Assessing the potential for scaling evidence-based interventions in African health systems: A deliberate dialogue.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Humphrey Cyprian Karamagi, Ali Ben Charif, Hillary Kipchumba Kipruto, Sokona Sy, Jacinta Nzinga, Araia Berhane, Tewelde Yohannes, Stephen Senkomago Musoke, Kyuree Kim, Kristina Tunheim, Solyana Ngusbrhan Kidane
{"title":"Assessing the potential for scaling evidence-based interventions in African health systems: A deliberate dialogue.","authors":"Humphrey Cyprian Karamagi, Ali Ben Charif, Hillary Kipchumba Kipruto, Sokona Sy, Jacinta Nzinga, Araia Berhane, Tewelde Yohannes, Stephen Senkomago Musoke, Kyuree Kim, Kristina Tunheim, Solyana Ngusbrhan Kidane","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01369-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The WHO Regional Office for Africa reviewed evidence-based interventions designed to enhance health systems outputs: access, quality, demand and resilience. Although there is eagerness to expand interventions, the extent to which they can be successfully scaled remains mostly unknown. This study evaluated their potential for scaling to enhance system outputs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Underpinned by two frameworks for knowledge transfer, the study utilized a deliberative dialogue approach and an integrated knowledge translation strategy. A steering committee of 8 men and women oversaw the process, and 25 experts from across Africa were invited to participate. Data collection employed the African Scalability Assessment Framework (AFROSAF), consisting of 15 attributes grouped into nine scalability components: health need (three attributes), development process (three), intervention content (one), political context (one), evidence for impact (two), resource availability (one), target unit (one), scaling setting (one) and sustainability at scale (one). The scoring was on a 4-point Likert scale. Intervention scores ranged from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicated a greater potential for successful scaling. Data analysis included frequency counts, arithmetic mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI) and hierarchical cluster analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 288 health services interventions were rated for scalability, with most focusing on disease prevention (n = 114; 39.6%) and newborn age group (n = 70; 24.3%). The scalability scores averaged 79.2 (SD 17.5). The highest component score was evidence for impact [mean (CI 95%) 87.9 (85.7, 90.2)] and lowest for health security [61.9 (58.0, 65.8)]. The scalability scores varied across public health functions and age cohorts. Interventions were clustered into three groups based on their scalability score: high (n = 185; 64.2%; mean 89.5; SD 6.1; range 78.7-100), medium (n = 77; 26.7%; mean 68.6; SD 5.3; range 58.3-76.9) and low (n = 26; 9.0%; mean 37.4; SD 14.2; range 3.7-55.6). Most high-scoring interventions focused on disease prevention, 78 (42.2%) and reproductive and newborn age groups 59 (31.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study rated public health interventions for their scalability in African health systems. Disease prevention interventions for pregnancy women and newborns were most likely to be scaled. However, health security remained largely unexplored, and further investigation remains pivotal.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"91"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12257760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01369-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The WHO Regional Office for Africa reviewed evidence-based interventions designed to enhance health systems outputs: access, quality, demand and resilience. Although there is eagerness to expand interventions, the extent to which they can be successfully scaled remains mostly unknown. This study evaluated their potential for scaling to enhance system outputs.

Methods: Underpinned by two frameworks for knowledge transfer, the study utilized a deliberative dialogue approach and an integrated knowledge translation strategy. A steering committee of 8 men and women oversaw the process, and 25 experts from across Africa were invited to participate. Data collection employed the African Scalability Assessment Framework (AFROSAF), consisting of 15 attributes grouped into nine scalability components: health need (three attributes), development process (three), intervention content (one), political context (one), evidence for impact (two), resource availability (one), target unit (one), scaling setting (one) and sustainability at scale (one). The scoring was on a 4-point Likert scale. Intervention scores ranged from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicated a greater potential for successful scaling. Data analysis included frequency counts, arithmetic mean, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI) and hierarchical cluster analysis.

Results: A total of 288 health services interventions were rated for scalability, with most focusing on disease prevention (n = 114; 39.6%) and newborn age group (n = 70; 24.3%). The scalability scores averaged 79.2 (SD 17.5). The highest component score was evidence for impact [mean (CI 95%) 87.9 (85.7, 90.2)] and lowest for health security [61.9 (58.0, 65.8)]. The scalability scores varied across public health functions and age cohorts. Interventions were clustered into three groups based on their scalability score: high (n = 185; 64.2%; mean 89.5; SD 6.1; range 78.7-100), medium (n = 77; 26.7%; mean 68.6; SD 5.3; range 58.3-76.9) and low (n = 26; 9.0%; mean 37.4; SD 14.2; range 3.7-55.6). Most high-scoring interventions focused on disease prevention, 78 (42.2%) and reproductive and newborn age groups 59 (31.9%).

Conclusions: This study rated public health interventions for their scalability in African health systems. Disease prevention interventions for pregnancy women and newborns were most likely to be scaled. However, health security remained largely unexplored, and further investigation remains pivotal.

评估在非洲卫生系统中扩大循证干预措施的潜力:一次深思熟虑的对话。
背景:世卫组织非洲区域办事处审查了旨在加强卫生系统产出的循证干预措施:可及性、质量、需求和复原力。尽管人们渴望扩大干预措施,但它们能够成功地扩大到何种程度仍不得而知。本研究评估了它们的扩展潜力,以提高系统输出。方法:在两个知识转移框架的基础上,本研究采用了协商对话方法和综合知识翻译策略。一个由8名男女组成的指导委员会监督了这一进程,并邀请了来自非洲各地的25名专家参加。数据收集采用了非洲可扩展性评估框架(AFROSAF),该框架由15个属性组成,分为9个可扩展性组成部分:健康需求(3个属性)、发展进程(3个)、干预内容(1个)、政治背景(1个)、影响证据(2个)、资源可用性(1个)、目标单位(1个)、规模设定(1个)和规模可持续性(1个)。李克特评分为4分。干预得分范围从0到100,得分越高,表明成功扩展的可能性越大。数据分析包括频率计数、算术平均值、标准差(SD)、95%置信区间(CI)和分层聚类分析。结果:共有288项卫生服务干预措施被评为可扩展性,其中大多数侧重于疾病预防(n = 114;39.6%)和新生儿年龄组(n = 70;24.3%)。可伸缩性得分平均为79.2 (SD 17.5)。影响证据成分得分最高[CI 95%) 87.9(85.7, 90.2)],健康安全证据成分得分最低[61.9(58.0,65.8)]。可扩展性得分因公共卫生职能和年龄组而异。干预措施根据其可扩展性得分分为三组:高(n = 185;64.2%;意思是89.5;SD 6.1;范围78.7-100),中等(n = 77;26.7%;意思是68.6;SD 5.3;范围58.3-76.9)和低(n = 26;9.0%;意思是37.4;SD 14.2;范围3.7 - -55.6)。大多数高分干预措施侧重于疾病预防,78例(42.2%),生殖和新生儿年龄组59例(31.9%)。结论:本研究评估了公共卫生干预措施在非洲卫生系统中的可扩展性。针对孕妇和新生儿的疾病预防干预措施最有可能扩大规模。然而,卫生安全在很大程度上仍未得到探索,进一步的调查仍然至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信