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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.