A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs

A critical exploration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework from the perspective of oncology: recommendations for revision

Catherine C Bornbaum,1 Philip C Doyle,1–3 Elizabeth Skarakis-Doyle,1,2 Julie A Theurer2,3 1Graduate Program in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, 2School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 3Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada Background: In 2001, the World Health Organization developed the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework in an effort to attend to the multidimensional health-related concerns of individuals. Historically, although the ICF has frequently been used in a rehabilitation-based context, the World Health Organization has positioned it as a universal framework of health and its related states. Consequently, the ICF has been utilized for a diverse array of purposes in the field of oncology, including: evaluating functioning in individuals with cancer, guiding assessment in oncology rehabilitation, assessing the comprehensiveness of outcome measures utilized in oncology research, assisting in health-related quality of life instrument selection, and comparing the primary concerns of health professionals with those of their patients. Discussion: Examination of the ICF through the lens of cancer care highlights the fact that this framework can be a valuable tool to facilitate comprehensive care in oncology, but it currently possesses some areas of limitation that require conceptual revision; to this end, several recommendations have been proposed. Specifically, these proposed recommendations center on the following three areas of the ICF framework: (1) the replacement of the term “health condition” with the more inclusive and dynamic term “health state;” (2) the continuing development and refinement of the personal factors component to ensure issues such as comorbidities can be accounted for appropriately; and (3) the inclusion of a mechanism to account for the subjective dimension of health and functioning (eg, quality of life). Summary: It is through the expansion of these conceptual parameters that the ICF may become more relevant and applicable to the field of oncology. With these important revisions, the ICF has the potential to provide a broader biopsychosocial perspective of care that captures the diverse range of concerns that arise throughout the continuum of care in oncology. Keywords: ICF, International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, cancer, quality of life, personal factors, health conditio

Health Res Policy Syst

Objectives The current literature lacks a detailed and standardised description of public health knowledge translation (KT) activities designed to be applied at local levels of health systems. As part of an ongoing research project called the Transfert de connaissances en regions (TC-REG project), we aim to develop a local KT taxonomy in the field of health prevention by means of a participative study between researchers, decision-makers and field professionals. This KT taxonomy provides a comparative description of existing local health prevention KT strategies. Methods Two methods were used to design a participative process conducted in France to develop the taxonomy, combining professional meetings (two seminars) and qualitative interviews. The first step involved organising a seminar in Paris, attended by health prevention professionals from health agencies in four regions of France and regional non-profit organisations for health education and promotion. This led to the drafting of regional KT plans to be implemented in the four regions. In a second step, we conducted interviews to obtain a clear understanding of the KT activities implemented in the regions. Based on data from interviews, a KT taxonomy was drawn up and discussed during a second seminar. Results Our work resulted in a KT taxonomy composed of 35 standardised KT activities, grouped into 11 categories of KT activities, e.g. dissemination of evidence, support for use of evidence through processes and structures, KT advocacy, and so on. Conclusions The taxonomy appears to be a promising tool for developing and evaluating KT plans for health prevention in local contexts by providing some concrete examples of potential KT activities (advocacy) and a comparison of the same activities and their outcomes (evaluation)

The health professionals’ perspectives of support needs of adult head and neck cancer survivors and their families: a Delphi study

Purpose: The aim was to identify the views of Australian and New Zealand health professionals regarding the support needs of people with head and neck cancer (HNC) and their families and current gaps in service delivery. Methods: A modified Delphi process assessed support needs of people with HNC following acute medical management. A systematic review of the literature was used to develop items relevant to seven key concepts underpinning the psychological experience of living with HNC. A panel of 105 health professionals was invited to participate in two questionnaire rounds. Results: Of the potential panellists, 50 (48%) completed round 1, and of these, 39 (78%) completed round 2. Following two rounds, there was consensus agreement on the concepts uncertainty and waiting, disruption to daily life and fear of recurrence. The concepts the diminished self, making sense of and managing the experience, sharing the burden and finding a path did not achieve consensus. There were no differences in responses according to gender, organization type or location. Medical professionals had significantly higher agreement for the concept uncertainty and waiting compared to allied health professionals, and professionals with five years’ or more experience had significantly higher agreement than those with less experience. Conclusions: Health professionals agreed that many psychosocial support needs of HNC survivors and families are not being met and that they experience difficulties in meeting these needs. Findings may inform evidence-based treatment programs for HNC survivors and their families to promote psychological resilience and quality of life in this vulnerable population