16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Supporting the use of research evidence in decision-making in crisis zones in low- and middle-income countries: a critical interpretive synthesis

      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

          Background

          Decision-makers in crisis zones are faced with the challenge of having to make health-related decisions under limited time and resource constraints and in light of the many factors that can influence their decisions, of which research evidence is just one. To address a key gap in the research literature about how best to support the use of research evidence in such situations, we conducted a critical interpretive synthesis approach to develop a conceptual framework that outlines the strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones.

          Methods

          We systematically reviewed both empirical and non-empirical literature and used an interpretive analytic approach to synthesise the results and develop the conceptual framework. We used a ‘compass’ question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SSCI and Web of Science. A second reviewer was assigned to a representative sample of articles. We purposively sampled additional papers to fill in conceptual gaps.

          Results

          We identified 21 eligible papers to be analysed and purposively sampled an additional 6 to fill conceptual gaps. The synthesis resulted in a conceptual framework that focuses on evidence use in crisis zones examined through the lens of four systems – political, health, international humanitarian aid and health research. Within each of the four systems, the framework identifies the most actionable strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use.

          Conclusions

          This study presents a new conceptual framework that outlines strategies that leverage the facilitators and address the barriers to evidence use in crisis zones within different systems. This study expands on the literature pertaining to evidence-informed decision-making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

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

          Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups

          Background Conventional systematic review techniques have limitations when the aim of a review is to construct a critical analysis of a complex body of literature. This article offers a reflexive account of an attempt to conduct an interpretive review of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups in the UK Methods This project involved the development and use of the method of Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS). This approach is sensitised to the processes of conventional systematic review methodology and draws on recent advances in methods for interpretive synthesis. Results Many analyses of equity of access have rested on measures of utilisation of health services, but these are problematic both methodologically and conceptually. A more useful means of understanding access is offered by the synthetic construct of candidacy. Candidacy describes how people's eligibility for healthcare is determined between themselves and health services. It is a continually negotiated property of individuals, subject to multiple influences arising both from people and their social contexts and from macro-level influences on allocation of resources and configuration of services. Health services are continually constituting and seeking to define the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention, while at the same time people are engaged in constituting and defining what they understand to be the appropriate objects of medical attention and intervention. Access represents a dynamic interplay between these simultaneous, iterative and mutually reinforcing processes. By attending to how vulnerabilities arise in relation to candidacy, the phenomenon of access can be better understood, and more appropriate recommendations made for policy, practice and future research. Discussion By innovating with existing methods for interpretive synthesis, it was possible to produce not only new methods for conducting what we have termed critical interpretive synthesis, but also a new theoretical conceptualisation of access to healthcare. This theoretical account of access is distinct from models already extant in the literature, and is the result of combining diverse constructs and evidence into a coherent whole. Both the method and the model should be evaluated in other contexts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.

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

              Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach

              Background Rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program. Methods The KTA research program is a two-year project designed to develop and assess the impact of a regional knowledge infrastructure that supports evidence-informed decision making by regional managers and stakeholders. As part of this program, we have developed evidence summaries - our form of rapid review - which have come to be a flagship component of this project. Our eight-step approach for producing evidence summaries has been developed iteratively, based on evidence (where available), experience and knowledge user feedback. The aim of our evidence summary approach is to deliver quality evidence that is both timely and user-friendly. Results From November 2009 to March 2011 we have produced 11 evidence summaries on a diverse range of questions identified by our knowledge users. Topic areas have included questions of clinical effectiveness to questions on health systems and/or health services. Knowledge users have reported evidence summaries to be of high value in informing their decisions and initiatives. We continue to experiment with incorporating more of the established methods of systematic reviews, while maintaining our capacity to deliver a final product in a timely manner. Conclusions The evolution of the KTA rapid review evidence summaries has been a positive one. We have developed an approach that appears to be addressing a need by knowledge users for timely, user-friendly, and trustworthy evidence and have transparently reported these methods here for the wider rapid review and scientific community.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kkhalida@mcmaster.ca
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                18 February 2020
                18 February 2020
                2020
                : 18
                : 21
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Health Policy PhD Program, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, McMaster Health Forum, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Department of Political Science, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9801, GRID grid.22903.3a, Department of Health Management & Policy, , American University of Beirut, ; Beirut, Lebanon
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9801, GRID grid.22903.3a, enter for Systematic Review in Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), , American University of Beirut, ; Beirut, Lebanon
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9801, GRID grid.22903.3a, Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center, , American University of Beirut, ; Beirut, Lebanon
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Department of Family Medicine, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, ON Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8525-2455
                Article
                530
                10.1186/s12961-020-0530-2
                7027202
                32070370
                972aaf55-982f-4191-8aed-8ab8c3f510c9
                © The Author(s). 2020

                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.

                History
                : 19 August 2019
                : 21 January 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Health & Social care
                critical interpretive synthesis,health systems research,barriers,facilitators,knowledge translation,evidence,decision-making,crisis zones,lmics

                Comments

                Comment on this article