Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35392931›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2022

Strategies to promote evidence use for health programme improvement: learning from the experiences of embedded implementation research teams in Latin America and the Caribbean.

N Ilona Varallyay, Caitlin Kennedy, Sara C Bennett, David H Peters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

N Ilona VarallyayHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States of America. ilonavarallyay@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3021-394X
Caitlin KennedySocial and Behavioral Interventions Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States of America.
Sara C BennettHealth Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States of America.
David H PetersDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo achieve global health targets, innovative approaches are needed to strengthen the implementation of efficacious interventions. New approaches in implementation research that bring together health system decision-makers alongside researchers to collaboratively design, produce and apply research evidence are gaining traction. Embedded implementation research (EIR) approaches led by decision-maker principal investigators (DM PIs) appear promising in this regard. Our aim is to describe the strategies study teams employ in the post-research phase of EIR to promote evidence-informed programme or policy improvement.

methodsWe conducted a prospective, comparative case study of an EIR initiative in Bolivia, Colombia and Dominican Republic. Guided by a conceptual framework on EIR, we used semi-structured key informant interviews (n = 51) and document reviews (n = 20) to examine three decision-maker-led study teams ("cases"). Focusing on three processes (communication/dissemination, stakeholder engagement with evidence, integrating evidence in decision-making) and the main outcome (enacting improvements), we used thematic analysis to identify associated strategies and enabling or hindering factors.

resultsAcross cases, we observed diverse strategies, shaped substantially by whether the DM PI was positioned to lead the response to study findings within their sphere of work. We found two primary change pathways: (1) DM PIs implement remedial measures directly, and (2) DM PIs seek to influence other stakeholders to respond to study findings. Throughout the post-research phase, EIR teams adapted research use strategies based on the evolving context.

conclusionsEIR led by well-positioned DM PIs can facilitate impactful research translation efforts. We draw lessons around the importance of (1) understanding DM PI positionality, (2) ongoing assessment of the evolving context and stakeholders and (3) iterative adaptation to dynamic, uncertain circumstances. Findings may guide EIR practitioners in planning and conducting fit-for-purpose and context-sensitive strategies to advance the use of evidence for programme improvement.

Indexed as

Government ProgramsStakeholder ParticipationDominican RepublicHumansLatin AmericaProspective StudiesEmbedded researchEvidence coproductionEvidence-informed decision-makingHealth policy and systems researchImplementation researchKnowledge translationLatin America and the CaribbeanLow- and middle-income countries

Identifiers

PMID35392931
PMCPMC8991468

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.