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

      Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of implementation factors

      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

          Maternal and perinatal death surveillance and response (MPDSR), or any form of maternal and/or perinatal death review or audit, aims to improve health services and pre-empt future maternal and perinatal deaths. With expansion of MPDSR across low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), we conducted a scoping review to identify and describe implementation factors and their interactions. The review adapted an implementation framework with four domains (intervention, individual, inner and outer settings) and three cross-cutting health systems lenses (service delivery, societal and systems). Literature was sourced from six electronic databases, online searches and key experts. Selection criteria included studies from LMIC published in English from 2004 to July 2018 detailing factors influencing implementation of MPDSR, or any related form of MPDSR. After a systematic screening process, data for identified records were extracted and analysed through content and thematic analysis. Of 1027 studies screened, the review focuses on 58 studies from 24 countries, primarily in Africa, that are mainly qualitative or mixed methods. The literature mostly examines implementation factors related to MPDSR as an intervention, and to its inner and outer setting, with less attention to the individuals involved. From a health systems perspective, almost half the literature focuses on the tangible inputs addressed by the service delivery lens, though these are often measured inadequately or through incomparable ways. Though less studied, the societal and health system factors show that people and their relationships, motivations, implementation climate and ability to communicate influence implementation processes; yet their subjective experiences and relationships are inadequately explored. MPDSR implementation contributes to accountability and benefits from a culture of learning, continuous improvement and accountability, but few have studied the complex interplay and change dynamics involved. Better understanding MPDSR will require more research using health policy and systems approaches, including the use of implementation frameworks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 98

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

            Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

              Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Health Policy Plan
                Health Policy Plan
                heapol
                Health Policy and Planning
                Oxford University Press
                0268-1080
                1460-2237
                July 2021
                13 March 2021
                13 March 2021
                : 36
                : 6
                : 955-973
                Affiliations
                School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa
                School of Health Studies and Faculty of Information and Media Studies, The University of Western Ontario , London, ON, Canada
                School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences , Kampala, Uganda
                Global Health Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm, Sweden
                School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa
                Author notes
                *Corresponding author. School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, South Africa. E-mail: mkinney@ 123456uwc.ac.za
                Article
                czab011
                10.1093/heapol/czab011
                8227470
                33712840
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Page count
                Pages: 19
                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: MPDSR Technical Working Group and the Countdown to 2030 Drivers Working Group;
                Funded by: South African Research Chair's Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa;
                Award ID: 82769
                Funded by: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, DOI 10.13039/100000865;
                Categories
                Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860

                Comments

                Comment on this article