Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
PLoS Med ; 18(9): e1003788, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34516565

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Checklist , Health Services Research , Research Design , Socioeconomic Factors , Delphi Technique , Diffusion of Innovation , Humans , Social Determinants of Health , Stakeholder Participation
2.
medRxiv ; 2020 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33173931

ABSTRACT

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.

3.
Drug Resist Updat ; 14(2): 95-106, 2011 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21398170

ABSTRACT

Antibacterial drugs are overused and often inappropriately selected. This exacerbates drug resistance and exacts a high burden from acute respiratory tract, bloodstream, sexually-transmitted, diarrheal and other infections. Appropriate use of existing diagnostic tests, and developing better ones, could avert these costs and would avoid selective pressure from unnecessary antibacterial use. Product profiles of resistance-averting tests would specify WHO 'ASSURED' (Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Rapid and Robust, Equipment-free and Deliverable) criteria and request susceptibility as well as etiological information. Advances in genomics, nanoscience, microfluidics and bioengineering, as well as innovative funding paradigms can help to overcome research and development barriers for such diagnostics if they are deliberately and forcefully applied. Rapid uptake of new tests requires timely translation of research on cost-benefit analyses into policy, value-based subsidies and reimbursements, as well as behavioral change of health care providers and users.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Anti-Bacterial Agents/chemical synthesis , Bacteria/pathogenicity , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Biological Assay , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Developing Countries , Drug Discovery , Genomics/methods , High-Throughput Screening Assays , Humans , Medication Adherence/psychology , Microfluidics/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...