Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis

El‐Jardali, Fadi; Akl, Elie A.; Karroum, Lama Bou; Kdouh, Ola; Akik, Chaza; Fadlallah, Racha; Hammoud, Rawan

doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-48

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of included systematic reviews were conducted by authors affiliated with institutions in high income countries, a finding consistent with the small proportion of systematic reviews from low and middle income countries in general. 24 - 27 We also found that the majority of systematic reviews address the delivery arrangements topic, which corroborates the findings of previous studies on the topics covered by HPSR systematic reviews. 24 - 26 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Bou-Karroum

Hakoum

Hammoud

et al. 2018

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. Conclusion: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“… 24 - 27 We also found that the majority of systematic reviews address the delivery arrangements topic, which corroborates the findings of previous studies on the topics covered by HPSR systematic reviews. 24 - 26 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Bou-Karroum

Hakoum

Hammoud

et al. 2018

Int J Health Policy Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a stocktaking exercise on HPSR production gaps in 12 EMR countries revealed significant inconsistencies between HPSR produced and regional HPSR priorities, emphasizing the need for more HPSR and its alignment with the demand for evidence by policymakers [ 15 ]. Additionally, a regional situational analysis exercise showed major gaps in the production of systematic reviews to address identified health policy priorities [ 16 ]. The limited number and scope of publicly accessible data was also shown to hinder the ability to employ evidence-informed decisions [ 17 ].…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

An institutional approach to support the conduct and use of health policy and systems research: The Nodal Institute in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

El‐Jardali

Saleh

Khodor

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to support decision making in health systems is limited in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). This is partly due to the lack of effective initiatives to strengthen regional HPSR capacities and promote its use in decision making. This paper offers a structured reflection on the establishment and core functioning of a HPSR Nodal Institute for the EMR with specific focus on the approach used to support the conduct and use of HPSR. It seeks to gain better understanding of the activities conducted by the Nodal Institute, the methods by which the Nodal Institute implemented these activities, and the outcomes of these activities.MethodsA multi-faceted approach was implemented by the Nodal Institute in collaboration with regional academic/research institutions, Sub-Nodes. The overall approach was a phased one that included the selection of Sub-Nodes, mapping of academic/research institutions in the EMR, stakeholders’ meetings, and HPSR capacity building workshops, and culminated with a regional meeting.ResultsThe mapping of academic/research institutions in the EMR resulted in the identification of 50 institutions, of which only 32 were engaged in HPSR. These institutions have the highest HPSR involvement in information/evidence (84%) and the lowest in human resources for health (34%). Their main HPSR focus areas included quality of healthcare services, patient safety, management of non-communicable diseases, and human resources for health. Regional HPSR challenges among these institutions were identified. The validation and ranking questionnaires resulted in the identification of country-specific HPSR priorities according to stakeholders in three countries. From these results, cross-cutting HPSR priorities among the countries related to primary healthcare, non-communicable diseases, human resources for health, as well as cross-cutting HPSR priorities among stakeholders and according to stakeholders of the countries, were extracted.ConclusionThe Nodal Institute in the EMR is a promising initiative to support the conduct and use of HPSR in health policies. The approach and findings reported in this paper allow for the development of opportunities towards the building of capacity for HPSR in the region and other countries and provide a roadmap for academic/research institutions interested in HPSR in the region.

show abstract

“…Using this tool is particularly relevant in the context of low- and middle-income countries, where the capacity of production of systematic reviews is limited and often misaligned with policy needs and priorities [ 11 , 27 , 28 ]. The prioritisation can help channel limited resources to areas of highest priority [ 27 , 29 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Groups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in HPSR should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders [ 11 , 12 ]. A prioritisation process can increase the likelihood that the best available evidence informs health policy decision-making [ 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation

Akl

Fadlallah

Ghandour

et al. 2017

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGroups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR.MethodsWe developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of (1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool, (2) item generation and reduction, (3) testing for content and face validity, (4) and pilot testing of the tool. The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customisation to the user’s needs.ResultsThe purpose of the SPARK tool was to prioritise questions in HPSR in order to address them in systematic reviews. In the item generation and reduction phase, an extensive literature search yielded 40 relevant articles, which were reviewed by the research team to create a preliminary list of 19 candidate items for inclusion in the tool. As part of testing for content and face validity, input from international experts led to the refining, changing, merging and addition of new items, and to organisation of the tool into two modules. Following pilot testing, we finalised the tool, with 22 items organised in two modules – the first module including 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second including 9 items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customise the tool to their needs, by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We also developed a user manual that provides guidance on how to use the SPARK tool, along with signaling questions.ConclusionWe have developed and conducted initial validation of the SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR, along with a user manual. By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste. We invite others to contribute with additional real-life implementation of the tool.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0242-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Systematic reviews addressing identified health policy priorities in Eastern Mediterranean countries: a situational analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 18 publications

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

An institutional approach to support the conduct and use of health policy and systems research: The Nodal Institute in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About