The <i>QUEST </i>for Effective and Equitable Policies to Prevent Non-communicable Diseases: Co-Production Lessons From Stakeholder Workshops

Lloyd-Williams, Ffion; Masters, Rebecca; Hyseni, Lirije; Denny, Emily St; O’Flaherty, Martı́n; Capewell, Simon

doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2020.99

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of more feasible policy options was reported by 13 studies (41%). Lloyd-Williams [ 57 ] reported a case study to develop prevention strategies for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the UK. They noted that “strategies to prevent premature NCDs therefore potentially represent ‘wicked’ problems…co-production could well be valuable, potentially providing context, relevance, and reality checks regarding feasible strategies” (pg.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

Walker,

Baquero,

Bekemeier

et al. 2023

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Strategies for supporting evidence-informed health policy are a recognized but understudied area of policy dissemination and implementation science. Codesign describes a set of strategies potentially well suited to address the complexity presented by policy formation and implementation. We examine the health policy literature describing the use of codesign in initiatives intended to combine diverse sources of knowledge and evidence in policymaking. Methods The search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges. Results From 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement. Discussion Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

Walker,

Baquero,

Bekemeier

et al. 2023

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Programmes that promote collaborative efforts between researchers, practitioners, implementors and policy-makers can greatly assist regional, country and international NCD-related commitments and are critical in global health agendas. [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] Such comprehensive consultation enables researchers to iteratively implement, monitor and evaluate the interventions to improve fit with local stakeholders' needs. [58][59][60] It is this need for research to be responsive to the contextual determinants of health that was referred to by the funders as being an essential component for this call.…”

Section: Tight Funding Timelines For Consultation and Local Contextua...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritising and planning scale-up research projects targeting non-communicable diseases: a mixed-method study by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases upscaling working group

Ramani-Chander,

Thrift,

van Olmen

et al. 2023

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionGovernments must scale-up evidence-based interventions to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Implementation research can help develop contextually appropriate strategies and optimise interventions for scale-up. We aimed to determine the priorities of the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) 2019 funding round for scale-up research targeting NCD interventions. The research questions were: (a) What was the purpose of the call and what were the specific issues considered by funders when supporting the selected projects? (b) How did the selected research projects align with the objectives of GACD scale-up call?MethodsWe undertook a mixed-methods study to examine the projects funded by the GACD in 2019. We completed semistructured interviews with representatives from 5 out of 8 funding agencies and complemented this by reviewing project documents from 21 (78%) of the 27 funded studies. A literature review of scale-up frameworks informed the interview guide and data extraction template. The transcripts were open-coded using thematic analysis to identify critical issues for funders. Data were extracted to identify the common elements considered when planning, implementing and evaluating interventions for scale-up.ResultsInterviews with the funders revealed three enabling themes related to scale-up: local research priorities (contextualisation through engagement), capacity building (developing knowledge base) and connections (networking opportunities). We further identified that timelines (more flexibility) and equity (funding low-income and middle-income researchers) could be considered for future funding investments. Multidisciplinary international research teams led the development of diverse studies to address funder’s priorities. The detailed plans included a range of implementation frameworks to help develop contextual scale-up strategies.ConclusionsFundamental to NCD scale-up research are (1) funding opportunities that reflect the complexity and time necessary to enable contextualisation; (2) investment in building multidisciplinary research capacity and leadership and (3) better networking to encourage cohesive action and align NCD-related scale-up research activities globally.

show abstract

“…This additional information is needed given the importance of understanding how mitigating barriers could lead to more successful implementation; research and evaluation should focus more on this aspect of policy implementation. In recent years, co-production between public health practitioners or researchers, and stakeholders or intervention providers, has re-emerged as an important principle in designing public health interventions and research [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. The benefits of co-production and diverse stakeholder engagement are that they provide valuable understanding of implementation context and relevance, which enhances the ability to anticipate and mitigate barriers and the potential for implementation success.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Food Environment Policies at Scale: What Helps? What Hinders? A Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers

Nguyen

Cranney

Bellew

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Policies that support healthier food environments, including healthy retail food availability and promotion, are an important strategy for obesity prevention. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the evidence for barriers and enablers to successful implementation of healthy food and drink policies, delivered at scale. Methods: MEDLINE, SCOPUS and INFORMIT were searched to May 2019 for peer-reviewed studies. Google and Google Scholar were searched for grey literature. Studies of any design relating to a healthy food and drink policy delivered at scale (≥10 sites) in non-commercial food settings, for specific retail outlets (e.g., vending machines, cafes, cafeterias, school canteens), and that reported on implementation barriers and/or enablers were included. Studies in commercial food retail environments (e.g., supermarkets) were excluded. Studies were appraised for quality and key information was extracted and summarised. Extracted information on barriers and enablers was further grouped into overarching themes relating to perceptions of the policy itself, organisational and contextual factors influencing policy implementation, stakeholder responses to the implemented policy and perceived policy impacts. Results: Of 19 studies, 16 related to policies implemented in schools, two in hospital/health facilities and one in a sport/recreation setting. Most studies were conducted in North America or Australia, and policy implementation occurred mainly at state/regional or federal levels. The most commonly cited barriers across overarching themes and intervention settings were: lack of stakeholder engagement or prioritisation of the policy (11 studies); resistance to change from school stakeholders or customers (8 studies); and concern over profitability, revenue and/or commercial viability (8 studies). Few studies reported on mitigation of barriers. Enablers most commonly raised were: stakeholder engagement, whole-school approach and/or prioritisation of the policy (9 studies); policy level or higher-level support in the form of information, guidance and/or training (5 studies); and leadership, school/policy champion, management commitment and/or organisational capacity (4 studies). Conclusions: Key considerations for policy implementation ranged from building stakeholder support, prioritising policy implementation within organisations, to implementing strategies that address financial concerns and implementation barriers.

show abstract

The QUEST for Effective and Equitable Policies to Prevent Non-communicable Diseases: Co-Production Lessons From Stakeholder Workshops

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

Prioritising and planning scale-up research projects targeting non-communicable diseases: a mixed-method study by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases upscaling working group

Implementing Food Environment Policies at Scale: What Helps? What Hinders? A Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About