Social innovation in health training to engage researchers in resource-limited settings: process description and evaluation.

Research on social innovations in health has increased in recent years. However, little training is geared toward enhancing social innovation research capacity. Most health training for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is developed by individuals in high-income countries, disregarding LMIC researchers' wisdom and insights and the communities' needs. Our team organized a multi-phase investigation involving a series of surveys and co-creation group discussions to assess individuals' training needs that directly informed a subsequent co-created training workshop series. We conducted a Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Assessment among the Social Innovation in Health Initiative (SIHI) network and formed a co-creation group comprising SIHI fellows to design related training workshops. We ran a final evaluation survey and analyzed the workshop series' strengths, weaknesses and threats. Descriptive and thematic analysis were employed to analyze survey data and open-ended responses. The final evaluation survey captured data from 165 learners in 35 countries, including 26 LMICs. Most participants (67.3%, 111/165) rated the training workshop series as excellent, and 30.3% (50/165) rated it as good on a five-point scale. The need for writing research grants and manuscripts was rated the highest priority. Learners were interested in community-engaged research and diversity, equity and inclusion. This workshop illustrated how co-creation could be an effective tool for developing training materials tailored for LMIC researchers. We also offer a template for conducting a needs assessment and subsequent training workshops for LMICs. The ground-up, locally developed courses may be more effective than externally developed training programs intended for LMICs.

Social innovation in health: strengthening Community Systems for Universal Health Coverage in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: In seeking the attainment of Universal Health Coverage (UHC), there has been a renewed emphasis on the role of communities. This article focuses on social innovation and whether this concept holds promise to enhance equity in health services to achieve UHC and serve as a process to enhance community engagement, participation, and agency. METHODS: A cross-country case study methodology was adopted to analyze three social innovations in health in three low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): Philippines, Malawi, and Colombia. Qualitative methods were used in data collection, and a cross-case analysis was conducted with the aid of a simplified version of the conceptual framework on social innovation as proposed by Cajaiba-Santana. This framework proposes four dimensions of social innovation as a process at different levels of action: the actors responsible for the idea, the new idea, the role of the institutional environment, and the resultant changes in the health and social system. RESULTS: The study found that each of the three social innovation case studies was based on developing community capacities to achieve health through community co-learning, leadership, and accountability. The process was dependent on catalytic agents, creating a space for innovation within the institutional context. In so doing, these agents challenged the prevailing power dynamics by providing the communities with respect and the opportunity to participate equally in creating and implementing programs. In this way, communities were empowered; they were not simply participants but became active agents in conceptualizing, implementing, monitoring, and sustaining the social innovation initiatives. CONCLUSION: The study has illustrated how three creative social innovation approaches improved access and quality of health services for vulnerable rural populations and increased agency among the intervention communities. The processes facilitated empowerment, which in turn supported the sustained strengthening of the community system and the achievement of community goals in the domain of health and beyond.

Description of global innovative methods in developing the WHO Community Engagement Package.

OBJECTIVES: Development of a Community Engagement Package composed of (1) database of community engagement (CE) experiences from different contexts, (2) CE learning package of lessons and tools presented as online modules, and (3) CE workshop package for identifying CE experiences to enrich the CE database and ensure regular update of learning resources. The package aims to guide practitioners to promote local action and enhance skills for CE. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The packages were co-created with diverse teams from WHO, Social Innovation in Health Initiative, UNICEF, community practitioners, and other partners providing synergistic contributions and bridging existing silos. METHODS: The design process of the package was anchored on CE principles. Literature search was performed using standardised search terms through global and regional databases. Interviews with CE practitioners were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 356 cases were found to fit the inclusion criteria and proceeded to data extraction and thematic analysis. Themes were organised according to rationale, key points and insights, facilitators of CE and barriers to CE. Principles and standards of CE in various contexts served as a foundation for the CE learning package. The package comprises four modules organised by major themes such as mobilising communities, strengthening health systems, CE in health emergencies and CE as a driver for health equity. CONCLUSION: After pilot implementation, tools and resources were made available for training and continuous collection of novel CE lessons and experiences from diverse socio-geographical contexts.

Social Innovation For Health Research: Development of the SIFHR Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Social innovation research checklist: A crowdsourcing open call and digital hackathon to develop a checklist for research to advance social innovation in health.

While social innovations in health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovations. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. This article describes the development of a 17-item social innovation in health research checklist to assess and report social innovation projects and provides examples of good reporting. The checklist is adapted from the TIDieR checklist and will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting and increase end user engagement. SUMMARY POINTS: While many social innovations have been developed and shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate social innovationThe Social Innovation in Health Research Checklist, the first of its kind, is a 17-item checklist to improve reporting completeness and promote transparency in the development, implementation, and evaluation of social innovations in healthThe research checklist was developed through a three-step process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a three-round modified Delphi processUse of this research checklist will enable researchers, innovators and partners to learn more about the process and results of social innovation in health research.

Fostering social innovation and building adaptive capacity for dengue control in Cambodia: a case study.

BACKGROUND: The social-ecological systems theory, with its unique conception of resilience (social-ecological systems & resilience, SESR), provides an operational framework that currently best meets the need for integration and adaptive governance as encouraged by the Sustainable Development Goals. SESR accounts for the complex dynamics of social-ecological systems and operationalizes transdisciplinarity by focusing on community engagement, value co-creation, decentralized leadership and social innovation. Targeting Social Innovation (SI) in the context of implementation research for vector-borne diseases (VBD) control offers a low-cost strategy to contribute to lasting and contextualized community engagement in disease control and health development in low and middle income countries of the global south. In this article we describe the processes of community engagement and transdisciplinary collaboration underpinning community-based dengue management in rural primary schools and households in two districts in Cambodia. METHODS: Multiple student-led and community-based interventions have been implemented focusing on empowering education, communication for behavioral change and participatory epidemiology mapping in order to engage Cambodian communities in dengue control. We describe in particular the significance of the participatory processes that have contributed to the design of SI products that emerged following iterative consultations with community stakeholders to address the dengue problem. RESULTS: The SI products that emerged following our interaction with community members are 1) adult mosquito traps made locally from solid waste collections, 2) revised dengue curriculum with hands-on activities for transformative learning, 3) guppy distribution systems led by community members, 4) co-design of dengue prevention communication material by students and community members, 5) community mapping. CONCLUSIONS: The initiative described in this article put in motion processes of community engagement towards creating ownership of dengue control interventions tools by community stakeholders, including school children. While the project is ongoing, the project's interventions so far implemented have contributed to the emergence of culturally relevant SI products and provided initial clues regarding 1) the conditions allowing SI to emerge, 2) specific mechanisms by which it happens and 3) how external parties can facilitate SI emergence. Overall there seems to be a strong argument to be made in supporting SI as a desirable outcome of project implementation towards building adaptive capacity and resilience and to use the protocol supporting this project implementation as an operational guiding document for other VBD adaptive management in the region.