In 1994 Peru embarked on a programme of health service reform, which combined primary care development and community participation through Local Committees for Health Administration (CLAS). They are responsible for carrying out local health needs assessments and identifying unmet health needs through regular household surveys. These enable them to determine local health provision and tailor services to local requirements. CLAS build on grassroots self-help circles that developed during the economic and political crises of the 1980s, and in which women have been prominent. However, they function under a 3 year contract with the Ministry of Health and within a framework of centrally determined guidelines and regulations. These reforms were implemented in the context of neo-liberal economic policies, which stressed financial deregulation and fiscal and monetary restraint, and were aimed at reducing foreign indebtedness and inflation. We evaluate the achievements of the CLAS and analyse the relationship between health and economic policy in Peru, with the aid of two contrasting models of the role of the state - 'agency' and 'stewardship'. We argue that Peru's experience holds valuable lessons for other countries seeking to foster community involvement. These include the need for community capacity building and partnership between community organizations and state (and other civil) agencies.

Summary Background

BackgroundAlthough innovation can improve patient care, implementing new ideas is often challenging. Previous research found that professional attitudes, shaped in part by health policies and organisational cultures, contribute to differing perceptions of innovation ‘evidence’. However, we still know little about how evidence is empirically accessed and used by organisational decision-makers when innovations are introduced.Aims and objectivesWe aimed to investigate the use of different sources and types of evidence in innovation decisions to answer the following questions: how do managers make sense of evidence? What role does evidence play in management decision-making when adopting and implementing innovations in health care? How do wider contextual conditions and intraorganisational capacity influence research use and application by health-care managers?MethodsOur research design comprised multiple case studies with mixed methods. We investigated technology adoption and implementation in nine acute-care organisations across England. We employed structured survey questionnaires, in-depth interviews and documentary analysis. The empirical setting was infection prevention and control. Phase 1 focused on the espoused use of evidence by 126 non-clinical and clinical hybrid managers. Phase 2 explored the use of evidence by managers in specific technology examples: (1) considered for adoption; (2) successfully adopted and implemented; and (3) rejected or discontinued.Findings(1) Access to, and use of, evidence types and sources varied greatly by profession. Clinicians reported a strong preference for science-based, peer-reviewed, published evidence. All groups called upon experiential knowledge and expert opinion. Nurses overall drew upon a wider range of evidence sources and types. Non-clinical managers tended to sequentially prioritise evidence on cost from national-level sources, and local implementation trials. (2) A sizeable proportion of professionals from all groups, including experienced staff, reported difficulty in making sense of evidence. Lack of awareness of existing implementation literature, lack of knowledge on how to translate information into current practice, and lack of time and relevant skills were reported as key reasons for this. (3) Infection outbreaks, financial pressures, performance targets and trusted relationships with suppliers seemed to emphasise a pragmatic and less rigorous approach in sourcing for evidence. Trust infrastructure redevelopment projects, and a strong emphasis on patient safety and collaboration, appeared to widen scope for evidence use. (4) Evidence was continuously interpreted and (re)constructed by professional identity, organisational role, team membership, audience and organisational goals. (5) Doctors and non-clinical managers sourced evidence plausible to self. Nursing staff also sought acceptance of evidence from other groups. (6) We found diverse ‘evidence templates’ in use: ‘biomedical-scientific’, ‘practice-based’, ‘rational-policy’. These represented shared cognitive models which defined what constituted acceptable and credible evidence in decisions. Nurses drew on all diverse ‘templates’ to make sense of evidence and problems; non-clinical managers drew mainly on the practice-based and rational-policy templates; and doctors drew primarily on the biomedical-scientific template.ConclusionsAn evidence-based management approach that inflexibly applies the principles of evidence-based medicine, our findings suggest, neglects how evidence is actioned in practice and how codified research knowledge inter-relates with other ‘evidence’ also valued by decision-makers. Local processes and professional and microsystem considerations played a significant role in adoption and implementation. This has substantial implications for the effectiveness of large-scale projects and systems-wide policy.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundThe uptake of improvement initiatives in infection prevention and control (IPC) has often proven challenging. Innovative interventions such as ‘serious games’ have been proposed in other areas to educate and help clinicians adopt optimal behaviours. There is limited evidence about the application and evaluation of serious games in IPC. The purposes of the study were: a) to synthesise research evidence on the use of serious games in IPC to support healthcare workers’ behaviour change and best practice learning; and b) to identify gaps across the formulation and evaluation of serious games in IPC.MethodsA scoping study was conducted using the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. We interrogated electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane, Google Scholar) in December 2015. Evidence from these studies was assessed against an analytic framework of intervention formulation and evaluation.ResultsNine hundred sixty five unique papers were initially identified, 23 included for full-text review, and four finally selected. Studies focused on intervention inception and development rather than implementation. Expert involvement in game design was reported in 2/4 studies. Potential game users were not included in needs assessment and game development. Outcome variables such as fidelity or sustainability were scarcely reported.ConclusionsThe growing interest in serious games for health has not been coupled with adequate evaluation of processes, outcomes and contexts involved. Explanations about the mechanisms by which game components may facilitate behaviour change are lacking, further hindering adoption.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13756-016-0137-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.