Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity surveillance systems are important for public health monitoring but rely mostly on self-report measurement of physical activity. Integration of device-based measurements in such systems can improve population estimates, however this is still relatively uncommon in existing surveillance systems. This systematic review aims to create an overview of the methodology used in existing device-based national PA surveillance systems.MethodsFour literature databases (PubMed, Embase.com, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) were searched, supplemented with backward tracking. Articles were included if they reported on population-based (inter)national surveillance systems measuring PA, sedentary time and/or adherence to PA guidelines. When available and in English, the methodological reports of the identified surveillance studies were also included for data extraction.ResultsThis systematic literature search followed the PRISMA guidelines and yielded 34 articles and an additional 18 methodological reports, reporting on 28 studies, which in turn reported on one or multiple waves of 15 different national and 1 international surveillance system. The included studies showed substantial variation between (waves of) systems in number of participants, response rates, population representativeness and recruitment. In contrast, the methods were similar on data reduction definitions (e.g. minimal number of valid days, non-wear time and necessary wear time for a valid day).ConclusionsThe results of this review indicate that few countries use device-based PA measurement in their surveillance system. The employed methodology is diverse, which hampers comparability between countries and calls for more standardized methods as well as standardized reporting on these methods. The results from this review can help inform the integration of device-based PA measurement in (inter)national surveillance systems.
Project description:ObjectiveTo improve the evidence base for health policy by devising a method to measure and monitor the performance of health systems.DesignEstimation of the relation between levels of population health and the inputs used to produce health.Setting191 countries.Main outcome measureHealth system efficiency (performance).ResultsEstimated efficiency varied from nearly fully efficient to nearly fully inefficient. Countries with a history of civil conflict or high prevalence of HIV and AIDS were less efficient. Performance increased with health expenditure per capita.ConclusionsIncreasing the resources for health systems is critical to improving health in poor countries, but important gains can be made in most countries by using existing resources more efficiently.
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed stress on all National Health Systems (NHSs) worldwide. Recent studies on the disease have evaluated different variables, namely, quarantine models, mitigation efforts, damage to mental health, mortality of the population with chronic diseases, diagnosis, use of masks and social distancing, and mortality based on age. This study focused on the four NHSs recognized by the WHO. These systems are as follows: (1) The Beveridge model, (2) the Bismarck model, (3) the National Health Insurance (NHI) model, and (4) the "Out-of-Pocket" model. The study analyzes the response of the health systems to the pandemic by comparing the time in days required to double the number of disease-related deaths. The statistical analysis was limited to 56 countries representing 70% of the global population. Each country was grouped into the health system defined by the WHO. The study compared the median death toll DT, between health systems using Mood's median test method. The results show high variability of the temporal trends in each group; none of the health systems for the three analyzed periods maintain stable interquartile ranges (IQRs). Nevertheless, the results obtained show similar medians between the study groups. The COVID-19 pandemic saturates health systems regardless of their management structures, and the result measured with the time for doubling death rate variable is similar among the four NHSs.
Project description:ObjectivesAchieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require data-driven public health action. There are limited publications on national health information systems that continuously generate health data. Given the need to develop these systems, we summarised their current status in low-income and middle-income countries.SettingThe survey team jointly developed a questionnaire covering policy, planning, legislation and organisation of case reporting, patient monitoring and civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems. From January until May 2017, we administered the questionnaire to key informants in 51 Centers for Disease Control country offices. Countries were aggregated for descriptive analyses in Microsoft Excel.ResultsKey informants in 15 countries responded to the questionnaire. Several key informants did not answer all questions, leading to different denominators across questions. The Ministry of Health coordinated case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 93% (14/15), 93% (13/14) and 53% (8/15) of responding countries, respectively. Domestic financing supported case reporting, patient monitoring and CRVS systems in 86% (12/14), 75% (9/12) and 92% (11/12) of responding countries, respectively. The most common uses for system-generated data were to guide programme response in 100% (15/15) of countries for case reporting, to calculate service coverage in 92% (12/13) of countries for patient monitoring and to estimate the national burden of disease in 83% (10/12) of countries for CRVS. Systems with an electronic component were being used for case reporting, patient monitoring, birth registration and death registration in 87% (13/15), 92% (11/12), 77% (10/13) and 64% (7/11) of responding countries, respectively.ConclusionsMost responding countries have a solid foundation for policy, planning, legislation and organisation of health information systems. Further evaluation is needed to assess the quality of data generated from systems. Periodic evaluations may be useful in monitoring progress in strengthening and harmonising these systems over time.
Project description:BackgroundPolicy making, translation and implementation in politically and administratively decentralized systems can be challenging. Beyond the mere sub-national acceptance of national initiatives, adherence to policy implementation processes is often poor, particularly in low and middle-income countries. In this study, we explore the implementation fidelity of integrated PHC governance policy in Nigeria's decentralized governance system and its implications on closing implementation gaps with respect to other top-down health policies and initiatives.MethodsHaving engaged policy makers, we identified 9 core components of the policy (Governance, Legislation, Minimum Service Package, Repositioning, Systems Development, Operational Guidelines, Human Resources, Funding Structure, and Office Establishment). We evaluated the level and pattern of implementation at state level as compared to the national guidelines using a scorecard approach.ResultsContrary to national government's assessment of level of compliance, we found that sub-national governments exercised significant discretion with respect to the implementation of core components of the policy. Whereas 35 and 32% of states fully met national criteria for the structural domains of "Office Establishment" and Legislation" respectively, no state was fully compliant to "Human Resource Management" and "Funding" requirements, which are more indicative of functionality. The pattern of implementation suggests that, rather than implementing to improve outcomes, state governments may be more interested in executing low hanging fruits in order to access national incentives.ConclusionsOur study highlights the importance of evaluating implementation fidelity in providing evidence of implementation gaps towards improving policy execution, particularly in decentralized health systems. This approach will help national policy makers identify more effective ways of supporting lower tiers of governance towards improvement of health systems and outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundThe development of effective eHealth strategies is critical to enhancing healthcare systems' efficiency and outcomes. However, there is limited comparative analysis of eHealth strategies across health systems, particularly in terms of their vision, objectives, implementation methods, and follow-up processes. This study compares the eHealth strategies of nine health systems, focusing on three key dimensions: vision and objectives, means to achieve objectives, and structures for follow-up.MethodsA comparative qualitative analysis was conducted using publicly available eHealth strategy documents from nine health systems: Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the UK (NHS England), Catalonia (Spain), and the USA (Veterans Affairs). The analysis mapped these systems' visions, objectives, implementation methods, and follow-up structures.ResultsFindings show that most systems articulate clear visions and strategic goals. However, there is considerable variability in the level of detail regarding the means of achieving objectives and structures for follow-up. Australia and Estonia present the most comprehensive strategies, with clear tasks, responsibilities, timelines, and follow-up mechanisms. In contrast, countries like Sweden and Catalonia provide less detailed strategic plans, particularly in terms of follow-up processes.ConclusionsWhile most studied health systems include clear visions and strategic goals, there is variability in the detail and comprehensiveness of their implementation and evaluation frameworks. Strategies with detailed implementation plans and follow-up processes, such as those from Australia and Estonia, offer valuable models. Further research is recommended to explore the practical impact of these strategies on healthcare delivery, patient outcomes, and system efficiency. Additionally, the role of stakeholder involvement in shaping these strategies warrants further investigation.
Project description:Heat waves have been linked to excess mortality and morbidity, and are projected to increase in frequency and intensity with a warming climate. This study compares exposure metrics to trigger heat wave and health warning systems (HHWS), and introduces a novel multi-level hybrid clustering method to identify potential dangerously hot days. Two-level and three-level hybrid clustering analysis as well as common indices used to trigger HHWS, including spatial synoptic classification (SSC), and the 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of minimum and relative minimum temperature (using a 10 day reference period), were calculated using a summertime weather dataset in Detroit from 1976 to 2006. The days classified as 'hot' with hybrid clustering analysis, SSC, minimum and relative minimum temperature methods differed by method type. SSC tended to include the days with, on average, 2.5 °C lower daily minimum temperature and 5.3 °C lower dew point than days identified by other methods. These metrics were evaluated by comparing their performance in predicting excess daily mortality. The 99th percentile of minimum temperature was generally the most predictive, followed by the three-level hybrid clustering method, the 95th percentile of minimum temperature, SSC and others. Our proposed clustering framework has more flexibility and requires less substantial meteorological prior information than the synoptic classification methods. Comparison of these metrics in predicting excess daily mortality suggests that metrics thought to better characterize physiological heat stress by considering several weather conditions simultaneously may not be the same metrics that are better at predicting heat-related mortality, which has significant implications in HHWSs.
Project description:BackgroundThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (NIH Collaboratory) seeks to produce generalizable knowledge about the conduct of pragmatic research in health systems. This analysis applied the PRECIS-2 pragmatic trial criteria to five NIH Collaboratory pragmatic trials to better understand 1) the pragmatic aspects of the design and implementation of treatments delivered in real world settings and 2) the usability of the PRECIS-2 criteria for assessing pragmatic features across studies and across time.Methods/designUsing the PRECIS-2 criteria, five pragmatic trials were each rated by eight raters. For each trial, we reviewed the original grant application and a required progress report written at the end of a 1-year planning period that included changes to the protocol or implementation approach. We calculated median scores and interrater reliability for each PRECIS domain and for the overall trial at both time points, as well as the differences in scores between the two time points. We also reviewed the rater comments associated with the scores.ResultsAll five trials were rated to be more pragmatic than explanatory, with comments indicating that raters generally perceived them to closely mirror routine clinical care across multiple domains. The PRECIS-2 domains for which the trials were, on average, rated as most pragmatic on the 1 to 5 scale at the conclusion of the planning period included primary analysis (mean = 4.7 (range = 4.5 to 4.9)), recruitment (4.3 (3.6 to 4.8)), eligibility (4.1 (3.4 to 4.8)), setting (4.1 (4.0 to 4.4)), follow-up (4.1 (3.4 to 4.9)), and primary outcome (4.1 (3.5 to 4.9)). On average, the less pragmatic domains were organization (3.3 (2.6 to 4.4)), flexibility of intervention delivery (3.5 (2.1-4.5)), and flexibility of intervention adherence (3.8 (2.8-4.5)). Interrater agreement was modest but statistically significant for four trials (Gwet's AC1 statistic range 0.23 to 0.40) and the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.05 to 0.31. Rating challenges included assigning a single score for domains that may relate to both patients and care settings (that is, eligibility or recruitment) and determining to what extent aspects of complex research interventions differ from usual care.ConclusionsThese five trials in diverse healthcare settings were rated as highly pragmatic using the PRECIS-2 criteria. Applying the tool generated insightful discussion about real-world design decisions but also highlighted challenges using the tool. PRECIS-2 raters would benefit from additional guidance about how to rate the interwoven patient and practice-level considerations that arise in pragmatic trials.Trial registrationsClinicaltrials.gov trial registrations: NCT02019225 , NCT01742065 , NCT02015455 , NCT02113592 , NCT02063867 .