Anke Rohwer

Logic models help make sense of complexity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments

OBJECTIVE To describe the development and application of logic model templates for systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs) of complex interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING This study demonstrates the development of a method to conceptualize complexity and make underlying assumptions transparent. Examples from systematic reviews with specific relevance to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) illustrate its usefulness. RESULTS Two distinct templates are presented: the system-based logic model, describing the system in which the interaction between participants, intervention, and context takes place; and the process-orientated logic model, which displays the processes and causal pathways that lead from the intervention to multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION Logic models can help authors of systematic reviews and HTAs to explicitly address and make sense of complexity, adding value by achieving a better understanding of the interactions between the intervention, its implementation, and its multiple outcomes among a given population and context. They thus have the potential to help build systematic review capacity-in SSA and other LMICs-at an individual level, by equipping authors with a tool that facilitates the review process; and at a system-level, by improving communication between producers and potential users of research evidence.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of regulatory, environmental and educational interventions for reducing blood lead levels (BLLs) and associated health outcomes in children, pregnant women and the general population. METHODS Searches were run in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Global Health Library up until August 2015. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed the impact of regulatory, environmental or educational interventions, stand-alone or in combination, on BLLs among children, pregnant women or the general population through randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after (CBA), interrupted time series (ITS), uncontrolled before-after (UBA) or repeated cross-sectional studies. Studies assessing the impact of interventions to reduce exposure to lead in paint or household dust as well as studies concerned exclusively with environmental concentrations of lead were not included. As documented in a detailed protocol, screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were largely undertaken according to Cochrane standards. Harvest plots were used to graphically summarize evidence of effectiveness. RESULTS The searches yielded 6466 unique records, of which five met our eligibility criteria; two additional eligible studies were identified by experts. We did not find any studies regarding the effectiveness of regulatory, educational or environmental interventions targeting exposure to lead in consumer products. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions in reducing BLLs from exposures through drinking water is limited in both quantity and quality. Stand-alone targeted educational interventions showed no statistically significant reductions in childrens BLL (two RCT) when compared to general educational interventions. Likewise, instructing women to reduce or eliminate lead-contaminated drinking water showed no effect on BLL (one RCT). Stand-alone environmental interventions appeared more promising in reducing BLL (three UBA). Combining educational and environmental interventions and targeting multiple settings may be effective in reducing BLL, as suggested by one uncontrolled before-after study. No studies examining the effectiveness of regulatory interventions were found. CONCLUSIONS The limited quantity and quality of the evidence measuring BLL and associated health outcomes points to an urgent need for more robust research into the effectiveness of interventions to reduce lead exposure from consumer products and drinking water, especially for regulatory interventions.

A protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water

BackgroundThe toxic heavy metal lead continues to be a leading environmental risk factor, with the number of attributable deaths having doubled between 1990 and 2010. Although major sources of lead exposure, in particular lead in petrol, have been significantly reduced in recent decades, lead is still used in a wide range of processes and objects, with developing countries disproportionally affected. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of regulatory, environmental and educational interventions for reducing blood lead levels and associated health outcomes in children, pregnant women and the general population.Methods/designThe databases MEDLINE, Embase and the Global Health Library (GHL) will be searched using a sensitive search strategy. Studies in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian or Afrikaans will be screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will consider randomized and non-randomized studies accepted by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group, as well as additional non-randomized studies. Screening of titles and abstracts will be performed by one author. Full texts of potentially relevant studies will be independently assessed for eligibility by two authors. A single author will extract data, with a second reviewer checking the extraction form. Risk of bias will be assessed by two researchers using the Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies, as modified by the Centre for Public Health at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Any inconsistencies in the assessment of eligibility, data extraction or quality appraisal will be resolved through discussion. Where two or more studies report the primary outcome blood lead levels within the same population group, intervention category and source of lead exposure, data will be pooled using random effects meta-analysis. In parallel, harvest plots as a graphical method of evidence synthesis will be used to present findings for blood lead levels and secondary outcomes.DiscussionThis systematic review will fill an important evidence gap with respect to the effectiveness of interventions to reduce lead in consumer products and drinking water in the context of new WHO guidelines for the prevention and management of lead poisoning. It will also contribute to setting a future research agenda.

Patience, Persistence and Pragmatism: Experiences and Lessons Learnt from the Implementation of Clinically Integrated Teaching and Learning of Evidence-Based Health Care - A Qualitative Study

Background Clinically integrated teaching and learning are regarded as the best options for improving evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) knowledge, skills and attitudes. To inform implementation of such strategies, we assessed experiences and opinions on lessons learnt of those involved in such programmes. Methods and Findings We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 EBHC programme coordinators from around the world, selected through purposive sampling. Following data transcription, a multidisciplinary group of investigators carried out analysis and data interpretation, using thematic content analysis. Successful implementation of clinically integrated teaching and learning of EBHC takes much time. Student learning needs to start in pre-clinical years with consolidation, application and assessment following in clinical years. Learning is supported through partnerships between various types of staff including the core EBHC team, clinical lecturers and clinicians working in the clinical setting. While full integration of EBHC learning into all clinical rotations is considered necessary, this was not always achieved. Critical success factors were pragmatism and readiness to use opportunities for engagement and including EBHC learning in the curriculum; patience; and a critical mass of the right teachers who have EBHC knowledge and skills and are confident in facilitating learning. Role modelling of EBHC within the clinical setting emerged as an important facilitator. The institutional context exerts an important influence; with faculty buy-in, endorsement by institutional leaders, and an EBHC-friendly culture, together with a supportive community of practice, all acting as key enablers. The most common challenges identified were lack of teaching time within the clinical curriculum, misconceptions about EBHC, resistance of staff, lack of confidence of tutors, lack of time, and negative role modelling. Conclusions Implementing clinically integrated EBHC curricula requires institutional support, a critical mass of the right teachers and role models in the clinical setting combined with patience, persistence and pragmatism on the part of teachers.

An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries

Abstract To derive evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities for implementation in African settings, the international research consortium Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) developed and applied a pragmatic approach. First, an online survey and face-to-face consultation between CEBHA+ partners and policy-makers generated priority research areas. Second, evidence maps for these priority research areas identified gaps and related priority research questions. Finally, study protocols were developed for inclusion within a grant proposal. Policy and practice representatives were involved throughout the process. Tuberculosis, diabetes, hypertension and road traffic injuries were selected as priority research areas. Evidence maps covered screening and models of care for diabetes and hypertension, population-level prevention of diabetes and hypertension and their risk factors, and prevention and management of road traffic injuries. Analysis of these maps yielded three priority research questions on hypertension and diabetes and one on road traffic injuries. The four resulting study protocols employ a broad range of primary and secondary research methods; a fifth promotes an integrated methodological approach across all research activities. The CEBHA+ approach, in particular evidence mapping, helped to formulate research questions and study protocols that would be owned by African partners, fill gaps in the evidence base, address policy and practice needs and be feasible given the existing research infrastructure and expertise. The consortium believes that the continuous involvement of decision-makers throughout the research process is an important means of ensuring that studies are relevant to the African context and that findings are rapidly implemented.

Strengthening evidence-based healthcare in Africa

A Collaboration for Evidence Based Healthcare in Africa (CEBHA) has been established with partners from eight sub-Saharan African countries, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Malawi, Zimbabwe and South Africa. The aim of the Collaboration is to facilitate the provision of patient care based on evidence-informed decisions using context specific current best evidence; and to build capacity and sustainable structures of Evidence Based Healthcare in Africa. We believe that access to equitable and effective healthcare should be a right for people in all countries. Irrespective of where one lives, the need for valid evidence determining the efficacy of healthcare interventions is essential. Where the unmet needs for health services are most prominent, it is essential to adopt practices that have proven to be beneficial and not harmful or ineffective to ensure scarce resources are not wasted. Incorporating Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) into the African context means setting priorities, developing evidence summaries and guidelines and implementing research findings relevant for African countries to support healthcare for all. Contextualising evidence relates to several issues, including the lack of evidence available for an African setting. The effectiveness of an intervention in Africa may be different from that found in studies elsewhere because of factors such as: later presentation, co-infections, malnutrition, higher levels of self-medication and use of traditional remedies, reduced level of resources, including human resources for basic healthcare, and political instability. In addition, effective interventions, as determined by many systematic reviews, may not be available or affordable in most African settings. This means that Africa needs valid and Africa-specific research and that authors of systematic reviews should take this into account by avoiding overgeneralisation when making conclusions. EBHC extends the application of the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) as defined by Sackett et al ,1 to all healthcare professionals. Evidence-based public health …

Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches

The complexity associated with how interventions result-or fail to result-in outcomes and how context matters is increasingly recognised. Logic models provide an important tool for handling complexity, with contrasting uses in programme evaluation and evidence synthesis. To reconcile these, we developed an approach that combines the strengths of both traditions, propose a taxonomy of logic models, and provide guidance on how to choose between approaches and types of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA). The taxonomy distinguishes 3 approaches (a priori, staged, and iterative) and 2 types (systems-based and process-orientated) of logic models. An a priori logic model is specified at the start of the systematic review/HTA and remains unchanged. With a staged logic model, the reviewer prespecifies several points, at which major data inputs require a subsequent version. An iterative logic model is continuously modified throughout the systematic review/HTA process. System-based logic models describe the system, in which the interaction between participants, intervention, and context takes place; process-orientated models display the causal pathways leading from the intervention to multiple outcomes. The proposed taxonomy of logic models offers an improved understanding of the advantages and limitations of logic models across the spectrum from a priori to fully iterative approaches. Choice of logic model should be informed by scope of evidence synthesis, presence/absence of clearly defined population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) elements, and feasibility considerations. Applications across distinct interventions and methodological approaches will deliver good practice case studies and offer further insights on the choice and implementation of logic modelling approaches.

Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers

Objectives To document low/middle-income country (LMIC) health researchers’ views about authorship, redundant publication, plagiarism and conflicts of interest and how common poor practice was in their institutions. Design We developed a questionnaire based on scenarios about authorship, redundant publication, plagiarism and conflicts of interest. We asked participants whether the described practices were acceptable and whether these behaviours were common at their institutions. We conducted in-depth interviews with respondents who agreed to be interviewed. Participants We invited 607 corresponding authors of Cochrane reviews working in LMICs. From the 583 emails delivered, we obtained 199 responses (34%). We carried out in-depth interviews with 15 respondents. Results Seventy-seven per cent reported that guest authorship occurred at their institution, 60% reported text recycling. For plagiarism, 12% of respondents reported that this occurred ‘occasionally’, and 24% ‘rarely’. Forty per cent indicated that their colleagues had not declared conflicts of interest in the past. Respondents generally recognised poor practice in scenarios but reported that they occurred at their institutions. Themes identified from in-depth interviews were (1) authorship rules are simple in theory, but not consistently applied; (2) academic status and power underpin behaviours; (3) institutions and culture fuel bad practices and (4) researchers are uncertain about what conflict of interests means and how this may influence research. Conclusions LMIC researchers report that guest authorship is widely accepted and common. While respondents report that plagiarism and undeclared conflicts of interest are unacceptable in practice, they appear common. Determinants of poor practice relate to academic status and power, fuelled by institutional norms and culture.

Perspectives of undergraduate module convenors at a South African academic institution on medical student training in evidence-based health care: a qualitative study

Background: The increasing disease burden in Africa requires medical graduates to have problem-solving abilities. Interviews were conducted to assess module convenors’ perspectives on evidence-based health care (EBHC) teaching and learning. Methods: Qualitative research methods were used. Faculty convening medical undergraduate teaching modules were purposively sampled. Data collection was done using focus-group or individual interviews. Trained interviewers conducted interviews. Investigators conducted data analysis and interpretation. Results: Five focus groups and 10 individual interviews were conducted with convenors responsible for theory and clinical modules across various disciplines. Interviewees felt that EBHC teaching and learning were not optimal and indicated varying support for enhancing this. They identified various factors to be considered: contextual factors within the faculty (e.g. recognition for teaching), health sector issues (e.g. clinical workload), access to research, lecturer factors (e.g. competing priorities) and learners (e.g. motivation). They emphasised the key roles of lecturers as role models. Planning together to identify opportunities to integrate teaching and assessment, while ensuring coherence, clear explicit outcomes and promoting faculty development, was regarded as central to strengthening EBHC teaching and learning. Conclusions: The perspectives of module convenors are key to informing strategies to enhance EBHC teaching and learning.