geographical variation in PMAQ score. Findings Of the 40 361 family health teams that were registered as ever participating in PMAQ, we included 13 934 teams that participated in the three rounds of PMAQ in our analysis. These teams were located in 11 472 census areas and served approximately 48 million people. The mean PMAQ score was 61•0% (median 61•8, IQR 55•3-67•9) in round 1, 55•3% (median 56•0, IQR 47•6-63•4) in round 2, and 61•6% (median 62•7, IQR 54•4-69•9) in round 3. In round 1, we observed a positive socioeconomic gradient, with the mean PMAQ score ranging from 56•6% in the poorest group to 64•1% in the richest group. Between rounds 1 and 3, mean PMAQ performance increased by 7•1 percentage points for the poorest group and decreased by 0•8 percentage points for the richest group (p<0•0001), with the gap between richest and poorest narrowing from 7•5 percentage points (95% CI 6•5 to 8•5) to-0•4 percentage points over the same period (-1•6 to 0•8). Interpretation Existing income inequalities in the delivery of primary health care were eliminated during the three rounds of PMAQ, plausibly due to a design feature of PMAQ that adjusted financial payments for socioeconomic inequalities. However, there remains an important policy agenda in Brazil to address the large inequities in health.

Objectives. To identify potential barriers to the implementation of the National Childbirth Guidelines in Brazil based on the best available global evidence. Methods. A rapid review of evidence was performed in six databases in March/April 2019. Secondary studies published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese with a focus on barriers of any nature relating to the implementation of the Guidelines were retrieved. Results. Twenty-three documents (21 reviews and two practice guides) were included in the review. The barriers identified were grouped into 52 meaning categories and then reorganized into nine thematic clusters: delivery and childbirth care model, human resource management, knowledge and beliefs, gender relations, health care service management, attitudes and behaviors, communication, socioeconomic conditions, and political interests. Conclusions. The results show that combined approaches may be required to address different barriers to the implementation of the Guidelines. For successful implementation, it is essential to engage health care leaders, professionals, and users in the effort to change the delivery and childbirth care model. Also necessary is the development of intersectoral initiatives to improve the socioeconomic conditions of women and families and to curtail gender inequalities.

Introduction:Social engagement in health encompasses the idea of involving (parts of) society as full partners in the decision-making regarding both development and implementation of health technologies. Evidence shows that patient engagement is linked with fewer adverse events, better patient self-management, fewer diagnostic tests, decreased use of healthcare services and shorter lengths of stay in hospitals. Matching the escalating healthcare requirements to face the ongoing societal and economic challenges regarding access and coverage to (new) health technologies is not an easy task for health providers.Methods:We conducted a systematic review (CRD42017068714) designed to address the institutional implementation of social engagement by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. All systematic reviews were evaluated using the new version of AMSTAR and, once all findings are synthesized, we will use the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess for confidence.Results:From 399 publications that met the inclusion criteria, 80 described the implementation of social engagement during the development and implementation of (new) health technologies at various levels (local, regional, national, supranational), countries and for different health technologies and social actors. The remaining 319 publications constitute case studies describing barriers and enablers to implementing social engagement in HTA and coverage decision-making processes. By mapping barriers and facilitators, we explored effectiveness and sustainability, further observing how citizen science-based strategies can ultimately reform health service delivery by innovating the social engagement in health technology development and implementation.Conclusions:This systematic review addresses the know-do gap on social engagement in health technology development and implementation, from a global perspective, as a way of improving the Brazilian Ministry of Health's HTA activities and enabling a Brazilian strategy to reform health service delivery. Enabling social engagement as early as possible, during all the stages of the development cycle, grants a more effective and sustainable health care system.

INTRODUCTION:The increase of litigation in Brazil on the right to health, and the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) targets of litigation, are phenomena that generate discussions both in the judiciary, and among researchers and managers of health. The lawsuits are based on the integrality that includes the right to any health technology. Our aim was to gather information on the use of scientific evidence by judges and other law professionals to support their decisions in lawsuits involving health care in Brazil.METHODS:A narrative review by literature search using key terms of legalization in specific databases was conducted.RESULTS:Twenty-five studies showed litigation matters relating to health care which were focused on legal claims about drugs. In general, law operators used the scientific evidences in a limited way when making decisions, by considering the medical report and medication label indications and disregarding therapeutic alternatives contemplated in the SUS list. The access to health technologies, by litigation, reveals that the gap between scientific knowledge and legal practice are similar to those found between science and decision-making in the formulation and implementation of health policies. The Health Technology Assessment studies have high potential for use by the judiciary as a reference source to support technical and scientific decisions in lawsuits on health care.CONCLUSIONS:For the judiciary to ensure not only access to health technologies, but also the efficacy and safety of technologies to system users, their decisions must be substantiated by scientific evidence. The National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (CONITEC) in SUS has established actions in conjunction with law operators and society, such as a communication using e-mail, aiding the decision for the injunction and elaboration of technical reports and a policy brief, with the intention that the decisions are taken with the greatest possible knowledge about technologies provided by SUS, and based on scientific evidence.

Introduction:In Brazil, health is a constitutional right and the government is responsible for its guarantee. The Brazilian health system is characterized by universality, equality, and integrality, but citizens still strive to guarantee their rights through litigation. This work aimed to develop an evidence brief to support the decision-making process of judges with respect to health technologies, based on scientific evidence.Methods:Support tools from the Evidence-Informed Policy Network (EVIPNet) were used to develop the evidence brief. After defining and describing the problem, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Health Systems Evidence, The Campbell Library, The Cochrane Library, Rx for Change, and PDQ-Evidence for systematic reviews published from 2010 to 2016. Nine systematic reviews were found. Review selection and quality appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers. Three strategies for addressing the health litigation were defined. Evidence was summarized on benefits, harms, resource use, cost-effectiveness, uncertainties, and implementation. Implementation barriers and facilitators were also described.Results:Three strategies were found: (i) Rapid response services to support evidence-informed decision making in health technology decisions—educational activities and materials were described as an effective way to involve different stakeholders and inform decision making, even when financial reallocation is needed; (ii) Continuing education programs focused on developing health technology assessment knowledge among law workers—continued education and educational outreach may be effective in knowledge and ability acquisition and retention, changing professional practices. Eventual lack of interest from or availability of the professionals can be addressed by involving leaders and opinion makers, as well as offering multimedia educational materials and activities adapted for the public; and (iii) Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) focused on the litigation of health technologies—the use of RJC through face-to-face meetings or social councils involves citizens in the decision-making process, including resource management. There are multiple barriers to this option (e.g. a lack of understanding among the public, conflicts of interest, a lack of professionals capable of conducting RJCs, and the need for legal reformulation) because of its unprecedented use in the healthcare setting. Opinion leaders should be invited to facilitate communication and the decision-making process among citizens, government, and the law.Conclusions:This evidence brief will be debated among interested parties and presented to the health minister and state secretaries in order to implement the strategy options, once regional specificities are taken into account.

No abstract

Introduction:In Brazil, the “Sistema Unico de Saúde” (SUS) is a public health system that has universal coverage, comprehensive care, and principles like community participation. The incorporation, update or exclusion of new health technologies is done by the National Committee for Technology Incorporation (CONITEC), which issues reports on the incorporation of technologies and submits them to public consultations, which is the main mechanism of public involvement and an opportunity to influence the decision to access and coverage to new health technologies. Our study aimed to investigate a typology of social representations on the contributions from 2012 to the CONITEC's public consultations to the incorporation of Trastuzumab for the treatment of initial breast cancer in Brazil.Methods:Our study deployed a mixed-methods approach to semi-quantitatively analyze the social representativeness and corpus composition of all the public consultation contributions for the recommendation of the Trastuzumab's incorporation for treatment of initial breast cancer within SUS, as well as the authors' qualitative analysis of the IRAMUTEQ software as a potential effective and efficient tool to semi-qualitatively analyze such public consultations. All contributions were included (127 contributions, from several Brazilian states) and organized into a single corpus, which was submitted to 5 types of analyzes (classical lexical analysis, analysis of group specificities, descending hierarchical classification; similitude analysis and word cloud).Results:The general corpus consisted of 114 texts, separated into 685 text segments (TS), with use of 79.12 percent of total TS (684). The analyzed content was categorized into four classes: Class 1 – Patient Representations/ Advocacy (186 ST-34.3 percent); Class 2: Pharmaceutical Industry/ Advocacy (181 ST-33.4 percent); Class 3: Health Professionals (81 ST-14.9 percent); and Class 4: Individual Contributions (94 -17.3 percent). Class 1 corpus consisted mostly of contributions made from a breast cancer patient association/ advocacy report, which focused mainly on lay expertise terminology. We observed a proximity in corpus between Classes 2 and 3, showing a potential approximation between the pharmaceutical industry and health professionals' contributions, to whom the main word occurrences related to health technologies. Class 4 corpus focused on improvement and individual need, as well as in corpus referring to SUS.Conclusions:From our findings, we observed: (i) a potential similarity in contributions of health professionals and pharmaceutical industry; (ii) how lay expertise might affect the contributions of patients individually and within advocacy and patient organizations; and (iii) the uses and limitations of IRAMUTEQ as potentially effective and efficient tool to semi-qualitatively analyze health technology assessment public consultation contributions.