Rectifying misconceptions and misimplementations: A critical examination of health literacy interventions in health systems

This review draws on over 70 studies spanning 2000 to 2023 to analyze the causal effect of health on educational outcomes. Health and health system interventions during the prenatal, infant, and childhood period impact longer-run educational attainment and performance. The magnitude of these effects is both statistically and economically significant, comparable in size to impacts on educational outcomes of interventions found in the literature. These impacts of health and health system interventions differ across gender and socioeconomic status, illustrating how health and health systems can exacerbate or mitigate educational inequalities. By showing the intertwined nature of health and education, this review highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach in policy-making that aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals.

PROTOCOL: Family and Community Interventions under Integrated Management of Childhood Illness Strategy for Reduction of Neonatal and Under‐five Mortality among Children in Low‐And‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for health and health systems interventions and programs is vital to improve health, health systems, and gender equality outcomes. It can be used to identify and address gender disparities in program participation, outcomes and benefits, as well as ensure that programs are designed and implemented in a way that is inclusive and accessible for all. While gender-responsive M&E is most effective when interventions and programs intentionally integrate a gender lens, it is relevant for all health systems programs and interventions. Within the literature, gender-responsive M&E is defined in different and diverse ways, making it difficult to operationalize. This is compounded by the complexity and multi-faceted nature of gender. Within this methodological musing, we present our evolving approach to gender-responsive M&E which we are operationalizing within the Monitoring for Gender and Equity project. We define gender-responsive M&E as intentionally integrating the needs, rights, preferences of, and power relations among, women and girls, men and boys, and gender minority individuals, as well as across social, political, economic, and health systems in M&E processes. This is done through the integration of different types of gender data and indicators, including: sex- or gender-specific, sex- or gender-disaggregated, sex- or gender-specific/disaggregated which incorporate needs, rights and preferences, and gender power relations and systems indicators. Examples of each of these are included within the paper. Active approaches can also enhance the gender-responsiveness of any M&E activities, including incorporating an intersectional lens and tailoring the types of data and indicators included and processes used to the specific context. Incorporating gender into the programmatic cycle, including M&E, can lead to more fit-for-purpose, effective and equitable programs and interventions. The framework presented in this paper provides an outline of how to do this, enabling the uptake of gender-responsive M&E.

Hypertension is a significant global health problem, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite the effectiveness of medications and lifestyle interventions in reducing blood pressure, shortfalls across health systems continue to impede progress in achieving optimal hypertension control rates. The current review explores the health system interventions on hypertension management and associated outcomes in SSA. The World Health Organization health systems framework guided the literature search and discussion of findings. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases for studies published between January 2010 and October 2022 and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We assessed studies for the risk of bias using the tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Twelve studies clustered in 8 SSA countries met the inclusion criteria. Two thirds (8/12) of the included studies had low risk of bias. Most interventions focused on health workforce factors such as providers' knowledge and task shifting of hypertension care to unconventional health professionals (n = 10). Other health systems interventions addressed the supply and availability of medical products and technology (n = 5) and health information systems (n = 5); while fewer interventions sought to improve financing (n = 3), service delivery (n = 1), and leadership and governance (n = 1) aspects of the health systems. Health systems interventions showed varied effects on blood pressure outcomes but interventions targeting multiple aspects of health systems were likely associated with improved blood pressure outcomes. The general limitations of the overall body of literature was that studies were likely small, with short duration, and underpowered. In conclusion, the literature on health systems internventions addressing hypertension care are limited in quantity and quality. Future studies that are adequately powered should test the effect of multi-faceted health system interventions on hypertension outcomes with a special focus on financing, leadership and governance, and service delivery interventions since these aspects were least explored.

Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation Programme have collaborated to produce four Cochrane overviews of systematic reviews that synthesize current available evidence from health policy and systems research (HPSR) in rehabilitation. Each overview focuses on one of the four pillars of HPSR as identified by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy: delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements, and implementation strategies. This overview focuses on governance arrangements, defined in the EPOC taxonomy as the rules or processes that affect the way in which powers are exercised, particularly regarding authority, accountability, openness, participation, and coherence. This overview aimed to synthesize the current evidence on governance arrangements in rehabilitation from a health policy and systems research (HPSR) perspective. Our series of four overviews, incorporating evidence on governance arrangements, delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, and implementation strategies, have the following overarching objectives. • To offer a broad synthesis of the existing evidence on health policy and systems interventions' effects. • To direct end-users, including policymakers, towards systematic reviews that may address their health policy questions. • To identify current research gaps and set priorities for future primary HPSR. • To pinpoint the needs and priorities for new evidence syntheses where no reliable, up-to-date systematic reviews currently exist. We searched the Epistemonokos database, the Health Systems Evidence database, and EPOC Group systematic reviews to identify reviews published between 1 January 2015 and 17 November 2024. We applied no language limitations. We included Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and selected non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) that evaluated the effectiveness of health policy and systems interventions for rehabilitation in health systems, specifically related to governance arrangements as defined in the EPOC taxonomy. All four overview teams collaborated to screen reviews and extract data. We used AMSTAR-2 to critically appraise the quality of the reviews. Reviews with ratings of high-to-moderate confidence are reported separately from low-confidence reviews. We found no Cochrane or non-Cochrane systematic reviews of RCTs or NRSIs pertaining to rehabilitation and relevant to the EPOC pillar of governance arrangements. As a result, we are unable to offer a broad synthesis of the existing evidence or to signpost relevant reviews on health policy and systems interventions related to this pillar for end-users. We did describe relevant research gaps and priorities for future primary HPSR in the rehabilitation field. We found no evidence to address our research objectives of understanding the broad effects of governance arrangements for rehabilitation or identifying evidence that could help end-users, including decision-makers and policymakers, to address potential related health policy questions. Authors of future Cochrane overviews of reviews in HPSR focusing on governance and rehabilitation may wish to consider including systematic reviews with a broader range of observational designs, as well as qualitative and mixed-methods research designs. This Cochrane review was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente). The funder played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The protocol was first published in the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine online on 27 January 2025. The manuscript was received on 11 November 2024 and was accepted on 26 November 2024. DOI 10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08833-6.

Tobacco control requires a comprehensive approach. The present study aims to examine the incremental effectiveness of health systems intervention when combined with other interventions in enhancing knowledge and practices of physicians in tobacco cessation. Methods:A randomized control trial was conducted among 437 physicians in 12 districts of two states of India in 2011-13. The interventions consisted of Health Systems (H), Community (C) and Youth intervention (Y). Administrative Blocks /Mandals were randomly assigned to one of the three interventions (HC /HCY/HY) and control units. The health system intervention consisted of training physicians and developing a system of patient support and supervision for tobacco cessation. The primary outcome was change in knowledge and practices of physicians in tobacco cessation. Logistic regression model was applied to assess the impact of single and combination of interventions. Results:An increase in knowledge was observed on effects of tobacco on adverse birth outcomes, advice on NRT and, information provided on chronic disease management among physicians in HC, HY and HCY intervention units compared to control units from pre-intervention to post-intervention. Statistically significant change was observed in knowledge of physicians on effects of tobacco on adverse birth outcomes in HC (OR- 4.75, p-0.02) and HCY (OR- 5.08, p-0.04) intervention units. Conclusions:HCY intervention was most effective in enhancing knowledge and practices of physicians in tobacco cessation. Our study suggests that individual tobacco control interventions when combined together has an incremental effect and increases the likelihood of provision of tobacco cessation services in primary care.

BackgroundGlobal health policy prioritizes improving the health of women and girls, as evident in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), multiple women’s health initiatives, and the billions of dollars spent by international donors and national governments to improve health service delivery in low-income countries. Countries recovering from fragility and conflict often engage in wide-ranging institutional reforms, including within the health system, to address inequities. Research and policy do not sufficiently explore how health system interventions contribute to the broader goal of gender equity.MethodsThis paper utilizes a framework synthesis approach to examine if and how rebuilding health systems affected gender equity in the post-conflict contexts of Mozambique, Timor Leste, Sierra Leone, and Northern Uganda. To undertake this analysis, we utilized the WHO health systems building blocks to establish benchmarks of gender equity. We then identified and evaluated a broad range of available evidence on these building blocks within these four contexts. We reviewed the evidence to assess if and how health interventions during the post-conflict reconstruction period met these gender equity benchmarks.FindingsOur analysis shows that the four countries did not meet gender equitable benchmarks in their health systems. Across all four contexts, health interventions did not adequately reflect on how gender norms are replicated by the health system, and conversely, how the health system can transform these gender norms and promote gender equity. Gender inequity undermined the ability of health systems to effectively improve health outcomes for women and girls. From our findings, we suggest the key attributes of gender equitable health systems to guide further research and policy.ConclusionThe use of gender equitable benchmarks provides important insights into how health system interventions in the post-conflict period neglected the role of the health system in addressing or perpetuating gender inequities. Given the frequent contact made by individuals with health services, and the important role of the health system within societies, this gender blind nature of health system engagement missed an important opportunity to contribute to more equitable and peaceful societies.

BackgroundDespite the mounting attention for health systems and health systems theories, there is a persisting lack of consensus on their conceptualisation and strengthening. This paper contributes to structuring the debate, presenting landmarks in the development of health systems thinking against the backdrop of the policy context and its dominant actors. We argue that frameworks on health systems are products of their time, emerging from specific discourses. They are purposive, not neutrally descriptive, and are shaped by the agendas of their authors.DiscussionThe evolution of thinking over time does not reflect a progressive accumulation of insights. Instead, theories and frameworks seem to develop in reaction to one another, partly in line with prevailing paradigms and partly as a response to the very different needs of their developers. The reform perspective considering health systems as projects to be engineered is fundamentally different from the organic view that considers a health system as a mirror of society. The co-existence of health systems and disease-focused approaches indicates that different frameworks are complementary but not synthetic.The contestation of theories and methods for health systems relates almost exclusively to low income countries. At the global level, health system strengthening is largely narrowed down to its instrumental dimension, whereby well-targeted and specific interventions are supposed to strengthen health services and systems or, more selectively, specific core functions essential to programmes. This is in contrast to a broader conceptualization of health systems as social institutions.SummaryHealth systems theories and frameworks frame health, health systems and policies in particular political and public health paradigms. While there is a clear trend to try to understand the complexity of and dynamic relationships between elements of health systems, there is also a demand to provide frameworks that distinguish between health system interventions, and that allow mapping with a view of analysing their returns. The choice for a particular health system model to guide discussions and work should fit the purpose. The understanding of the underlying rationale of a chosen model facilitates an open dialogue about purpose and strategy.

Evaluation of the implementation of health interventions and their impact on child survival in Tanzania

Addressing the growing burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in countries of the Asia-Pacific region requires well-functioning health systems. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), however, health systems are generally characterized by inadequate financial and human resources, unsuitable service delivery models, and weak information systems. The aims of this review were to identify (a) health systems interventions being implemented to deliver NCD programs and services and their outcomes and (b) the health systems bottlenecks impeding access to or delivery of these programs and services in LMICs of the Asia-Pacific region. A search of 4 databases for literature published between 1990 and 2010 retrieved 36 relevant studies. For each study, information on basic characteristics, type of health systems bottleneck/intervention, and outcome was extracted, and methodological quality appraised. Health systems interventions and bottlenecks were classified as per the World Health Organization health systems building blocks framework. The review identified interventions and bottlenecks in the building blocks of service delivery, health workforce, financing, health information systems, and medical products, vaccines, and technologies. Studies, however, were heterogeneous in methodologies used, and the overall quality was generally low. There are several gaps in the evidence base around NCDs in the Asia-Pacific region that require further investigation.

AimsThe focus of health system interventions for noncommunicable diseases and diabetes focus mainly on primary health care responses. However, existing interventions are not necessarily adapted for the complex management of type 1 diabetes (T1DM). We aimed to identify and describe health system interventions which have been developed to improve the management of T1DM globally.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health using OVID for peer‐review articles published in either English, Spanish, Portuguese or French in the last 10 years. We classified the intervention strategies according to the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy for health system interventions and the World Health Organization (WHO) health system building blocks.ResultsThis review identified 159 health system interventions to improve T1DM management. Over half of the studies focused only on children or adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Only a small fraction of the studies were conducted in low‐and‐middle income countries (LMICs). According to the EPOC taxonomy, the most frequently studied category was delivery arrangement interventions, while implementation strategies and financial arrangements were less frequently studied. Also, governance arrangements domains were not studied. The most common combination of intervention strategies included self‐management with either telemedicine, use of information and smart home technologies.ConclusionsThere is a need to expand potential interventions to other EPOC strategies to assess their potential effect on health outcomes in people with T1DM, as well as to involve more LMIC settings as the impact may be greater in these settings.

This supplement introduces the African Health Initiative (AHI), a research program comprised of five unique district health system-strengthening activities in Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia that began in 2009 (Figure ​(Figure1).1). This supplement should be of interest to all engaged in improving delivery of district primary health care — whether ministries of health, service providers, funders, or those who evaluate complex interventions. The five AHI projects, known as Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) Partnerships, are funded by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) with a common goal: to produce significant, measureable health improvements in a defined geographic area over a five to seven year grant period. With the partnerships in their fourth year of funding, it is now possible to capture lessons learned in project design and implementation. Evaluation of the African Health Initiative’s impact on population health, including mortality, however, must await the conclusion of the grant period. Figure 1 Population health implementation and training partnership sites Why focus on health systems? The last two decades saw unprecedented growth in the level of assistance available for health in developing countries. Although health expenditure by African governments remains below the Abuja Declaration target (15% of government expenditure) [1], donor support for health more than tripled between 1990 and 2008 [2] , reaching more than $27 billion annual expenditure in 2010 [3]. Much of this support is directed at “big diseases”, notably HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, often under the auspices of new global health initiatives. These laudable, ambitious efforts to target major killers encountered already fragile, under-resourced health systems that limited the capacity of beneficiary countries to absorb new investments. Although there are no simple, fast solutions to strengthening health systems, the World Health Organization [4] and others, notably the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, have been central in promoting a dialogue on how to address this critical issue [5]. In 2006, as global health funding was increasing, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Board of Trustees was considering one or two new initiatives, spurred by a desire both to celebrate its upcoming 10th anniversary of grant making and a surge in returns on its endowment. The Foundation’s Medical Research Program supported mainly domestic clinical research. Only a small portion of DDCF’s grant making was directed to research on the treatment and care of AIDS patients in Africa and the construction of the Doris Duke Medical Research Institute in Durban, South Africa. It was these latter activities that brought DDCF staff to several sub-Saharan African countries. On an early visit, staff were struck by the presence of a new HIV clinic — stocked with needed medicines and supplies and staffed by a proud health worker –- while across the street was a district hospital —derelict, no supplies, crumbling infrastructure, few staff, and patients lying on the ground for lack of beds. Further visits confirmed that, as AIDS treatment rolled out, such contrasts were common throughout sub-Saharan Africa. How could it possibly make sense for a woman to attend this new HIV clinic, and then have to contend with a non-functioning community clinic and an under-resourced district hospital for pregnancy care, childhood immunizations, or management of malaria? Not only did it seem logical that health clinics should provide integrated primary care for an entire family, but also that those clinics be part of a health system that could deliver drugs and supplies on time, train workers, and, when required, refer patients for treatment of complicated cases. Although how to define, assess, and measure health systems continues to pose challenges [6], it was these real-world observations, consultation with a range of experts, and the belief that the Foundation should be willing to address critical gaps even if they were ‘hard and high risk,’ that propelled DDCF to invest in health systems strengthening. Staff were heartened by findings of the Tanzanian Essential Health Interventions Project (TEHIP) [7] and the Navrongo Experiment in northern Ghana [8], both of which suggested that health systems interventions could indeed result in meaningful population health gains in a relatively short period of time.

### Summary box As many countries are developing policies addressing universal health coverage (UHC) and the Sustainable Development Goals, there is increasing demand for relevant and contextualised evidence to inform...

Digital health solutions are a potent and complementary intervention in health system strengthening to accelerate universal access to health services. Implementing scalable, sustainable, and integrated digital solutions in a coordinated manner is necessary to experience the benefits of digital interventions in health systems. We sought to establish the breadth and scope of available digital health interventions (DHIs) and their functions in sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted a scoping review according to the Joanne Briggs Institute's reviewers manual and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses - Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation. We retrieved data from the WHO Digital Health Atlas (DHA), the WHO e-Health country profiles report of 2015, and electronic databases. The protocol has been deposited in an open-source platform - the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/5kzq7. The researchers retrieved 983 digital tools used to strengthen health systems in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 10 years. We included 738 DHIs in the analysis while 245 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. We observed a disproportionate distribution of DHIs towards service delivery (81.7%, n = 603), health care providers (91.8%, n = 678), and access and use of information (84.1%, n = 621). Fifty-three percent (53.4%, n = 394) of the solutions are established and 47.5% (n = 582) were aligned to 20% (n = 5) of the system categories. Sub-Saharan Africa is endowed with digital health solutions in both numbers and distinct functions. It is lacking in coordination, integration, scalability, sustainability, and equitable distribution of investments in digital health. Digital health policymakers in sub-Saharan Africa need to urgently institute coordination mechanisms to terminate unending duplication and disjointed vertical implementations and manage solutions for scale. Central to this would be to build digital health leadership in countries within SSA, adopt standards and interoperability frameworks; advocate for more investments into lagging components, and promote multi-purpose solutions to halt the seeming "e-chaos" and progress to sustainable e-health solutions.

SummaryBackgroundAlthough the effectiveness of community mobilisation and promotive care delivered by community health workers in reducing perinatal and neonatal mortality is well established, evidence in support of home-based neonatal resuscitation and infection management is mixed. We assessed the effectiveness of adding training in neonatal bag and mask resuscitation and oral antibiotic therapy for suspected neonatal infections to a basic preventive and promotive interventions package delivered by public sector community-based lady health workers (LHWs) in rural Pakistan.MethodsWe did a cluster-randomised controlled trial in two subdistricts of Naushahro Feroze in rural Sindh, Pakistan, between April 15, 2009, and Dec 10, 2012. LHWs, trained in basic newborn resuscitation and in recognition and treatment (with oral amoxicillin) of suspected neonatal respiratory infections, were linked with traditional birth attendants and encouraged to attend home births. Control clusters received routine care through the existing national programme. The primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality. Independent data collection teams recorded data for all pregnancies and their outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and household practices related to maternal and newborn care.FindingsOf the 27 randomised clusters with functional LHW programmes, 13 were allocated to the intervention group (n=242 749) and 14 to the control group (n=256 985). In the intervention group, LHWs did 80% of the planned community mobilisation sessions, but were able to attend only 1184 (14%) of 8425 deliveries and 4318 (25%) of 17 288 neonatal visits within 72 h of birth (p<0·0001 for both variables compared with the control group). The neonatal mortality rate was 42 deaths per 1000 livebirths in intervention clusters compared with 55 per 1000 in the control group (risk ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·68–0·93; p=0·005).InterpretationThe reduction in neonatal mortality in intervention clusters occurred against a background of improvements in domiciliary practices for maternal and newborn care. However, the poor reach of LHWs in accessing newborn infants at birth and in the early postnatal period underscores the limitations of tasking community health workers in public sector programmes working in similar circumstances with such complex interventions. Such community-based interventions in health systems should be accompanied by concerted efforts to improve quality of care in facilities and referral systems.FundingSaving Newborn Lives, Save the Children USA.