5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Protocol for the Pathways Study: a realist evaluation of staff social ties and communication in the delivery of neonatal care in Kenya

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The informal social ties that health workers form with their colleagues influence knowledge, skills and individual and group behaviours and norms in the workplace. However, improved understanding of these ‘software’ aspects of the workforce (eg, relationships, norms, power) have been neglected in health systems research. In Kenya, neonatal mortality has lagged despite reductions in other age groups under 5 years. A rich understanding of workforce social ties is likely to be valuable to inform behavioural change initiatives seeking to improve quality of neonatal healthcare.

          This study aims to better understand the relational components among health workers in Kenyan neonatal care areas, and how such understanding might inform the design and implementation of quality improvement interventions targeting health workers’ behaviours.

          Methods and analysis

          We will collect data in two phases. In phase 1, we will conduct non-participant observation of hospital staff during patient care and hospital meetings, a social network questionnaire with staff, in-depth interviews, key informant interviews and focus group discussions at two large public hospitals in Kenya. Data will be collected purposively and analysed using realist evaluation, interim analyses including thematic analysis of qualitative data and quantitative analysis of social network metrics. In phase 2, a stakeholder workshop will be held to discuss and refine phase one findings.

          Study findings will help refine an evolving programme theory with recommendations used to develop theory-informed interventions targeted at enhancing quality improvement efforts in Kenyan hospitals.

          Ethics and dissemination

          The study has been approved by Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI/SERU/CGMR-C/241/4374) and Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC 519-22). Research findings will be shared with the sites, and disseminated in seminars, conferences and published in open-access scientific journals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          National, regional, and global levels and trends in neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, with scenario-based projections to 2030: a systematic analysis

          Summary Background Reducing neonatal mortality is an essential part of the third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), to end preventable child deaths. To achieve this aim will require an understanding of the levels of and trends in neonatal mortality. We therefore aimed to estimate the levels of and trends in neonatal mortality by use of a statistical model that can be used to assess progress in the SDG era. With these estimates of neonatal mortality between 1990 and 2017, we then aimed to assess how different targets for neonatal mortality could affect the burden of neonatal mortality from 2018 to 2030. Methods In this systematic analysis, we used nationally-representative empirical data related to neonatal mortality, including data from vital registration systems, sample registration systems, and household surveys, to estimate country-specific neonatal mortality rates (NMR; the probability of dying during the first 28 days of life) for all countries between 1990 (or the earliest year of available data) and 2017. For our analysis, we used all publicly available data on neonatal mortality from databases compiled annually by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, which were extracted on or before July 31, 2018, for data relating to the period between 1950 and 2017. All nationally representative data were assessed. We used a Bayesian hierarchical penalised B-splines regression model, which allowed for data from different sources to be weighted differently, to account for variable biases and for the uncertainty in NMR to be assessed. The model simultaneously estimated a global association between NMR and under-5 mortality rate and country-specific and time-specific effects, which enabled us to identify countries with an NMR that was higher or lower than expected. Scenario-based projections were made at the county level by use of current levels of and trends in neonatal mortality and historic or annual rates of reduction that would be required to achieve national targets. The main outcome that we assessed was the levels of and trends in neonatal mortality and the global and regional NMRs from 1990 to 2017. Findings Between 1990 and 2017, the global NMR decreased by 51% (90% uncertainty interval [UI] 46–54), from 36·6 deaths per 1000 livebirths (35·5–37·8) in 1990, to 18·0 deaths per 1000 livebirths (17·0–19·9) in 2017. The estimated number of neonatal deaths during the same period decreased from 5·0 million (4·9 million–5·2 million) to 2·5 million (2·4 million–2·8 million). Annual NMRs vary widely across the world, but west and central Africa and south Asia had the highest NMRs in 2017. All regions have reported reductions in NMRs since 1990, and most regions accelerated progress in reducing neonatal mortality in 2000–17 versus 1990–2000. Between 2018 and 2030, we project that 27·8 million children will die in their first month of life if each country maintains its current rate of reduction in NMR. If each country achieves the SDG neonatal mortality target of 12 deaths per 1000 livebirths or fewer by 2030, we project 22·7 million cumulative neonatal deaths by 2030. More than 60 countries need to accelerate their progress to reach the neonatal mortality SDG target by 2030. Interpretation Although substantial progress has been made in reducing neonatal mortality since 1990, increased efforts to improve progress are still needed to achieve the SDG target by 2030. Accelerated improvements are most needed in the regions and countries with high NMR, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United States Agency for International Development.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations

            Background Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project’s aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. Methods We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. Results We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. Conclusion These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Building the Field of Health Policy and Systems Research: Framing the Questions

              In the first of a series of articles addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of Health Policy & Systems Research (HPSR), Kabir Sheikh and colleagues lay out the main questions vexing the field.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2023
                13 March 2023
                : 13
                : 3
                : e066150
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentHealth Systems and Research Ethics , KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme , Nairobi, Kenya
                [2 ]departmentNuffield Department of Medicine , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ]departmentNuffield Department of Medicine and Department of Paediatrics , Univerity of Oxford Nuffield Department of Medicine , Oxford, UK
                [4 ]departmentThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [5 ]departmentTropical Medicine , University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Medicine , Oxford, UK
                [6 ]University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine , Oxford, UK
                [7 ]departmentCentre for Geographic Medicine Research-Coast , KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme , Kilifi, Kenya
                [8 ]departmentHealth Services Unit , KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme Nairobi , Nairobi, Kenya
                [9 ]departmentNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , Oxford University , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Mr. Conrad Wanyama; CWanyama@ 123456kemri-wellcome.org
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3553-6679
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-0826
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-3151
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4715-902X
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-066150
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066150
                10016238
                36914188
                276f4bcb-b450-428a-9aad-60b7d69e9cd5
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 July 2022
                : 22 February 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 207522
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, Medical Research Council;
                Award ID: MR/N013468/1
                Funded by: Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, UK;
                Categories
                Communication
                1506
                1684
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health policy,quality in health care,neonatology
                Medicine
                health policy, quality in health care, neonatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article