Browsing by Author "Opiyo, Newton"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemA comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence(BioMed Central, 2018-03-15) Johansen, Marit; Rada, Gabriel; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Motaze, Nkengafac Vilyen; Opiyo, Newton; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Ding, Yunpeng; Mukinda, Fidele K.; Oxman, Andrew D.Background: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. Methods: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and highincome countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Results: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. Conclusions: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people.
- ItemDelivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017) Ciapponi, Agustin; Lewin, Simon; Herrera, Cristian A.; Opiyo, Newton; Pantoja, Tomas; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Rada, Gabriel; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Bastias, Gabriel; Dudley, Lilian; Flottorp, Signe; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Marti, Sebastian Garcia; Glenton, Claire; Okwundu, Charles I.; Penaloza, Blanca; Suleman, Fatima; Oxman, Andrew D.Background: Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. Objectives: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. Methods: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ‐Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well‐conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low‐income countries. Main results: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence and no moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence of undesirable effects.
- ItemFinancial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017) Wiysonge, Charles S.; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Lewin, Simon; Ciapponi, Agustin; Herrera, Cristian A.; Opiyo, Newton; Pantoja, Tomas; Rada, Gabriel; Oxman, Andrew D.Background: One target of the Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve "universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health‐care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all". A fundamental concern of governments in striving for this goal is how to finance such a health system. This concern is very relevant for low‐income countries. Objectives: To provide an overview of the evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of financial arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on financial arrangements, and informing refinements in the framework for financial arrangements presented in the overview. Methods: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ‐Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language, or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well‐conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of financial arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment, or financial burden of patients, e.g. out‐of‐pocket payment, catastrophic disease expenditure) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low‐income countries. Main results: We identified 7272 reviews and included 15 in this overview, on: collection of funds (2 reviews), insurance schemes (1 review), purchasing of services (1 review), recipient incentives (6 reviews), and provider incentives (5 reviews). The reviews were published between 2008 and 2015; focused on 13 subcategories; and reported results from 276 studies: 115 (42%) randomised trials, 11 (4%) non‐randomised trials, 23 (8%) controlled before‐after studies, 51 (19%) interrupted time series, 9 (3%) repeated measures, and 67 (24%) other non‐randomised studies. Forty‐three per cent (119/276) of the studies included in the reviews took place in low‐ and middle‐income countries.
- ItemGovernance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017) Herrera, Cristian A.; Lewin, Simon; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Ciapponi, Agustin; Opiyo, Newton; Pantoja, Tomas; Rada, Gabriel; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Bastias, Gabriel; Marti, Sebastian Garcia; Okwundu, Charles I.; Penaloza, Blanca; Oxman, Andrew D.Background: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision‐making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems. Objectives: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview. Methods: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well‐conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out‐of‐pocket payments, cost‐effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low‐income countries. Main results: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations). We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews). Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence and no moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence of undesirable effects.
- ItemImplementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017) Pantoja, Tomas; Opiyo, Newton; Lewin, Simon; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Ciapponi, Agustin; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Herrera, Cristian A.; Rada, Gabriel; Penaloza, Blanca; Dudley, Lilian; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Marti, Sebastian Garcia; Oxman, Andrew D.Background: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low‐income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision‐makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness. Objectives: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low‐income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview. Methods: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ‐Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well‐conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low‐income countries. Main results: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high‐income countries. There were no studies from low‐income countries in eight reviews. Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories – strategies targeting: 1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review); 2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews); 3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews); 4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews). Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence and no moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence of undesirable effects.