Search

Abstract Background Guidelines depend on effect estimates, usually derived from randomised controlled trials, to inform their decisions. Qualitative research evidence may improve decisions made but where in the process and the methods to do this have not been so clearly established. We sought to describe and appraise how qualitative research has been used to inform World Heath Organization guidance since 2020. Methods We conducted a document analysis of WHO guidelines from 2020 to 2022. We purposely sampled guidelines on the topics of maternal and newborn health (MANH) and infectious diseases, as most of the qualitative synthesis to date has been conducted on these topics, likely representing the ‘best case’ scenario. We searched the in-built repository feature of the WHO website and used standardised search terms to identify qualitative reporting. Using deductive frameworks, we described how qualitative evidence was used to inform guidelines and appraised the standards of this use. Results Of the 29 guidelines, over half used qualitative research to help guide decisions (18/29). A total of 8 of these used qualitative research to inform the guideline scope, all 18 to inform recommendations, and 1 to inform implementation considerations. All guidelines drew on qualitative evidence syntheses (QES), and five further supplemented this with primary qualitative research. Qualitative findings reported in guidelines were typically descriptive, identifying people’s perception of the benefits and harms of interventions or logistical barriers and facilitators to programme success. No guideline provided transparent reporting of how qualitative research was interpreted and weighed used alongside other evidence when informing decisions, and only one guideline reported the inclusion of qualitative methods experts on the panel. Only a few guidelines contextualised their recommendations by indicating which populations and settings qualitative findings could be applied. Conclusions Qualitative research frequently informed WHO guideline decisions particularly in the field of MANH. However, the process often lacked transparency. We identified unmet potential in informing implementation considerations and contextualisation of the recommendations. Use in these areas needs further methods development.

Abstract Background Evidence for policy systems emerging around the world combine the fields of research synthesis, evidence-informed policy and public engagement with research. We conducted this retrospective collective autoethnography to understand the role of academics in developing such systems. Methods We constructed a timeline of EPPI Centre work and associated events since 1990. We employed: Transition Theory to reveal emerging and influential innovations; and Transformative Social Innovation theory to track their increasing depth, reach and embeddedness in research and policy organisations. Findings The EPPI Centre, alongside other small research units, collaborated with national and international organisations at the research-policy interface to incubate, spread and embed new ways of working with evidence and policy. Sustainable change arising from research-policy interactions was less about uptake and embedding of innovations, but more about co-developing and tailoring innovations with organisations to suit their missions and structures for creating new knowledge or using knowledge for decisions. Both spreading and embedding innovation relied on mutual learning that both accommodated and challenged established assumptions and values of collaborating organisations as they adapted to closer ways of working. The incubation, spread and embedding of innovations have been iterative, with new ways of working inspiring further innovation as they spread and embedded. Institutionalising evidence for policy required change in both institutions generating evidence and institutions developing policy. Conclusions Key mechanisms for academic contributions to advancing evidence for policy were: contract research focusing attention at the research-policy interface; a willingness to work in unfamiliar fields; inclusive ways of working to move from conflict to consensus; and incentives and opportunities for reflection and consolidating learning.

Abstract Background Shared decision-making facilitates collaboration between patients and health care providers for informed health decisions. Our review identified interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. The objectives were to synthesize evidence and identify factors that impact the use of shared decision making interventions. Methods An Inuit and non-Inuit team of service providers and academic researchers used an integrated knowledge translation approach with framework synthesis to coproduce a systematic review. We developed a conceptual framework to organize and describe the shared decision making processes and guide identification of studies that describe interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases from September 2012 to March 2022, with a grey literature search. Two independent team members screened and quality appraised included studies for strengths and relevance of studies’ contributions to shared decision making and Indigenous self-determination. Findings were analyzed descriptively in relation to the conceptual framework and reported using guidelines to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting and for equity-oriented systematic reviews. Results Of 5068 citations screened, nine studies reported in ten publications were eligible for inclusion. We categorized the studies into clusters identified as: those inclusive of Indigenous knowledges and governance (“Indigenous-oriented”)(n = 6); and those based on Western academic knowledge and governance (“Western-oriented”)(n = 3). The studies were found to be of variable quality for contributions to shared decision making and self-determination, with Indigenous-oriented studies of higher quality overall than Western-oriented studies. Four themes are reflected in an updated conceptual framework: 1) where shared decision making takes place impacts decision making opportunities, 2) little is known about the characteristics of health care providers who engage in shared decision making processes, 3) community is a partner in shared decision making, 4) the shared decision making process involves trust-building. Conclusions There are few studies that report on and evaluate shared decision making interventions with Indigenous Peoples. Overall, Indigenous-oriented studies sought to make health care systems more amenable to shared decision making for Indigenous Peoples, while Western-oriented studies distanced shared decision making from the health care settings. Further studies that are solutions-focused and support Indigenous self-determination are needed.

Introduction Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised.Objective To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs.Methods and analysis An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies.Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

BackgroundA country’s health system faces pressure when hit by an unexpected shock, such as what we observe in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The concept of resilience is highly relevant in this context and is a prerequisite for a health system capable of withstanding future shocks. By exploring how the key dimensions of the resilient health system framework are applied, the present systematic review synthesizes the vital features of resilient health systems in low- and middle-income countries. The aim of this review is to ascertain the relevance of health system resilience in the context of a major shock, through better understanding its dimensions, uses and implications. MethodsThe review uses the best-fit framework synthesis approach. An a priori conceptual framework was selected and a coding framework created. A systematic search identified 4284 unique citations from electronic databases and reports by non-governmental organisations, 12 of which met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and coded against the pre-existing themes. Themes outside of the a priori framework were collated to form a refined list of themes. Then, all twelve studies were revisited using the new list of themes in the context of each study. ResultsTen themes were generated from the analysis. Five confirmed the a priori conceptual framework that capture the dynamic attributes of a resilient system. Five new themes were identified as foundational for achieving resilience: realigned relationships, foresight and motivation as drivers, and emergency preparedness and change management as organisational mechanisms. ConclusionThe refined conceptual model shows how the themes inter-connect. The foundations of resilience appear to be critical especially in resource-constrained settings to unlock the dynamic attributes of resilience. This review prompts countries to consider building the foundations of resilience described here as a priority to better prepare for future shocks.

Plain English Summary All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as ‘initiatives’. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.

Abstract Background While calls for institutionalization of evidence-informed policy-making (EIP) have become stronger in recent years, there is a paucity of methods that governments and organizational knowledge brokers can use to sustain and integrate EIP as part of mainstream health policy-making. The objective of this paper was to conduct a knowledge synthesis of the published and grey literatures to develop a theoretical framework with the key features of EIP institutionalization. Methods We applied a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) that allowed for a systematic, yet iterative and dynamic analysis of heterogeneous bodies of literature to develop an explanatory framework for EIP institutionalization. We used a “compass” question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches to identify papers based on their potential relevance to EIP institutionalization. Papers were screened and extracted independently and in duplicate. A constant comparative method was applied to develop a framework on EIP institutionalization. The CIS was triangulated with the findings of stakeholder dialogues that involved civil servants, policy-makers and researchers. Results We identified 3001 references, of which 88 papers met our eligibility criteria. This CIS resulted in a definition of EIP institutionalization as the “process and outcome of (re-)creating, maintaining and reinforcing norms, regulations, and standard practices that, based on collective meaning and values, actions as well as endowment of resources, allow evidence to become—over time—a legitimate and taken-for-granted part of health policy-making”. The resulting theoretical framework comprised six key domains of EIP institutionalization that capture both structure and agency: (1) governance; (2) standards and routinized processes; (3) partnership, collective action and support; (4) leadership and commitment; (5) resources; and (6) culture. Furthermore, EIP institutionalization is being achieved through five overlapping stages: (i) precipitating events; (ii) de-institutionalization; (iii) semi-institutionalization (comprising theorization and diffusion); (iv) (re)-institutionalization; and (v) renewed de-institutionalization processes. Conclusions This CIS advances the theoretical and conceptual discussions on EIP institutionalization, and provides new insights into an evidence-informed framework for initiating, strengthening and/or assessing efforts to institutionalize EIP.

Abstract Background Tuberculosis case-finding interventions often involve several activities to enhance patient pathways, and it is unclear which activity defines the type of case-finding intervention. When conducting studies to identify the most effective case-finding intervention it is important to have a clear understanding of these interventions for meaningful comparisons. This review aimed to construct a systems-based logic model of all pathways to tuberculosis case detection through a synthesis of intervention designs. Methods We identified an existing systematic review on the effectiveness of interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection and updated the search from December 2016 to October 2020. We included randomized controlled trials, as these designs encourage detailed description of interventions. Taking each study in turn, intervention descriptions were read in detail. The texts were analysed qualitatively by constantly comparing emerging codes to construct patient journeys, visualized as logical chains. Actions taken as part of interventions were positioned along patient journeys to theorize the sequence of outcomes. Patient journeys formed the basis of the model, which was refined through discussion. Results Based on intervention descriptions from 17 randomized controlled trials, our model distinguishes two care-seeking pathways and four screening pathways. An open invitation to people with tuberculosis symptoms creates care-seeking pathways. On care-seeking pathways, systematic screening can be conducted at general health services, but not at specific TB care services. People invited to tuberculosis services regardless of symptoms follow tuberculosis screening pathways and may be identified with presumptive tuberculosis even if they do not seek care for tuberculosis symptoms. Tuberculosis screening pathways include screening offered to all people accessing care at general health services, screening at a mobile clinic or health facility with open invitation to a whole population or tuberculosis contacts, screening personally offered to a whole population or tuberculosis contacts at home, work or school, and screening offered to people receiving care for human immunodeficiency virus or other clinical risk-group care. Conclusion This systems-based logic model of tuberculosis case-finding pathways may support standardized terminology, consistency, transparency and improved communication among researchers, policy-makers, health workers and community members when implementing and evaluating interventions to improve tuberculosis case detection.

Abstract Approaches for rapid reviews that focus on streamlining systematic review methods are not always suitable for exploring complex policy questions, as developing and testing theories to explain these complexities requires configuring diverse qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. Our objective was therefore to provide a guide to selecting approaches for rapidly (i.e., within days to months) addressing complex questions related to health policy and system issues. We provide a two-stage, transdisciplinary collaborative process to select a rapid review approach to address complex policy questions, which consists of scoping the breadth and depth of the literature and then selecting an optimal approach to synthesis. The first stage (scoping the literature) begins with a discussion with the stakeholders requesting evidence to identify and refine the question for the review, which is then used to conduct preliminary searches and conceptually map the documents identified. In the second stage (selection of an optimal approach), further stakeholder consultation is required to refine and tailor the question and approach to identifying relevant documents to include. The approach to synthesizing the included documents is then guided by the final question, the breadth and depth of the literature, and the time available and can include a static or evolving conceptual framework to code and analyze a range of evidence. For areas already covered extensively by existing systematic reviews, the focus can be on summarizing and integrating the review findings, resynthesizing the primary studies, or updating the search and reanalyzing one or more of the systematic reviews. The choice of approaches for conducting rapid reviews is intertwined with decisions about how to manage projects, the amount of work to be done, and the knowledge already available, and our guide offers support to help make these strategic decisions.

Abstract Background Research priority setting with stakeholders can help direct the limited resources for health research toward priority areas of need. Ensuring transparency of the priority setting process can strengthen legitimacy and credibility for influencing the research agenda. This study aims to develop a reporting guideline for priority setting of health research. Methods We searched electronic databases and relevant websites for sources (frameworks, guidelines, or models for conducting, appraising, reporting or evaluating health research priority setting, and reviews (including systematic reviews)), and primary studies of research priority setting to July 2019. We inductively developed a list of reporting items and piloted the preliminary guideline with a diverse range of 30 priority setting studies from the records retrieved. Results From 21,556 records, we included 26 sources for the candidate REPRISE framework and 455 primary research studies. The REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health research (REPRISE) has 31 reporting items that cover 10 domains: context and scope, governance and team, framework for priority setting, stakeholders/participants, identification and collection of priorities, prioritization of research topics, output, evaluation and feedback, translation and implementation, and funding and conflict of interest. Each reporting item includes a descriptor and examples. Conclusions The REPRISE guideline can facilitate comprehensive reporting of studies of research priority setting. Improved transparency in research priority setting may strengthen the acceptability and implementation of the research priorities identified, so that efforts and funding are invested in generating evidence that is of importance to all stakeholders. Trial registration Not applicable.

Abstract Background We report a process to identify and prioritise research questions in preterm birth that are most important to people affected by preterm birth and healthcare practitioners in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Methods Using consensus development methods established by the James Lind Alliance, unanswered research questions were identified using an online survey, a paper survey distributed in NHS preterm birth clinics and neonatal units, and through searching published systematic reviews and guidelines. Prioritisation of these questions was by online voting, with paper copies at the same NHS clinics and units, followed by a decision-making workshop of people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. Results Overall 26 organisations participated. Three hundred and eighty six people responded to the survey, and 636 systematic reviews and 12 clinical guidelines were inspected for research recommendations. From this, a list of 122 uncertainties about the effects of treatment was collated: 70 from the survey, 28 from systematic reviews, and 24 from guidelines. After removing 18 duplicates, the 104 remaining questions went to a public online vote on the top 10. Five hundred and seven people voted; 231 (45%) people affected by preterm birth, 216 (43%) health professionals, and 55 (11%) affected by preterm birth who were also a health professional. Although the top priority was the same for all types of voter, there was variation in how other questions were ranked. Following review by the Steering Group, the top 30 questions were then taken to the prioritisation workshop. A list of top 15 questions was agreed, but with some clear differences in priorities between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. Conclusions These research questions prioritised by a partnership process between service users and healthcare professionals should inform the decisions of those who plan to fund research. Priorities of people affected by preterm birth were sometimes different from those of healthcare professionals, and future priority setting partnerships should consider reporting these separately, as well as in total.

Abstract This paper builds on a 2012 paper by the same authors which argued that the types and brands of systematic review do not sufficiently differentiate between the many dimensions of different review questions and review methods (Gough et al., Syst Rev 1:28, 2012). The current paper extends this argument by considering the dynamic contexts, or ‘evidence ecosystems’, within which reviews are undertaken; the fact that these ecosystems are constantly changing; and the relevance of this broader context for understanding ‘dimensions of difference’ in the unfolding development and refinement of review methods. The concept of an evidence ecosystem is used to consider particular issues within the three key dimensions of difference outlined in the 2012 paper of (1) review aims and approach, (2) structure and components of reviews, and (3) breadth, depth, and ‘work done’ by reviews.

Abstract Background Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in ‘health communication and participation’, which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. Methods Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG’s existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. Results Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors’ communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. Conclusions Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

BackgroundA systematic review of randomised trials may be conclusive signalling no further research is needed; or identify gaps requiring further research that may then be included in review updates. In qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), the rationale, triggers, and methods for updating are less clear cut. We updated a QES on adherence to anti-retroviral treatment to examine if thematic saturation renders additional research redundant.MethodsWe adopted the original review search strategy and eligibility criteria to identify studies in the subsequent three years. We assessed studies for conceptual detail, categorised as 'rich' or 'sparse', coding the rich studies. We sought new codes, and appraised whether findings confirmed, extended, enriched, or refuted existing themes. Finally, we examined if the analysis impacted on the original conceptual model.ResultsAfter screening 3895 articles, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria. Rich findings from Africa were available in 82 studies; 146 studies were sparse, contained no additional information on specific populations, and did not contribute to the analysis. New studies enriched our understanding on the relationship between external and internal factors influencing adherence, confirming, extending and enriching the existing themes. Despite careful evaluation of the new literature, we did not identify any new themes, and found no studies that refuted our theory.ConclusionsUpdating an existing QES using the original question confirmed and sometimes enriched evidence within themes but made little or no substantive difference to the theory and overall findings of the original review. We propose this illustrates thematic saturation. We propose a thoughtful approach before embarking on a QES update, and our work underlines the importance of QES priority areas where further primary research may help, and areas where further studies may be redundant.

Background: Effective use of contraception can reduce numbers of unintended pregnancies, but misunderstandings and concerns about contraception abound. Increasingly, women seek health-care information online. Objectives: To develop an interactive website to aid informed choice of contraceptive method, including long-acting reversible contraception (Phase I), and test its effectiveness in a parallel, single-blind randomised trial (Phase II). Approval came from London – Camden & King’s Cross Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/LO/0112). Setting and participants: For both phases, women aged 15–30 years were recruited from general practice, sexual health services, maternity services, community pharmacies and an abortion service. Design: In Phase I, we conducted three systematic literature reviews, a review of YouTube (YouTube, LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) videos about contraception, and focus groups and interviews with young women to explore barriers to and concerns and misperceptions about contraception. We then iteratively co-designed an interactive website, Contraception Choices [URL: www.contraceptionchoices.org (accessed June 2020)], with young women and a software company. In Phase II, we evaluated the website through a randomised trial that began as a feasibility trial. Early demand for Contraception Choices stimulated a design change from a feasibility to an efficacy trial, with follow-up for clinical outcomes at 3 and 6 months. A randomisation list was incorporated into the trial software program to allocate participants to the intervention (website) or control group (standard care). Intervention: Contraception Choices is a co-designed, evidence-based, interactive website to aid informed choice of contraception. It provides information about different methods, addresses common concerns and offers tailored contraceptive options in response to individual preferences. Main outcome measures: Qualitative – participant views and experience of the intervention, assessed through qualitative interviews. Quantitative primary outcomes – follow-up rate at 6 months in the initial feasibility trial, using a long-acting reversible contraception method, and satisfaction with contraceptive method at 6 months in the efficacy trial. Results: A total of 927 women were randomised online to the website (n = 464) or control group (n = 463), of whom 739 (80%) provided follow-up data at 6 months [786 women (85%) provided data at 3 and/or 6 months that were included in the analysis of primary outcomes]. There was little difference between groups in the proportion using long-acting reversible contraception at 6 months [30.4% intervention vs. 31.0% control, adjusted odds ratio after imputation 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.27)] or in satisfaction with contraceptive method [proportion being ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, 82.6% intervention vs. 82.1% control, adjusted odds ratio 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.25)]. Qualitative evaluation indicated highly positive views about the website and increased knowledge of contraceptive methods that could dispel misperceptions. Women appreciated having information tailored to their specific needs and felt better prepared before consultations. Limitations: We did not include intermediate measures, such as knowledge of contraceptive methods, intention to change method or confidence in discussing contraception with a health-care professional, which may have indicated other benefits of using the website. In future, the website should be studied in different settings (e.g. schools and in routine practice) to see whether or not it improves the quality or efficiency of contraceptive consultations. Conclusions: Our systematic review indicated wide-ranging influences on women’s use of contraception globally. The website, Contraception Choices, was very popular with young women and contraception service providers. It was not associated with statistically significant differences in use of long-acting reversible contraception or satisfaction with contraceptive method at 6 months. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13247829. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective Improving use of effective contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy is a global priority, but misperceptions and concerns about contraception are common. Our objective was to evaluate an interactive website to aid informed choice of contraception. Methods The Contraception Choices website is an interactive digital intervention which offers tailored advice to aid contraception decision-making ( www.contraceptionchoices.org ). In a parallel single-blind trial, we randomised 927 women aged 15–30 years from six clinic settings to access the intervention website (n = 464) or to a waiting-list control group (n = 463). The study was initially a feasibility trial, evolving into an evaluation of efficacy, with two primary outcomes at six months: long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use, and satisfaction with contraceptive method. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection diagnoses. Free-text comments on the 3 and 6 month outcome surveys were analysed thematically. Findings There was no significant difference between intervention and control groups in the proportion of women using LARC [30.4% intervention versus 31.0% control; adjusted odds ratio 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.28)]; satisfaction with contraceptive method [82.6% versus 82.1%; adjusted ordinal odds ratio 0.93 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.25)]; self-reported pregnancy [3.3% versus 4.1%; adjusted odds ratio 0.90 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.79)] nor sexually transmitted infection [5.3% versus 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.72 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.36)]. Highly positive free-text comments from intervention participants indicated that the website facilitates contraception choice and can help women feel better prepared before consultation with healthcare providers. Interpretation The Contraception Choices website was popular for its design, trustworthy information and decision aids but it was not associated with significant differences in use of LARC or satisfaction with contraceptive method. An interactive website can aid contraception choice, but interventions that address factors beyond women’s control, such as access to services, and partner, family or community influences are needed to complement this approach. Research in context Preventing unintended pregnancy through effective use of contraception is essential for women’s health, but choosing between different contraceptive methods can be challenging, and the opportunity for adequate discussion during routine consultations is often constrained. Evidence before this study We conducted two systematic literature reviews: 1) Factors influencing contraception choice, uptake and use: a meta-synthesis of systematic reviews; and 2) Effectiveness of interactive digital interventions (IDI) for contraception choice, uptake and use. For the first review we searched PubMed, CDSR, Epistemonikos, DoPHER, DARE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Campbell Library, NIHR Health Technology Assessment, and Health Evidence Canada databases for systematic reviews which addressed contraceptive choice, uptake or use, from 2000 to 2017. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017081521 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=81521 . We synthesised the findings of 18 systematic reviews of mostly moderate or high quality. They highlighted the importance of women’s knowledge, beliefs, perceptions of side effects and health risks, as well as relationship status, social network, economic and healthcare factors on contraception choice and use. For the second review, we searched 23 electronic databases, trials registers and reference lists for randomised controlled trials of IDI for contraception, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and PsycINFO, from start date to June 2017. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017081636. We found only five randomised trials of IDI, all from the USA. Risk of bias prevented synthesis of results. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=81636 . Added value of this study Women’s common concerns about contraception – fear of hormones, weight gain, cancer, infertility, mood changes, breaks from contraception and changes in bleeding patterns – underpinned development of a new interactive website ( www.contraceptionchoices.org ). Contraception Choices addresses women’s concerns through succinct text; Q and A format ( Frequently Asked Questions , Did you Know? ; videos of women and health professionals); an effectiveness infographic, and an interactive decision aid ( What’s right for me? ). In an online randomised trial with 927 women attending clinics, we found no association of the Contraception Choices intervention with the primary outcomes – satisfaction with contraceptive method and uptake of long-acting reversible methods at 6 months. Nor did we find an association with secondary adverse outcomes – sexually transmitted infections or pregnancy. Comments from women indicated that the website can meet young women’s need for information on the benefits and drawbacks of contraception, help them to make informed decisions, and feel better prepared before healthcare consultations. Contraception Choices is now available on the NHS website: www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/which-method-suits-me Implications of all the available evidence Interactive digital interventions (websites) can aid contraception choice, but other intervention research is needed to address wider influences on unintended pregnancy, including partner views, friends, family, the media, wider society and experiences with healthcare professionals. Future research could examine the impact of the website in different settings, e.g. schools or different countries. We hypothesise that use of the website during contraceptive consultations might improve the efficiency or quality of consultation, for both patients and healthcare providers. Appropriate methodology and time-scale for evaluating digital health interventions remains a key question.

Abstract Background Government policy increasingly supports engaging communities to promote health. It is critical to consider whether such strategies are effective, for whom, and under what circumstances. However, ‘community engagement’ is defined in diverse ways and employed for different reasons. Considering the theory and context we developed a conceptual framework which informs understanding about what makes an effective (or ineffective) community engagement intervention. Methods We conducted a systematic review of community engagement in public health interventions using: stakeholder involvement; searching, screening, appraisal and coding of research literature; and iterative thematic syntheses and meta-analysis. A conceptual framework of community engagement was refined, following interactions between the framework and each review stage. Results From 335 included reports, three products emerged: (1) two strong theoretical ‘meta-narratives’: one, concerning the theory and practice of empowerment/engagement as an independent objective; and a more utilitarian perspective optimally configuring health services to achieve defined outcomes. These informed (2) models that were operationalized in subsequent meta-analysis. Both refined (3) the final conceptual framework. This identified multiple dimensions by which community engagement interventions may differ. Diverse combinations of intervention purpose, theory and implementation were noted, including: ways of defining communities and health needs; initial motivations for community engagement; types of participation; conditions and actions necessary for engagement; and potential issues influencing impact. Some dimensions consistently co-occurred, leading to three overarching models of effective engagement which either: utilised peer-led delivery; employed varying degrees of collaboration between communities and health services; or built on empowerment philosophies. Conclusions Our conceptual framework and models are useful tools for considering appropriate and effective approaches to community engagement. These should be tested and adapted to facilitate intervention design and evaluation. Using this framework may disentangle the relative effectiveness of different models of community engagement, promoting effective, sustainable and appropriate initiatives.

Abstract Important policy questions tend to span a range of academic disciplines, and the relevant research is often carried out in a variety of social, economic and geographic contexts. In efforts to synthesise research to help inform decisions arising from the policy questions, systematic reviews need conceptual frameworks and ways of thinking that combine knowledge drawn from different academic traditions and contexts; in other words, transdisciplinary research. This paper considers how transdisciplinary working can be achieved with: conceptual frameworks that span traditional academic boundaries; methods for shaping review questions and conceptual frameworks; and methods for interpreting the relevance of findings to different contexts. It also discusses the practical challenges and ultimate benefits of transdisciplinary working for systematic reviews.

Background: Being born very premature (i.e. before 32 weeks’ gestation) has an impact on survival and quality of life. Improving care at birth may improve outcomes and parents’ experiences. Objectives: To improve the quality of care and outcomes following very preterm birth. Design: We used mixed methods, including a James Lind Alliance prioritisation, a systematic review, a framework synthesis, a comparative review, qualitative studies, development of a questionnaire tool and a medical device (a neonatal resuscitation trolley), a survey of practice, a randomised trial and a protocol for a prospective meta-analysis using individual participant data. Setting: For the prioritisation, this included people affected by preterm birth and health-care practitioners in the UK relevant to preterm birth. The qualitative work on preterm birth and the development of the questionnaire involved parents of infants born at three maternity hospitals in southern England. The medical device was developed at Liverpool Women’s Hospital. The survey of practice involved UK neonatal units. The randomised trial was conducted at eight UK tertiary maternity hospitals. Participants: For prioritisation, 26 organisations and 386 individuals; for the interviews and questionnaire tool, 32 mothers and seven fathers who had a baby born before 32 weeks’ gestation for interviews evaluating the trolley, 30 people who had experienced it being used at the birth of their baby (19 mothers, 10 partners and 1 grandmother) and 20 clinicians who were present when it was being used; for the trial, 261 women expected to have a live birth before 32 weeks’ gestation, and their 276 babies. Interventions: Providing neonatal care at very preterm birth beside the mother, and with the umbilical cord intact; timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth. Main outcome measures: Research priorities for preterm birth; feasibility and acceptability of the trolley; feasibility of a randomised trial, death and intraventricular haemorrhage. Review methods: Systematic review of Cochrane reviews (umbrella review); framework synthesis of ethics aspects of consent, with conceptual framework to inform selection criteria for empirical and analytical studies. The comparative review included studies using a questionnaire to assess satisfaction with care during childbirth, and provided psychometric information. Results: Our prioritisation identified 104 research topics for preterm birth, with the top 30 ranked. An ethnographic analysis of decision-making during this process suggested ways that it might be improved. Qualitative interviews with parents about their experiences of very preterm birth identified two differences with term births: the importance of the staff appearing calm and of staff taking control. Following a comparative review, this led to the development of a questionnaire to assess parents’ views of care during very preterm birth. A systematic overview summarised evidence for delivery room neonatal care and revealed significant evidence gaps. The framework synthesis explored ethics issues in consent for trials involving sick or preterm infants, concluding that no existing process is ideal and identifying three important gaps. This led to the development of a two-stage consent pathway (oral assent followed by written consent), subsequently evaluated in our randomised trial. Our survey of practice for care at the time of birth showed variation in approaches to cord clamping, and that no hospitals were providing neonatal care with the cord intact. We showed that neonatal care could be provided beside the mother using either the mobile neonatal resuscitation trolley we developed or existing equipment. Qualitative interviews suggested that neonatal care beside the mother is valued by parents and acceptable to clinicians. Our pilot randomised trial compared cord clamping after 2 minutes and initial neonatal care, if needed, with the cord intact, with clamping within 20 seconds and initial neonatal care after clamping. This study demonstrated feasibility of a large UK randomised trial. Of 135 infants allocated to cord clamping ≥ 2 minutes, 7 (5.2%) died and, of 135 allocated to cord clamping ≤ 20 seconds, 15 (11.1%) died (risk difference –5.9%, 95% confidence interval –12.4% to 0.6%). Of live births, 43 out of 134 (32%) allocated to cord clamping ≥ 2 minutes had intraventricular haemorrhage compared with 47 out of 132 (36%) allocated to cord clamping ≤ 20 seconds (risk difference –3.5%, 95% CI –14.9% to 7.8%). Limitations: Small sample for the qualitative interviews about preterm birth, single-centre evaluation of neonatal care beside the mother, and a pilot trial. Conclusions: Our programme of research has improved understanding of parent experiences of very preterm birth, and informed clinical guidelines and the research agenda. Our two-stage consent pathway is recommended for intrapartum clinical research trials. Our pilot trial will contribute to the individual participant data meta-analysis, results of which will guide design of future trials. Future work: Research in preterm birth should take account of the top priorities. Further evaluation of neonatal care beside the mother is merited, and future trial of alternative policies for management of cord clamping should take account of the meta-analysis. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003038 and CRD42013004405. In addition, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21456601. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 7, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Home-based records (HBRs) may improve the health of pregnant women, new mothers and their children, and support health care systems. We assessed the effectiveness of HBRs on maternal, newborn and child health reporting, care seeking and self-care practice, mortality, morbidity and women's empowerment in low-, middle- and high-income countries. We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Health Systems Evidence, CINAHL, HTA database, NHS EED, and DARE from 1950 to 2017. We also searched the WHO, CDC, ECDC, JICA and UNAIDS. We included randomised controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, and cost-effectiveness studies. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to appraise studies. We extracted and analyzed data for outcomes including maternal, newborn and child health, and women's empowerment. We synthesized and presented data using GRADE Evidence Profiles. We included 14 studies out of 16,419 identified articles. HBRs improved antenatal care and reduced likelihood of pregnancy complications; improved patient-provider communication and enhanced women's feelings of control and empowerment; and improved rates of vaccination among children (OR: 2·39, 95% CI: 1.45-3·92) and mothers (OR 1·98 95% CI:1·29-3·04). A three-year follow-up shows that HBRs reduced risk of cognitive delay in children (p = 0.007). HBRs used during the life cycle of women and children in Indonesia showed benefits for continuity of care. There were no significant effects on healthy pregnancy behaviors such as smoking and consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. There were no statistically significant effects on newborn health outcomes. We did not identify any formal studies on cost or economic evaluation. HBRs show modest but important health effects for women and children. These effects with minimal-to-no harms, multiplied across a population, could play an important role in reducing health inequities in maternal, newborn, and child health.

BackgroundAdherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and long-term uninterrupted engagement in HIV care is difficult for HIV-positive people, and randomized trials of specific techniques to promote adherence often show small or negligible effects. Understanding what influences decision-making in HIV-positive people in Africa may help researchers and policy makers in the development of broader, more effective interventions and policies.MethodsWe used thematic synthesis and a grounded theory approach to generate a detailed narrative and theoretical model reflecting life with HIV in Africa, and how this influences ART adherence and engagement decisions. We included qualitative primary studies that explored perspectives, perceptions and experiences of HIV-positive people, caregivers and healthcare service providers. We searched databases from 1 January 2013 to 9 December 2016, screened all studies, and selected those for inclusion using purposeful sampling methods. Included studies were coded with Atlas.ti, and we assessed methodological quality across five domains.ResultsWe included 59 studies from Africa in the synthesis. Nine themes emerged which we grouped under three main headings. First, people who are HIV-positive live in a complicated world where they must navigate the challenges presented by poverty, competing priorities, unpredictable life events, social identity, gender norms, stigma, and medical pluralism-these influences can make initiating and maintaining ART difficult. Second, the health system is generally seen as punishing and uninviting and this can drive HIV-positive people out of care. Third, long-term engagement and adherence requires adaptation and incorporation of ART into daily life, a process which is facilitated by: inherent self-efficacy, social responsibilities, previous HIV-related illnesses and emotional, practical or financial support. These factors together can lead to a "tipping point", a point in time when patients choose to either engage or disengage from care. HIV-positive people may cycle in and out of these care states in response to fluctuations in influences over time.ConclusionThis analysis provides a practical theory, arising from thematic synthesis of research, to help understand the dynamics of adherence to ART and engagement in HIV care. This can contribute to the design of service delivery approaches, and informed thinking and action on the part of policy makers, providers, and society: to understand what it is to be HIV-positive in Africa and how attitudes and the health service need to shift to help those with HIV lead 'normal' lives.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209278.].

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ patients and members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.

Mothers, caregivers, and healthcare providers in 163 countries have used paper and electronic home-based records (HBRs) to facilitate primary care visit. These standardized records have the potential to empower women, improve the quality of care for mothers and children and reduce health inequities. This review examines experiences of women, caregivers and providers with home-based records for maternal and child health and seeks to explore the feasibility, acceptability, affordability and equity of these interventions. We systematically searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Ahead of Print, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and PsycINFO for articles that were published between January 1992 and December 2017. We used the CASP checklist to assess study quality, a framework analysis to support synthesis, and GRADE-CERQual to assess the confidence in the key findings. Of 7,904 citations, 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. In these studies, mothers, caregivers and children shared HBR experiences in relation to maternal and child health which facilitated the monitoring of immunisations and child growth and development. Participants' reports of HBRs acting as a point of commonality between patient and provider offer an explanation for their perceptions of improved communication and patient-centered care, and enhanced engagement and empowerment during pregnancy and childcare. Healthcare providers and nurses reported that the home-based record increased their feeling of connection with their patients. Although there were concerns around electronic records and confidentiality, there were no specific concerns reported for paper records. Mothers and other caregivers see home based records as having a pivotal role in facilitating primary care visits and enhancing healthcare for their families. The records' potential could be limited by users concerns over confidentiality of electronic home-based records, or shortcomings in their design. Health systems should seize the opportunity HBRs provide in empowering women, especially in the contexts of lower literacy levels and weak health care delivery systems.

BACKGROUND:Effective coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises is required to ensure efficiency of services, avoid duplication, and improve equity. The objective of this review was to assess how, during and after humanitarian crises, different mechanisms and models of coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services compare in terms of access to health services and health outcomes. METHODS:We registered a protocol for this review in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews under number PROSPERO2014:CRD42014009267. Eligible studies included randomized and nonrandomized designs, process evaluations and qualitative methods. We electronically searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the WHO Global Health Library and websites of relevant organizations. We followed standard systematic review methodology for the selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS:Of 14,309 identified citations from databases and organizations' websites, we identified four eligible studies. Two studies used mixed-methods, one used quantitative methods, and one used qualitative methods. The available evidence suggests that information coordination between bodies providing health services in humanitarian crises settings may be effective in improving health systems inputs. There is additional evidence suggesting that management/directive coordination such as the cluster model may improve health system inputs in addition to access to health services. None of the included studies assessed coordination through common representation and framework coordination. The evidence was judged to be of very low quality. CONCLUSION:This systematic review provides evidence of possible effectiveness of information coordination and management/directive coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises. Our findings can inform the research agenda and highlight the need for improving conduct and reporting of research in this field.

Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) in children and young people is increasing worldwide with a particular increase in children under the age of 5 years. Fewer than one in six children and young people achieve glycosylated fraction of haemoglobin (HbA1c) values in the range identified as providing best future outcomes. There is an urgent need for clinic-based pragmatic, feasible and effective interventions that improve both glycaemic control and quality of life (QoL). The intervention offers both structured education, to ensure young people know what they need to know, and a delivery model designed to motivate self-management. Objective: To assess the feasibility of providing a clinic-based structured educational group programme incorporating psychological approaches to improve long-term glycaemic control, QoL and psychosocial functioning in a diverse range of young people. Design: The study was a pragmatic, cluster randomised control trial with integral process and economic evaluation. Setting: Twenty-eight paediatric diabetes services across London, south-east England and the Midlands. Randomisation: Minimised by clinic size, age (paediatric or adolescent) and specialisation (district general hospital clinic or teaching hospital/tertiary clinic). Allocation: Half of the sites were randomised to the intervention arm and half to the control arm. Allocation was concealed until after clinics had consented and the first participant was recruited. Where possible, families were blind to allocation until recruitment finished. Participants: Forty-three health-care practitioners (14 teams) were trained in the intervention. The study recruited 362 children aged 8–16 years, diagnosed with T1D for > 12 months, with a mean 12-month HbA1c level of ≥ 8.5%. Intervention: Two 1-day workshops taught intervention delivery. A detailed manual and resources were provided. The intervention consists of four group education sessions led by a paediatric diabetes specialist nurse with another team member. Outcomes: The primary outcome was glycaemic control, assessed at the individual level using venous HbA1c values, measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Secondary outcomes were directly and indirectly related to diabetes management, including hypoglycaemic episodes, hospital admissions, diabetes regimen, knowledge, skills and responsibility for diabetes management, intervention compliance, clinic utilisation, emotional and behavioural adjustment, and general and diabetes-specific QoL. Process evaluation: Questionnaires, semistructured interviews, informal discussion following observation sessions, fieldwork notes and case note review were used to collect qualitative and quantitative data from key stakeholder groups at specific time points in the trial. Statistical analyses: Primary and secondary analyses were intention-to-treat comparisons of outcomes at 12 and 24 months, using analysis of covariance with a random effect for clinic. Prespecified subgroup analyses based on age, gender, initial HbA1c value and socioeconomic status were estimated from models that included an interaction term. The economic analysis compared long-term costs and predicted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: The intervention did not improve HbA1c at 12 months [intervention effect 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.28 to 0.50; p = 0.584] or 24 months (intervention effect 0.03; 95% CI −0.36 to 0.41; p = 0.891). A total of 298/362 patients (82.3%) provided blood samples at 12-month follow-up, and 284/362 (78.5%) provided blood samples at 24-month follow-up. Follow-up questionnaires were completed by 307 patients (85.3%) at 12 months and by 295 patients (81.5%) at 24 months. Intervention group parents at 12 months (95% CI 0.74; 0.03 to 1.52) and young people at 24 months (0.85; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.61) had higher scores on the diabetes family responsibility questionnaire. Young people reported reduced happiness with body weight at 12 months (−0.56; 95% CI −1.03 to −0.06). Only 68% of groups were run. Of the 180 families recruited, 96 (53%) attended at least one module. Reasons for low uptake included difficulties organising groups, and work and school commitments. Young people with higher HbA1c levels were less likely to attend. Parents and young people who attended groups described improved family relationships, improved knowledge and understanding, greater confidence and increased motivation to manage diabetes. Twenty-four months after the intervention, nearly half of the young people reported that the groups had made them want to try harder and that they had carried on trying. A high-quality, complex, pragmatic trial of structured education can be delivered alongside standard care in NHS diabetes clinics. Health-care providers benefited from behaviour change skill training and can deliver pragmatic aspects of a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-compliant structured education programme after relatively brief training. The process evaluation provides insight into aspects of the model, and highlights strengths and aspects that may have contributed to the failure to influence primary and secondary outcomes. Current NHS practice dominates CASCADE (Child and Adolescent Structured Competencies Approach to Diabetes Education) in that it achieves the same number of QALYs at a lower cost. The mean cost of providing the intervention was £5098 per site or £683 per child. Members of paediatric diabetes services trained to deliver the CASCADE structured education package using behaviour change techniques did not improve glycaemic control in patients compared with control subjects 1 and 2 years after the intervention. The training workshops for practitioners were well evaluated; however, more intensive training was needed. The intervention cost £683 per patient but was not cost-effective because it did not improve metabolic control. Conclusions: A high-quality, complex, pragmatic trial of structured education can be successfully conducted alongside standard care in NHS diabetes clinics. Pragmatic components of a NICE-compliant structured education programme can be successfully delivered following a relatively brief 2-day training while paediatric health-care professionals benefit from training in behaviour change skills. The study provides invaluable information on barriers and opportunities regarding future, similar interventions. A low dropout rate and good attendance for the subgroup that attended the intervention suggests there might be improved uptake if offered to young people with lower HbA1c. Testing whether this approach can be more successful with a robust ongoing supervisory element should be a target of further research. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52537669. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In the first paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Xavier Bosch-Capblanch and colleagues examine how guidance is currently formulated in low- and middle-income countries, and the challenges to developing such guidance.

In the third paper in a three-part series on health systems guidance, Simon Lewin and colleagues explore the challenge of assessing how much confidence to place in evidence on health systems interventions.

BACKGROUND: In developing countries, the private sector provides a substantial proportion of primary health care to low income groups for communicable and non-communicable diseases. These providers are therefore central to improving health outcomes. We need to know how their services compare to those of the public sector to inform policy options. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We summarised reliable research comparing the quality of formal private versus public ambulatory health care in low and middle income countries. We selected studies against inclusion criteria following a comprehensive search, yielding 80 studies. We compared quality under standard categories, converted values to a linear 100% scale, calculated differences between providers within studies, and summarised median values of the differences across studies. As the results for for-profit and not-for-profit providers were similar, we combined them. Overall, median values indicated that many services, irrespective of whether public or private, scored low on infrastructure, clinical competence, and practice. Overall, the private sector performed better in relation to drug supply, responsiveness, and effort. No difference between provider groups was detected for patient satisfaction or competence. Synthesis of qualitative components indicates the private sector is more client centred. CONCLUSIONS: Although data are limited, quality in both provider groups seems poor, with the private sector performing better in drug availability and aspects of delivery of care, including responsiveness and effort, and possibly being more client orientated. Strategies seeking to influence quality in both groups are needed to improve care delivery and outcomes for the poor, including managing the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases.

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out ‘with’ or ‘by’ patients and members of the public rather than ‘to’, ‘about’ or ‘for’ them ( http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.