Examining the efficiency and effectiveness of ontario's health workforce regulatory system

The regulation and oversight of the health professionals responsible for providing care to patients in Ontario is an important mechanism to ensure patients receive the highest-quality care possible (e.g., by setting the standards that professionals need to meet in their practice) while mitigating, to the extent that is possible, the risks of harm that may be associated with the provision of healthcare services (e.g., by ensuring health professionals are fit to practice, and that those who are licensed to practice have the competencies to provide the services patients need safely). There are currently 261 regulatory colleges in Ontario that provide oversight for the 292 health professions that are regulated in the province, which collectively include over 300,000 healthcare professionals Additionally, there are several organizations providing oversight and guiding the practice of the many health workers who are not currently regulated, such as personal-support workers (PSWs) ­ of which there are many ­ as well as assistants of many kinds (e.g., dental, medical laboratory, physiotherapy and osteopath), athletic therapists, hearing-instrument practitioners, lactation consultants, marriage and family therapists, medical geneticists, paramedics, pedorthists, phlebotomists, and personalservice workers of many kinds (e.g., ear piercers, tattoo artists).

Creating rapid-learning health systems in Canada / Créer des systèmes de santé apprenant rapidement au Canada

The 14 jurisdictions include one federal/national/panCanadian jurisdiction, 10 provincial jurisdictions, and three territorial jurisdictions. The first of these jurisdictions includes both areas of federal government responsibility for providing healthcare ­ most notably for Indigenous peoples, military personnel and veterans, and prisoners in federal correctional facilities ­ and areas where national or panCanadian initiatives have been developed to support provincial and territorial health systems.

Les 14 juridictions incluent la juridiction fédérale/nationale/pancanadienne, les dix juridictions provinciales et les trois juridictions territoriales. La première juridiction englobe tant la responsabilité fédérale de fournir des soins de santé ­ particulièrement aux Autochtones, aux militaires et aux anciens combattants, ainsi qu'aux personnes détenues dans les établissements fédéraux ­ que les domaines où des initiatives nationales ou pancanadiennes ont été instaurées pour soutenir les systèmes de santé provinciaux et territoriaux.

Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are increasingly focusing on the issue of 'overuse' of health services and how to address it. We developed a framework focused on (1) the rationale and context for health systems prioritising addressing overuse, (2) elements of a comprehensive process and approach to reduce overuse and (3) implementation considerations for addressing overuse. METHODS: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis informed by a stakeholder-engagement process. The synthesis identified relevant empirical and non-empirical articles about system-level overuse. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed for inclusion and conceptually mapped included articles. From these, we selected a purposive sample, created structured summaries of key findings and thematically synthesised the results. RESULTS: Our search identified 3545 references, from which we included 251. Most articles (76%; n = 192) were published within 5 years of conducting the review and addressed processes for addressing overuse (63%; n = 158) or political and health system context (60%; n = 151). Besides negative outcomes at the patient, system and global level, there were various contextual factors to addressing service overuse that seem to be key issue drivers. Processes for addressing overuse can be grouped into three elements comprising a comprehensive approach, including (1) approaches to identify overused health services, (2) stakeholder- or patient-led approaches and (3) government-led initiatives. Key implementation considerations include the need to develop 'buy in' from stakeholders and citizens. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems want to ensure the use of high-value services to keep citizens healthy and avoid harm. Our synthesis can be used by policy-makers, stakeholders and researchers to understand how the issue has been prioritised, what approaches have been used to address it and implementation considerations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013204 .

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. METHODS: To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. RESULTS: The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Processes, contexts, and rationale for disinvestment: a protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Practical solutions are needed to support the appropriate use of available health system resources as countries are continually pressured to 'do more with less' in health care. Increasingly, health systems and organizations are exploring the reassessment of possibly obsolete, inefficient, or ineffective health system resources and potentially redirecting funds to those that are more effective and efficient. Such processes are often referred to as 'disinvestment'. Our objective is to gain further understanding about: 1) whether how and under what conditions health systems decide to pursue disinvestment; 2) how health systems have chosen to undertake disinvestment; and 3) how health systems have implemented their disinvestment approach. METHODS/DESIGN: We will use a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) approach, to develop a theoretical framework based on insights drawn from a range of relevant sources. We will conduct systematic searches of databases as well as purposive searches to identify literature to fill conceptual gaps that may emerge during our inductive process of synthesis and analysis. Two independent reviewers will assess search results for relevance and conceptually map included references. We will include all empirical and non-empirical articles that focus on disinvestment at a system level. We will then extract key findings from a purposive sample of articles using frameworks related to government agendas, policy development and implementation, and health system contextual factors and then synthesize and integrate the findings to develop a framework about our core areas of interest. Lastly, we will convene a stakeholder dialogue with Canadian and international policymakers and other stakeholders to solicit targeted feedback about the framework (e.g., by identifying any gaps in the literature that we may want to revisit before finalizing it) and deliberating about barriers for developing and implementing approaches to disinvestment, strategies to address these barriers and about next steps that could be taken by different constituencies. DISCUSSION: Disinvestment is an emerging field and there is a need for evidence to inform the prioritization, development, and implementation of strategies in different contexts. Our CIS and the framework developed through it will support the actions of those involved in the prioritization, development, and implementation of disinvestment initiatives. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013204.

Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The growing recognition of the importance of concisely communicating research evidence and other policy-relevant information to policymakers has underpinned the development of several information-packaging efforts over the past decade. This has led to a wide variability in the types of documents produced, which is at best confusing and at worst discouraging for those they intend to reach. This paper has two main objectives: to develop a better understanding of the range of documents and document names used by the organizations preparing them; and to assess whether there are any consistencies in the characteristics of sampled documents across the names employed to label (in the title) or describe (in the document or website) them. METHODS: We undertook a documentary analysis of web-published document series that are prepared by a variety of organizations with the primary intention of providing information to health systems policymakers and stakeholders, and addressing questions related to health policy and health systems with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. No time limit was set. RESULTS: In total, 109 individual documents from 24 series produced by 16 different organizations were included. The name 'policy brief/briefing' was the most frequently used (39%) to label or describe a document, and was used in all eight broad content areas that we identified, even though they did not have obviously common traits among them. In terms of document characteristics, most documents (90%) used skimmable formats that are easy to read, with understandable, jargon-free, language (80%). Availability of information on the methods (47%) or the quality of the presented evidence (27%) was less common. One-third (32%) chose the topic based on an explicit process to assess the demand for information from policy makers and even fewer (19%) engaged with policymakers to discuss the content of these documents such as through merit review. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for organizations embarking on future information-packaging efforts to be more thoughtful when deciding how to name these documents and the need for greater transparency in describing their content, purpose and intended audience.

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models. FINDINGS: Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt. CONCLUSION: Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.

The global stock of research evidence relevant to health systems policymaking.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers and stakeholders need immediate access to many types of research evidence to make informed decisions about the full range of questions that may arise regarding health systems. METHODS: We examined all types of research evidence about governance, financial and delivery arrangements, and implementation strategies within health systems contained in Health Systems Evidence (HSE) (http://www.healthsystemsevidence.org). The research evidence types include evidence briefs for policy, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews of effects, systematic reviews addressing other questions, systematic reviews in progress, systematic reviews being planned, economic evaluations, and health reform and health system descriptions. Specifically, we describe their distribution across health system topics and domains, trends in their production over time, availability of supplemental content in various languages, and the extent to which they focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as well as (for systematic reviews) their methodological quality and the availability of user-friendly summaries. RESULTS: As of July 2013, HSE contained 2,629 systematic reviews of effects (of which 501 are Cochrane reviews), 614 systematic reviews addressing other questions, 283 systematic reviews in progress, 186 systematic reviews being planned, 140 review-derived products (evidence briefs and overviews of systematic reviews), 1,669 economic evaluations, 1,092 health reform descriptions, and 209 health system descriptions. Most systematic reviews address topics related to delivery arrangements (n = 2,663) or implementation strategies (n = 1,653) with far fewer addressing financial (n = 241) or governance arrangements (n = 231). In addition, 2,928 systematic reviews have been quality appraised with moderate AMSTAR ratings found for reviews addressing governance (5.6/11), financial (5.9/11), and delivery (6.3/11) arrangements and implementation strategies (6.5/11); 1,075 systematic reviews have no independently produced user-friendly summary and only 737 systematic reviews have an LMIC focus. Literature searches for half of the systematic reviews (n = 1,584, 49%) were conducted within the last five years. CONCLUSIONS: Greater effort needs to focus on assessing whether the current distribution of systematic reviews corresponds to policymakers' and stakeholders' priorities, updating systematic reviews, increasing the quality of systematic reviews, and focusing on LMICs.

How contexts and issues influence the use of policy-relevant research syntheses: a critical interpretive synthesis.

CONTEXT: Evidence briefs have emerged as a promising approach to synthesizing the best available research evidence for health system policymakers and stakeholders. An evidence brief may draw on systematic reviews and many other types of policy-relevant information, including local data and studies, to describe a problem, options for addressing it, and key implementation considerations. We conducted a systematic review to examine the ways in which context- and issue-related factors influence the perceived usefulness of evidence briefs among their intended users. METHODS: We used a critical interpretive synthesis approach to review both empirical and nonempirical literature and to develop a model that explains how context and issues influence policymakers' and stakeholders' views of the utility of evidence briefs prepared for priority policy issues. We used a "compass" question to create a detailed search strategy and conducted electronic searches in CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, IPSA, MEDLINE, OAIster (gray literature), ProQuest A&I Theses, ProQuest (Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, PAIS, Political Science), PsychInfo, Web of Science, and WilsonWeb (Social Science Abstracts). Finally, we used a grounded and interpretive analytic approach to synthesize the results. FINDINGS: Of the 4,461 papers retrieved, 3,908 were excluded and 553 were assessed for "relevance," with 137 included in the initial sample of papers to be analyzed and an additional 23 purposively sampled to fill conceptual gaps. Several themes emerged: (1) many established types of "evidence" are viewed as useful content in an evidence brief, along with several promising formatting features; (2) contextual factors, particularly the institutions, interests, and values of a given context, can influence views of evidence briefs; (3) whether an issue is polarizing and whether it is salient (or not) and familiar (or not) to actors in the policy arena can influence views of evidence briefs prepared for that issue; (4) influential factors can emerge in several ways (as context driven, issue driven, or a result of issue-context resonance); (5) these factors work through two primary pathways, affecting either the users or the producers of briefs; and (6) these factors influence views of evidence briefs through a variety of mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Those persons funding and preparing evidence briefs need to consider a variety of context- and issue-related factors when deciding how to make them most useful in policymaking.

Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted.

Systematic reviews are increasingly being viewed as important sources of information for policymakers who need to make decisions on different aspects of the health system, often under tight time constraints and with many factors competing for their attention. Unfortunately, a number of misconceptions, or 'myths', stand in the way of promoting their use. The belief that systematic review topics are not relevant to health systems policymaking, that they cannot be found quickly, and that they are not available in formats that are useful for policymakers are but three examples of such myths. This paper uses evidence drawn mainly from Health Systems Evidence, a continuously updated repository of syntheses of health systems research, to counter these and nine other common myths, with the aim of changing the constraining beliefs associated with them, while improving the prospects for the use of systematic reviews in health system policymaking.