Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30045731›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Embedded health service development and research: why and how to do it (a ten-stage guide).

John Walley, Mohammad Amir Khan, Sophie Witter, Rumana Haque, James Newell, Xiaolin Wei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John WalleyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, England, United Kingdom.
Mohammad Amir KhanAssociation for Social Development, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sophie WitterInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Musselburgh, Edinburgh, EH21 6UU, United Kingdom. sophiewitter@blueyonder.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7656-6188
Rumana HaqueUniversity of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
James NewellLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, England, United Kingdom.
Xiaolin WeiDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Department for International Development, UK Government COMDIS RPC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a world of changing disease burdens, poor quality care and constrained health budgets, finding effective approaches to developing and implementing evidence-based health services is crucial. Much has been published on developing service tools and protocols, operational research and getting policy into practice but these are often undertaken in isolation from one another. This paper, based on 25 years of experience in a range of low and middle income contexts as well as wider literature, presents a systematic approach to connecting these activities in an embedded development and research approach. This approach can circumvent common problems such as lack of local ownership of new programmes, unrealistic resource requirements and poor implementation.We lay out a ten-step process, which is based on long-term partnerships and working within local systems and constraints and may be tailored to the context and needs. Service development and operational research is best prioritised, designed, conducted and replicated when it is embedded within ministry of health and national programmes. Care packages should from the outset be designed for scale-up, which is why the piloting stage is so crucial. In this way, the resulting package of care will be feasible within the context and will address local priorities. Researchers must be entrepreneurial and responsive to windows of funding for scale-up, working in real-world contexts where funding and decisions do not wait for evidence, so evidence generation has to be pragmatic to meet and ensure best use of the policy and financing cycles. The research should generate tested and easily usable tools, training materials and processes for use in scale-up. Development of the package should work within and strengthen the health system and other service delivery strategies to ensure that unintended negative consequences are minimised and that the strengthened systems support quality care and effective scale up of the package.While embedded development and research is promoted in theory, it is not yet practiced at scale by many initiatives, leading to wasted resources and un-sustained programmes. This guide presents a systematic and practical guide to support more effective engagements in future, both in developing interventions and supporting evidence-based scale-up.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineGovernment AgenciesGovernment ProgramsHealth ServicesHealth Services ResearchProgram DevelopmentTranslational Research, BiomedicalCooperative BehaviorDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareDeveloping CountriesGuidelines as TopicHealth PolicyHealth ResourcesHumansResearch PersonnelEmbedded development and researchHealth servicesIntervention scale-upKnowledge co-productionOperational researchResearch into practice

Identifiers

PMID30045731
PMCPMC6060510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.