The utilization of systematic review evidence in formulating India’s National Health Programme guidelines between 2007 and 2021

Author:

Rajwar Eti12ORCID,Pundir Prachi12ORCID,Parsekar Shradha S3,D S Anupama4,D’Souza Sonia R B4,Nayak Baby S5,Noronha Judith Angelitta4,D’Souza Preethy6,Oliver Sandy67ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Public Health Evidence South Asia, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education , Madhav Nagar, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India

2. The George Institute for Global Health , 308, Third Floor, Elegance Tower, Plot No. 8, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025, India

3. Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education , Madhav Nagar, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India

4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Nursing, Manipal College of Nursing, Manipal Academy of Higher Education , Madhav Nagar, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India

5. Department of Child Health Nursing, Manipal College of Nursing, Manipal Academy of Higher Education , Madhav Nagar, Manipal, Karnataka 576104, India

6. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London , 10 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, UK

7. Africa Centre for Evidence, Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg , PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract

AbstractEvidence-informed policymaking integrates the best available evidence on programme outcomes to guide decisions at all stages of the policy process and its importance becomes more pronounced in resource-constrained settings. In this paper, we have reviewed the use of systematic review evidence in framing National Health Programme (NHP) guidelines in India. We searched official websites of the different NHPs, linked to the main website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), in December 2020 and January 2021. NHP guideline documents with systematic review evidence were identified and information on the use of this evidence was extracted. We classified the identified systematic review evidence according to its use in the guideline documents and analysed the data to provide information on the different factors and patterns linked to the use of systematic review evidence in these documents. Systematic reviews were mostly visible in guideline documents addressing maternal and newborn health, communicable diseases and immunization. These systematic reviews were cited in the guidelines to justify the need for action, to justify recommendations for action and opportunities for local adaptation, and to highlight implementation challenges and justify implementation strategies. Guideline documents addressing implementation cited systematic reviews about the problems and policy options more often than citing systematic reviews about implementation. Systematic reviews were linked directly to support statements in few guideline documents, and sometimes the reviews were not appropriately cited. Most of the systematic reviews providing information on the nature and scale of the policy problem included Indian data. It was seen that since 2014, India has been increasingly using systematic review evidence for public health policymaking, particularly for some of its high-priority NHPs. This complements the increasing investment in research synthesis centres and procedures to support evidence-informed decision making, demonstrating the continued evolution of India’s evidence policy system.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference96 articles.

1. Public policy making in India: issues and remedies;Agarwal,2005

2. Barriers to evidence-based medicine practice in South Asia and possible solutions;Agarwal;Neurology Asia,2008

3. Donor human milk for preterm infants: current evidence and research directions;Arslanoglu;Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition,2013

4. DOTS for TB relapse in India: a systematic review;Azhar;Lung India: Official Organ of Indian Chest Society,2012

5. The impact of diabetes on tuberculosis treatment outcomes: a systematic review;Baker;BMC Medicine,2011

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3