Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
      • The Challenge Initiative Platform
      • Call for Abstracts
      • The Responsive Feedback Approach
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Alerts
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • Follow GHSP on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Open Access

Embedding Research on Implementation of Primary Health Care Systems Strengthening: A Commentary on Collaborative Experiences in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique

African Health Initiative Partnership Collaborative for Embedded Implementation Research
Global Health: Science and Practice September 2022, 10(Supplement 1):e2200061; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00061
aMembers listed at the end of the article.
  • For correspondence: cbaynes@uw.edu
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Key Messages

  • Engaging policy decision makers and implementation teams elicited critical input on root causes of implementation problems, prioritized which factors to address and how, and determined what questions to ask and answer to best guide primary health care policy implementation.

  • Integrating decision makers in program research leadership roles allowed data collection, analysis, and dissemination to align with planning cycles during which new findings could be reflected on pragmatically and, if appropriate, used to guide program implementation.

  • Multidisciplinary partnerships between policy decision makers, implementation leaders from district health systems, and local research institutes fostered collaboration in cocreating implementation strategies and research plans and emphasized knowledge and experience sharing.

  • Embedded IR was influenced not just by individual leadership and local implementation climate but the overarching organizational culture in which the African Health Initiative partnerships were themselves embedded nationally.

  • The degree to which embedded IR leads to meaningful and lasting change in health systems is affected by opportunities for, and impediments to, disseminating and absorbing new knowledge.

ABSTRACT

Achieving universal health care coverage requires the adoption of primary health care policies and delivery strategies that are evidence based. Although this has been confronted by manifold challenges, particularly in the health systems of sub-Saharan Africa, there are promising approaches for accomplishing this objective. Salient among these is embedding implementation research (i.e., the study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into routine practice) into policy making and implementation processes. Since 2007, the African Health Initiative of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation supported partnerships that strengthened primary health systems and policy implementation in 7 countries in sub-Saharan Africa using the embedded implementation research as a core strategy. This programmatic review and analysis aims to identify the core features and processes that characterized how the partnerships operationalized the embedded implementation research approach and understand the factors that helped and constrained partnerships’ effective use of this approach. For this, we drew upon findings from a desk review that consisted of 30 examples of embedded implementation research conducted by 3 African Health Initiative partnerships between 2016 and 2021 in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique. In addition, we conducted and analyzed 13 in-depth interviews with embedded implementation research stakeholders of the 3 projects. Core features and processes of embedded implementation research were: (1) the leadership role of policy decision makers and implementation leaders; (2) positioning research with program implementation at multiple levels of health systems; (3) multidisciplinary and multisectoral partnerships; (4) focus on research capacity building; and (5) real-time feedback loops and knowledge translation. Factors influencing the effectiveness of the embedded implementation research experiences involved: (1) the implementation climate and leadership; (2) opportunities and capacities to circulate and absorb new information; and (3) stakeholders’ baseline knowledge and embedded scientists’ identification within their organizations.

Resumo em português no final do artigo.

BACKGROUND

To achieve universal health coverage (UHC) despite financial, human, and infrastructural resource constraints, sub-Saharan African country health systems must implement primary health care (PHC) policies and delivery strategies that are evidence based.1–14 Despite wide recognition of this, efforts to strengthen health systems based on evidence are beset by challenges. Currently, PHC policy and implementation research are limited, particularly relative to the scope and severity of primary health and systems challenges in sub-Saharan Africa.15,16 Most research output focusing on health care delivery and health systems comes from research institutions based in other continents. Accordingly, global calls have directed attention to the need to build research capacity and leadership in sub-Saharan Africa at the institutional and leadership levels.17,18 These initiatives have advanced a vision of situating research within health systems and communities in a manner that addresses structural inequities,19 maximizes the benefits of new knowledge for staff of local health systems, and enhances the role of “research consumers” in the design and use of research.18,20 Although this effort has achieved some success, strategies for translating evidence into large-scale practice in sub-Saharan Africa are often poorly suited to the complexities of local health systems, do not engage key stakeholders before and during the research process,18,20 and struggle due to lengthy time lags in applying research to design and accelerate scale-up of PHC reforms.21–24

Implementation research (IR)—defined as the study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into routine practice—can be useful in achieving this goal because it adopts these processes as the subject of scientific inquiry.25 IR acknowledges the influence of culture, context, and nonlinear organizational tendencies on knowledge translation, and the need for implementation strategies to support EBI implementation that are iterative, ongoing, and adaptive to local environments.26 Therefore, understanding how to optimally use IR in sub-Saharan African country health systems is key to achieving UHC. One approach that has been of increasing interest is “embedded IR.”27 Embedded IR emphasizes IR capacity strengthening, partnerships, and co-design. It elevates the role of policy decision makers and implementation leaders to identify implementation challenges, prioritize evidence needs, and coproduce and colead work for dissemination and scale. In addition, IR seconds local scientists to help study implementation challenges from a position embedded within implementation processes in collaboration with implementers and decision makers and, with this, promotes the uptake of research findings into policy and implementation decision making.28

Embedded IR elevates the role of policy decision makers and implementation leaders to identify implementation challenges, prioritize evidence needs, and lead dissemination and scale.

THE AFRICAN HEALTH INITIATIVE

Since 2009, the African Health Initiative (AHI) of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) has supported collaborations between Ministries of Health (MOHs), PHC implementation leaders, and academic research groups to embed IR into their work to strengthen and learn from PHC systems in 6 countries.29 The first phase of the AHI (2009–2014) demonstrated the “proof of concept” that locally adapted PHC implementation strategies could effectively accelerate progress towards UHC in Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia. The second phase, which started in 2015, focused on replication and supporting the scale-up of effective strategies in 3 countries—Ghana, Mozambique, and Ethiopia (whose country partnership joined the AHI at that time).30 Although similar in their core principles, AHI partnerships differed with respect to their specific implementation strategies and activities, which ranged from data quality improvement and use to strengthening health facility management to improving community-based PHC systems. However, embedded IR was a common strategy across the 3 AHI partnerships during Phase 2 (Box).31–35

BOX

Embedded Implementation Research Strategy Used by African Health Initiative Partnership in 3 Countries

Ethiopia Data Use Program (DUP): In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Health (MOH) launched the Health Sector Transformation Plan (2015–2020), which called for an “information revolution,” particularly the digitization of health information systems (HIS) and building capacity to use HIS data and ensure data quality in primary health care settings. The Connected Woreda strategy of the MOH emerged as the national guide for achieving the plan’s vision of creating an information-use culture at all levels of the health care system.

To help implement that strategy, in 2017, the MOH—in partnership with John Snow Research and Training Institute, Inc., and its subpartners, Regenstrief Institute, University of Gondar, and Gobee Group—launched the DUP, with initial funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and, in 2018, additional funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. DUP has helped establish systems to strengthen the national HIS for supporting data quality and use and demonstrate how to effectively intervene to that effect in primary health care systems throughout the country. A core component of the DUP is an academic–implementer partnership model, called the Capacity Building and Mentoring Program, wherein researchers receive graduate training in implementation research (IR); as part of this training, they partner with regional health bureaus to collaborate on priority research questions to inform and/or strengthen service delivery. In partnership with the regional health bureaus under the leadership of the MOH, 6 local universities (Addis Ababa University, University of Gondar, Mekelle University, Jimma University, Hawassa University, and Haramaya University) played a key role in establishing the Capacity Building and Mentoring Program.

Community-based Health Planning and Services+ (CHPS+): In Ghana, the national program health care program, Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) emerged from a series of studies in the 1990s–2000s that showed that combining the deployment of paid, multitasked community health officers with community mobilization could reduce child mortality. National policies scaling up CHPS comprised isolated activities that lacked “unifying systems thinking.”31 To accelerate the slow scale-up of CHPS and address this lack, during African Health Initiative Phase 1, the Ghana Essential Health Interventions Program was launched in the Upper East Region and designed and demonstrated the health impact of a package of interventions that strengthened district health systems and made it easier to put CHPS into practice and reduce child mortality.32 In Phase 2, collaborators replicated and scaled the model, now called CHPS+, which conducted a multicomponent strategy in districts with low CHPS coverage to help accelerate scale-up.33 Key pieces of the intervention at the district level involved training and mentorship to health care workers and community health workers, leadership capacity building, monitoring and evaluation systems strengthening, flexible catalytic funding, and district-to-district peer exchanges. At the national level, CHPS+ also intervened to help build knowledge management capacity and promote evidence use during policy decision making.

Integrated District Evidence-to-Action program to improve maternal, newborn, and child health (IDEAs): In Mozambique, the Phase 1 partnership supported the MOH’s decentralization of management of public health sector resources in 12 districts of Sofala province. This partnership focused on strengthening routine HIS, improving data quality and its use through appropriate tools to facilitate decision making by health system managers, strengthening management and planning capacity, funding district health plans, and building capacity for operations research.34,35 In 2017, the partnership replicated the program, called the IDEAs program, in the neighboring Manica province; this project builds on improvements in data quality and management capacity achieved in Phase 1 by introducing an enhanced audit and feedback strategy to improve how facilities in the 2 provinces implement the MOH’s essential package of interventions to reduce maternal, child, and newborn deaths. In addition, the Phase 2 partnership implemented a 2-prong approach to foster IR capabilities among Government of Mozambique institutions and personnel: (1) a suite of trainings on IR (including both degree-offering training at the doctoral and master’s levels, as well as short courses); and (2) multiple rounds of sourcing IR priorities from provincial leadership and supporting Mozambican public sector research institutions to develop, implement, and disseminate IR addressing these priorities.

We reflect on how AHI partners carried out embedded IR in Phase 2 of the AHI. In doing so, we describe the features and processes of embedding IR and the factors that impeded or enhanced these endeavors, and we give insights into how embedded IR can support UHC achievement in sub-Saharan African country health systems in the future.

To identify the core features and processes that AHI partnerships used to embed IR in PHC systems, we drew upon findings from a desk review of 30 examples of embedded IR. We applied framework analysis to the data, which involved sifting and sorting data—first, to familiarize ourselves with the data and identify salient concepts and relationships among them; then, to determine an appropriate thematic framework.34 For the second step, we benefited from the conceptual guidance of Varallyay et al., specifically a framework for evaluating the processes of embedded IR.35 Employing the constructs supplied by this framework, we then indexed textual data from desk review materials by coding segments of text into thematic categories. Next, we charted the segments of coded text, rearranging them into charts defined by the respective themes, and then we mapped and interpreted the key characteristics observed in the data as laid out in charts.

To help understand the barriers and facilitators of using the embedded IR approach, we conducted and analyzed 13 in-depth interviews with stakeholders of the 3 projects (3 policy makers, 7 embedded researchers, and 3 implementation team leaders). For this analysis, we also used frameworks analysis, employing the same steps as in the desk review; however, with these data, we drew upon the domains and constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to adapt a thematic framework.36

CORE FEATURES AND PROCESSES OF EMBEDDED IR

The Table provides an overview of AHI Phase 2 projects and the way that each employed embedded IR in large-scale PHC programs to assess whether implementation strategies effectively improved EBI implementation. All projects embedded IR in PHC systems to enhance public sector adoption and implementation of national policy frameworks and intervention packages. Most studies investigated the barriers and facilitators to implementation effectiveness and/or described implementation practices that were effective (n=20); 6 of these studies were conducted to inform the adaptation of implementation strategies. Fewer examples of embedded IR evaluated whether strategies were associated with change or differences in implementation outcomes (n=4). Collectively, the 3 partnerships illuminate important lessons on the core features and processes of embedded IR, which is effective in achieving the IR goals.

All projects embedded IR in PHC systems to enhance public sector adoption and implementation of national policy frameworks and intervention packages.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE.

Use of Embedded IR During African Health Initiative Phase 2 in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique

Role of Policy Decision Makers and Implementation Teams in Research

In all the projects, research partners engaged decision makers from policy and implementation settings in deliberating on findings from formative research or needs assessments. During this engagement, decision makers provided critical input on root causes of implementation problems, prioritized which factors to address and how, and determined what questions to ask and answer to best guide PHC policy implementation. As such, decision makers were both coproducers and consumers of embedded IR. During implementation, researchers engaged decision makers in interpreting findings from embedded IR, which helped guide adaptations in implementation strategy, identification of important implementation issues and topics for new embedded IR, and issuance of recommendations for policy improvements. In Mozambique, the Integrated District Evidence-to-Action program to improve maternal, newborn, and child health (IDEAs) research team, which is led by the principal investigator who is also the National Director of Public Health at the MOH, conducted semiannual meetings with district and facility teams in which they shared and collectively reflected on action plan achievements. These events provided opportunities for stakeholders to identify relevant implementation issues and research questions.37

Positioning Research Within Program Implementation at Multiple Levels

Placing decision makers in leadership roles in research projects enabled partners to integrate the research and program processes. This integration allowed their data collection, analysis, and dissemination to align with planning cycles during which new findings could be reflected on pragmatically and, if appropriate, used to guide PHC program implementation. In Ethiopia, the DUP worked as an integrated project within the MOH and regional health bureaus to develop the enabling policy “road map” by developing a national eHealth architecture, convening platforms to create alignment among health information system (HIS) actors, and supporting systems to facilitate data exchanges and planning implementation. One example is the embedded IR study on how to optimize electronic community HIS and support its implementation and scale-up. This study was codesigned and overseen by MOH staff from the Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division and Health Information Technology Directorate, who timed the work so that results would be available for decision makers to consider as they plan to scale up the electronic community HIS.38

Multidisciplinary and Multisectoral Partnerships

AHI partnerships fostered collaboration between policy decision makers, implementation leaders from district health systems, local research institutes, and, in some instances, communities. Cooperation among these actors started with using preliminary data on the EBI context to cocreate implementation strategies and coproducing a research agenda that met the information needs of decision makers from different levels of the health system. In Ghana, researchers from the University of Development Studies (UDS) and University of Health and Allied Sciences (UHAS) elicited the perspectives of community members and community-based PHC workers on problems underlying suboptimal Community-based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) implementation, particularly in terms of community entry and engagement practices. These actors cocreated a strategic response to catalyze better adoption and spread of CHPS in trainee districts, which was then monitored and evaluated during Phase 2.39–41 The implementation of CHPS+ is led by the Ghana Health Service Policy, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, which uses embedded IR results during deliberations on strategy to strengthen implementation and further scale-up of CHPS countrywide.

Focus on Research Capacity Building

The partnerships incorporated research capacity building into embedded IR cycles. In Ethiopia, local universities offer pre-service and in-service trainings for health workers and managers that work in PHC settings to build their capacity to manage and use health information and enhance HIS staff opportunities, as well as eLearning courses on developing and conducting small-scale IR projects. In Ghana, junior researchers were paired with more experienced research staff during data collection and analysis. UDS and UHAS staff led IR trainings with members of district health teams. Additionally, UDS and UHAS coordinated embedded IR as part of their applied implementation science training. The Mozambique partnership project channels seed funding to national research institutions to codesign, implement, and disseminate IR protocols that respond to provincial research priorities identified through annual solicitations from the MOH. All partnerships dedicate resources to support the training of numerous junior investigators to receive Master’s degrees (57 in Ethiopia, 36 in Ghana, and 10 in Mozambique) and PhDs (8 in Ethiopia, 7 in Ghana, and 5 in Mozambique), mostly at national universities.

Real-Time Feedback Loops and Knowledge Translation

The implementation processes used by each partnership emphasize knowledge and experience sharing. Data from embedded IR are circulated among partners and research expertise is embedded within implementation and decision-making cycles. These practices help promote the timeliness of data interpretation, as well as opportunities to translate IR findings into programmatic alternatives that reflect decision makers’ priorities and concerns and are actionable through routine systems. The IDEAs implementation process exemplifies this. This project’s evaluation focuses on whether a district-led audit and feedback strategy improves the implementation of essential maternal, child, and newborn health interventions. Embedded researchers from the IDEAs team give routine support to facility teams on managing routine data, ensuring data quality, measuring progress, and visualizing results. They also share findings from qualitative assessments of implementation with facility teams and district managers to guide how they address barriers and facilitators to effective implementation. District authorities convene meetings quarterly, during which facility managers present their progress and deliberate on the root causes of challenges and what to do about them; also at these meetings, local decision makers ascertain whether implementation of the essential interventions has improved and give guidance on next steps. Teams develop new action plans, accordingly, and embedded researchers conduct qualitative investigations on the factors that influence whether these activities improve services.37

The implementation processes used by each partnership emphasize knowledge and experience sharing.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS OF EMBEDDED IR

In-depth interviews identified contextual factors that influenced the effectiveness of AHI partnerships’ embedded IR.

Implementation Climate and Leadership

The implementation climate, depending on how leaders manage it, either enhanced or created obstacles for embedded IR. Stakeholders from all partnerships were able to provide examples of both.

The thing that distinguishes success from failure or from- you know- the business-as-usual type of work, is very strong leaders who are able to work within a system that is governed by tradition, and norms but challenge those norms and traditions in ways that can be used to improve the system. That’s critical. —Policy maker, Ghana

The context of embedded IR was often defined by implementation leaders’ experience and skills at balancing adherence to procedures of national health care bureaucracies, on the one hand, with adaptiveness to new lessons and openness to change, on the other. By cultivating an implementation climate that promotes timely sharing of data and information, trying new approaches, and circulating goals and feedback, leaders help establish a healthy tension for change. The benefits of these efforts are clear in Mozambique.

At national level [there is] a platform [for stakeholders and MOH] to discuss the main findings of [embedded IR] and disseminate the best practices. It’s part of improving the health system in a way that can improve the way of delivering health to the people. —Policy maker, Mozambique

By cultivating an implementation climate that promotes timely sharing of data and information, trying new approaches, and circulating goals and feedback, leaders help establish a healthy tension for change.

In the 3 countries, embedded IR was influenced not just by individual leadership and local implementation climate but also by the overarching organizational culture in which the AHI partnerships were themselves embedded nationally. In Ethiopia, the MOH declared an “Information Revolution,” which as an implementation team leader stated, was aimed at “bringing fundamental cultural and attitudinal change regarding the practice of collecting data and how it is used.” And blending these changes with the introduction or adaptation of “tools for analyzing data and using it for decision making at [the service delivery] level.”

Visible, high-level commitment to this component of the Health Sector Transformation Plan instigated helpful normative change about data and research utilization that enhanced motivation to practice embedded IR throughout the health sector. However, stakeholders reported difficulty in managing collaborative research partnerships when embedded IR members from the government do not remain in their positions for a long time.

One disadvantage that earlier is since we started this project, the leadership at the Ministry of Health level changes very often. We’re (now) dealing with the third person. So that’s had an implication on the performance of the whole embedded research [project]. So having consistent leadership within the ministry is also critical. —Researcher, Ethiopia

Opportunities and Capacities to Circulate and Absorb New Information

The degree to which embedded IR leads to meaningful and lasting change in health systems is affected by opportunities for, and impediments to, disseminating and absorbing new knowledge. In Ghana, implementation teams from trainee districts—that had embedded research in the formative context of adapting CHPS—drew additional benefit from exchanges with peers from systems learning districts.

From the peer exchange [the implementation teams] learned from the successes of peers on how they overcome some of the same challenges … After coming to the peer exchange, they [the implementation team] came back and did a lot, they ensured that their entire district was able to go out and mobilize their communities—not just for them to provide accommodation and other things—but also to provide the services themselves. — Implementation leader, Ghana

In Mozambique, district leaders combined facility-team exchanges, joint action planning, and public benchmark reporting to motivate quality improvement and adoption of priority interventions to reduce maternal, child, and newborn deaths. In that instance, implementation teams also benefited from associating with peers with whom their interactions are otherwise limited.

Performance review helps very much to see if we are working or not, and presentations help to share experiences. If others did were successful, they show us the data … we can learn from them … This [interaction] helps develop action plans to address shortcomings. The plans are posted at a visible location in the health facility. —Implementation team leader, Mozambique

All projects lamented the tendency for decision makers to be overwhelmed with multiple responsibilities, which slowed the pace of evidence sharing within their circles and undermined their collective capacity to make evidence-informed decisions.

Like most of the time, those people from the ministry or like decision makers are implementing this. They are mostly busy people. They have so many things on the table: in addition to leading all the work on the field for those decision makers, there are so many meetings, they have so many management activities. So, the main challenge is their lack of time for the research project. I think that is the major obstacle. —Researcher, Ethiopia

Stakeholders’ Baseline Knowledge/Capacities and Embedded Scientist Identification Within Organization(s)

Embedded researchers reported difficulties im-parting adequate knowledge on the principles of IR and an appreciation for how it might strengthen policy making and implementation.

This will be solved, but during our initial engagement, that became a critical challenge because most of these policy makers, they have a very limited exposure to research, so they fail to understand the importance of focus and the importance of being very specific. —Researcher, Ethiopia

Positioning research within programs implies the necessity for policy makers and implementers to embrace the scientific process and blend clinical and bureaucratic processes with creative inquiry. Doing so requires acquisition of new skills and the ability to adapt customary ways of working. It follows that uptake of embedded IR was in some instances impeded by passive resistance to the shift away from “business as usual.”

You know that when you start, methodology is required to shift the way that you are doing things. This is a challenge in a way that people will move from what is usual to another way of doing things. It’s required to have to train people on how to draw the protocols but also about implementing. —Researcher, Mozambique

Uptake of embedded IR was in some instances impeded by passive resistance to the shift away from “business as usual.”

In addition, embedded researchers described their struggle in negotiating their standing and sense of incorporation within academia and health systems. Embedding research that is context-driven and maintaining its position within programs demands that researchers conform to the procedures and culture of adopting organizations. Some participants described that doing so conflicts with the goal of being impartial and producing objective, generalizable evidence.

One critical challenge is to be able to tow that fine line between a researcher and then the implementer so that while you are trying to provide an objective assessment of what is going on, you don't slip on to the other side where you sort of compromise the independence. The researcher is … torn between the issue of complete independence and the fact that you are a partner in this process. —Researcher, Ghana

LESSONS LEARNED

In synthesizing the embedded IR experiences across the 3 AHI Phase 2 partnerships, we noted lessons on 5 key themes.

Role of Decision Makers

The intellectual stewardship and direction carried out by decision makers are crucial to the success of research in improving programs; however, it is important to engage leaders of policy decision making (usually at the national level) and policy implementation (usually at the local level) to maximize the relevance of IR and ensure that the research is integrated within decision-making and implementation processes. For this effort to succeed, decision makers should be engaged early and often, and academic partnerships are required to strengthen research capacity at both levels. When possible, researchers should engage multiple decision makers and contribute to building research capacity in groups so that embedded IR is not destabilized when staff turnover occurs. Health sector funders should help establish permanent and active units within the MOH that manage a PHC learning agenda, including partnerships with academic groups and implementation partners; coordinate research capacity building activities; and integrate embedded IR policy- and decision-making processes. Donors should target these structures with solicitations for embedded IR proposals.

Positioning Research Within Program Processes

Leaders from national and local levels should consider the timing of planning and decision-making processes that should be informed by embedded IR to maximize the prospect that evidence is available when it is most needed. In addition, decision makers and scientists should prioritize activities that expand opportunities and strengthen capacities to circulate and absorb evidence from local embedded IR or relevant evidence from similar settings. Funders should require that MOH and partners integrate IR into health sector strategic plan-funding applications and ask that proposals incorporate local evidence. Similarly, health sector funders and MOH should encourage that planning frameworks call on districts to propose embedded IR in annual plans.

Decision makers and scientists should prioritize activities that expand opportunities and strengthen capacities to circulate and absorb evidence from local embedded IR or relevant evidence from similar settings.

Collaborative, Multidisciplinary Research Partnerships

Embedded IR requires that research teams have an appropriate skill mix to carry out high-quality science, adapt methods so that they are contextually appropriate and fit for purpose, and ensure that data collection and use are integrated within processes of routine implementation. This requires partnerships that bring together scholars, implementers, and policy makers. Achieving optimal collaborative arrangements and dynamics takes time, and funders should help nurture these relationships by promoting opportunities for decision makers and implementation leaders to learn about IR and to interact informally with researchers—generating spontaneous opportunities for advancing partnerships. Clarity on roles and expectations is critical to achieve at the outset. This includes openness about tensions that arise within embedded IR teams between “business as usual” preferences and the imperative to learn and adapt, as well as a willingness to expect and respond to systems failures when they occur.

Research Capacity Building

Ensuring that actors from the countries that host embedded IR can independently conduct high-quality research is essential for parlaying embedded IR into long-term progress toward UHC. Embedded IR teams from sub-Saharan African countries should articulate the support that they require to do such research and the existing institutions to invest in; they should also have leeway in adapting research capacity-building programs to reflect local context and capacity. Donors should be responsive to these appeals and consider funding strategies that demonstrate how research capacity building strengthens health systems. Research capacity building should incorporate a continuum of activities including designing protocols and analysis methods, facilitating knowledge translation, and publishing in journals. Training opportunities should be situated in health program implementation to further strengthen essential partnerships. Whereas strengthening capacity of scientists in research institutions is critical, so too is the imperative to adapt training approaches to meet the needs of implementation leaders and decision makers, whose roles are equally important.

Reporting Standards and Practices

Our investigation highlighted tensions experienced by researchers that seek to generate objective knowledge on how to strengthen health systems and are yet embedded as members of the implementation systems that they study from within. Experiences of researchers of other social sciences emphasize similar challenges in which researchers must contend with their positionality.42 Whereas guidance on conducting qualitative research delineates steps scientists should use to explore and explain their positionality to bolster the credibility and enhance interpretation of evidence, it appears that either IR is lacking in this regard or that such guidance is not well known or widely accessible to implementation researchers.43,44 Leaders of the embedded IR enterprise should consider ways to adapt reporting standards and guidelines to promote practices that help researchers address positionality and ensure research quality.

CONCLUSION

All 3 AHI projects reported ways that embedded IR informs program implementation improvements and lauded the DDCF for prioritizing embedded IR as a core component of larger investments in accelerating the achievement of UHC. This support for embedded IR was at an adequate level with sufficient time frames and flexibility so that each project could conceptualize and embed IR, learn, and translate lessons into program action.18 DDCF support leveraged pre-existing, strong, multidisciplinary collaborations with IR experience. As a result, many of the common challenges that beset embedded IR were not identified in this review. However, some common challenges persisted, notably difficulties managing the implementation climate and expanding the absorptive capacity of bureaucracies to learn and adapt to new information.

As embedded IR partnerships mature, including relationships with funders, new solutions will be required to address these challenges. This should include a deeper commitment to research capacity building, flexible support for local partnerships to engage actors and use evidence to solve problems, and inventive strategies to make these opportunities more available for lesser costs. In the meantime, projects with funding for embedded IR can look to AHI for inspiration on how to maximize the impact of embedded IR using a multidisciplinary partnership model that empowers decision makers and embeds research and capacity building at multiple levels of health systems.

AHI Partnership Collaborative for Embedded Implementation Research Authors: Colin Baynes (Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA); Mallory Sheff (Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA); Lisa Hirschhorn (Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA); Lola Adedokun (Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, New York, USA); Quinhas Fernandes (Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Ministry of Health, Maputo, Mozambique); Kenneth Sherr (Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA); Sarah Gimbel (Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Child, Family, and Population Health Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA); Isaías Ramiro (Health Alliance International, Maputo, Mozambique); Sergio Chicumbe (Instituto Nacional de Saúde, Maputo, Mozambique); Eusebio Chaquisse (National Directorate of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Maputo, Mozambique); Nelia Manaca (Health Alliance International, Maputo, Mozambique); Orvalho Augusto (Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Eduardo Mondlane University, Maputo, Mozambique); Hiwot Belay (Ethiopia Data Use Partnership, John Snow International, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia); Hibret Tilahun (Ethiopia Data Use Partnership, John Snow International, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia); Abebaw Gebeyehu (Ethiopia Data Use Partnership, John Snow International, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia); Afrah Mohammedsani (Ethiopia Data Use Partnership, John Snow International, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia); J. Koku Awoonor-Williams (Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana); Ayaga Bawah (University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana); James Phillips (Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA); S. Patrick Kachur (Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA); Pearl E. Kyei (University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana); Nicholas Kanlisi (Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA); and Robert Alirigia (Ghana Health Service, Accra, Ghana).

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the support provided for this study by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and express our thanks to functionaries of the local health systems and Ministries of Health in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique and other project partners whose collaboration was key to the lessons reported in this paper.

Funding

The publication cost of this article and the collection of data for it were funded by the African Health Initiative of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The Mozambique embedded research work is additionally supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development of the National Institutes of Health under award R01HDHD092449; the National Institutes of Health had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in writing the manuscript.

Author contributions

CB, LRH, and LA developed the concept for the manuscript. MS developed data collection instruments and conducted the in-depth interviews and the desk review. MS and CB analyzed the data and CB wrote the manuscript. The AHI Partnership Collaborative members reviewed drafts, provided comments, and approved the manuscript.

Competing interests

None declared.

Translation

Em Português

Incorporando a Pesquisa na Implementação do Fortalecimento dos Sistemas de Cuidados de Saúde Primários: Um Comentário sobre Experiências Colaborativas na Etiópia, Gana e Moçambique

Mensagens Chave

• Nossa análise identificou lições aprendidas sobre os principais recursos e processos da pesquisa de implementação incorporada, incluindo a importância de: (1) o papel da liderança dos decisores de políticas e líderes de implementação na pesquisa de implementação; (2) posicionar a pesquisa com implementação de programas em vários níveis dos sistemas de saúde; (3) parcerias multidisciplinares e multissetoriais; (4) foco na capacitação em pesquisa; e (5) ciclos de feedback em tempo real e tradução do conhecimento.

• Os fatores que influenciam a eficácia das experiências da incorporação da pesquisa de implementação incluídas nesta revisão envolveram: (1) o clima de implementação e liderança; (2) oportunidades e capacidades para circular e absorver novas informações; e (3) conhecimento de base das partes interessadas e a identificação de cientistas integrados nas suas organizações.

Resumo

Alcançar a cobertura universal de saúde requer a adoção de políticas de cuidados de saúde primários e estratégias de prestação de serviços baseadas em evidências. Embora isso tenha sido confrontado por múltiplos desafios, particularmente nos sistemas de saúde da África sub-Sahariana, existem abordagens promissoras para atingir esse objetivo. Entre as abordagens, destaca-se a incorporação da pesquisa de implementação, ou seja, o estudo dos métodos para promover a adoção sistemática de intervenções baseadas em evidências (EBIs) na prática rotineira, na formulação de políticas e nos processos de implementação. Desde 2007, a Iniciativa Africana de Saúde da Fundação de Caridade da Doris Duke apoiou parcerias que fortaleceram os sistemas de saúde primários e a implementação de políticas em 7 países da África sub-Sahariana usando a pesquisa de implementação integrada como estratégia central. O propósito desta revisão e análise programática é de identificar os principais aspectos e processos que caracterizaram como as parcerias operacionalizaram a abordagem integrada da pesquisa de implementação e entender os factores que ajudaram e restringiram o uso efetivo das parcerias dessa abordagem. Para isso, baseamo-nos nas conclusões de uma revisão documental que consistiu em 30 exemplos de incorporação de pesquisa de implementação realizada por três parcerias da Iniciativa Africana de Saúde entre 2016-2021 na Etiópia, Gana e Moçambique. Além disso, realizamos e analisamos 13 entrevistas em profundidade com as partes interessadas na incorporação da pesquisa de implementação nos 3 projetos. As principais características e processos da pesquisa de implementação incorporada foram: (1) o papel da liderança dos decisores de políticas e líderes de implementação; (2) posicionar a pesquisa com a implementação dos programas em vários níveis dos sistemas de saúde; (3) parcerias multidisciplinares e multissetoriais; (4) foco na capacitação em pesquisa; e (5) ciclos de feedback em tempo real e tradução de conhecimento. Os fatores que influenciam a eficácia das experiências da incorporação da pesquisa de implementaçã envolveram: (1) o clima de implementação e liderança; (2) oportunidades e capacidades para circular e absorver novas informações; e (3) conhecimento de base das partes interessadas e a identificação de cientistas integrados nas suas organizações.

Peer Reviewed

Cite this article as: African Health Initiative Partnership Collaborative for Embedded Implementation Research. Embedding research on implementation of primary health care systems strengthening: a commentary on collaborative experiences in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(Suppl 1): e2200061. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00061

  • Received: February 23, 2022.
  • Accepted: May 11, 2022.
  • Published: September 15, 2022.
  • © African Health Initiative Partnership Collaborative for Embedded Implementation Research.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00061

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Birbeck GL,
    2. Wiysonge CS,
    3. Mills EJ,
    4. Frenk JJ,
    5. Zhou XN,
    6. Jha P
    . Global health: the importance of evidence-based medicine. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):223. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-223. pmid:24228722
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Yamey G,
    2. Feachem R
    . Evidence-based policymaking in global health - the payoffs and pitfalls. Evid Based Med. 2011;16(4):97–99. doi:10.1136/ebm.2011.100060. pmid:21693456
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.
    1. Rudan I,
    2. Kapiriri L,
    3. Tomlinson M,
    4. Balliet M,
    5. Cohen B,
    6. Chopra M
    . Evidence-based priority setting for health care and research: tools to support policy in maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000308. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000308. pmid:20644640
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Uneke CJ,
    2. Sombie I,
    3. Johnson E,
    4. Uneke BI,
    5. Okolo S
    . Promoting the use of evidence in health policymaking in the ECOWAS region: the development and contextualization of an evidence-based policymaking guidance. Global Health. 2020;16(1):73. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00605-z. pmid:32762759
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Innvær S,
    2. Vist G,
    3. Trommald M,
    4. Oxman A
    . Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):239–244. doi:10.1258/135581902320432778. pmid:12425783
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    1. Flottorp SA,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Krause J,
    4. et al
    . A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):35. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-35. pmid:23522377
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Pang T
    . Evidence to action in the developing world: what evidence is needed? Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85(4):247. pmid:17546299
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. Oxman AD,
    2. Fretheim A,
    3. Schünemann HJ
    ; SURE. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4(1):12. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-4-12. pmid:17116254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Nabyonga-Orem J,
    2. Ssengooba F,
    3. Mijumbi R,
    4. Kirunga Tashobya C,
    5. Marchal B,
    6. Criel B
    . Uptake of evidence in policy development: the case of user fees for health care in public health facilities in Uganda. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):639. doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0639-5. pmid:25560092
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Ngidi WH,
    2. Naidoo JR,
    3. Ncama BP,
    4. Luvuno ZPB,
    5. Mashamba-Thompson TP
    . Mapping evidence of interventions and strategies to bridge the gap in the implementation of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV programme policy in sub-Saharan countries: a scoping review. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2017;9(1):e1–e10. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v9i1.1368. pmid:28582993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Mutale W,
    2. Chintu N,
    3. Amoroso C,
    4. et al
    ; Population Health Implementation and Training – Africa Health Initiative Data Collaborative. Improving health information systems for decision making across five sub-Saharan African countries: implementation strategies from the African Health Initiative. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S9. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-S2-S9. pmid:23819699
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Manzi A,
    2. Hirschhorn LR,
    3. Sherr K,
    4. Chirwa C,
    5. Baynes C,
    6. Awoonor-Williams JK,
    7. AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative
    . Mentorship and coaching to support strengthening healthcare systems: lessons learned across the five Population Health Implementation and Training partnership projects in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(Suppl 3):831. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2656-7. pmid:29297323
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    1. Barrera-Cancedda AE,
    2. Riman KA,
    3. Shinnick JE,
    4. Buttenheim AM
    . Implementation strategies for infection prevention and control promotion for nurses in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):111. doi:10.1186/s13012-019-0958-3. pmid:31888673
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lavis J,
    2. Lomas J,
    3. Hamid M,
    4. Sewankambo NK
    . Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(8):620–628. pmid:16917649
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kasprowicz VO,
    2. Chopera D,
    3. Waddilove KD,
    4. et al
    . African-led health research and capacity building- is it working? BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1104. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-08875-3. pmid:32664891
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Friedman EA,
    2. Gostin LO
    . From local adaptation to activism and global solidarity: framing a research and innovation agenda towards true health equity. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):18. doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0492-8. pmid:28219436
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kirigia JM,
    2. Wambebe C
    . Status of national health research systems in ten countries of the WHO African Region. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):135. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-135. pmid:17052326
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hedt-Gauthier BL,
    2. Chilengi R,
    3. Jackson E,
    4. et al
    ; with input from the AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative. Research capacity building integrated into PHIT projects: leveraging research and research funding to build national capacity. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(Suppl 3):825. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2657-6. pmid:29297405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). Strategy on Health Policy and Systems Research: Changing the Mindset. WHO; 2012. Accessed June 6, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77942
  20. 20.↵
    1. Adam T,
    2. Ahmad S,
    3. Bigdeli M,
    4. Ghaffar A,
    5. Røttingen JA
    . Trends in health policy and systems research over the past decade: still too little capacity in low-income countries. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27263. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027263. pmid:22132094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Asamani JA,
    2. Nabyonga-Orem J
    . Knowledge translation in Africa: are the structures in place? Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):111. doi:10.1186/s43058-020-00101-w. pmid:33308316
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Ongolo-Zogo P,
    2. Lavis JN,
    3. Tomson G,
    4. Sewankambo NK
    . Assessing the influence of knowledge translation platforms on health system policy processes to achieve the health millennium development goals in Cameroon and Uganda: a comparative case study. Health Policy Plan. 2018;33(4):539–554. doi:10.1093/heapol/czx194. pmid:29506146
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Kasonde JM,
    2. Campbell S
    . Creating a Knowledge Translation Platform: nine lessons from the Zambia Forum for Health Research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10(1):31. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-10-31. pmid:23034056
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Inguane C,
    2. Sawadogo-Lewis T,
    3. Chaquisse E,
    4. et al
    . Challenges and facilitators to evidence-based decision-making for maternal and child health in Mozambique: district, municipal and national case studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):598. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05408-x. pmid:32605564
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Theobald S,
    2. Brandes N,
    3. Gyapong M,
    4. et al
    . Implementation research: new imperatives and opportunities in global health. Lancet. 2018;392(10160):2214–2228. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32205-0. pmid:30314860
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Alonge O,
    2. Rodriguez DC,
    3. Brandes N,
    4. Geng E,
    5. Reveiz L,
    6. Peters DH
    . How is implementation research applied to advance health in low-income and middle-income countries? BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(2):e001257-e001257. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001257. pmid:30997169
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Churruca K,
    2. Ludlow K,
    3. Taylor N,
    4. Long JC,
    5. Best S,
    6. Braithwaite J
    . The time has come: embedded implementation research for health care improvement. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(3):373–380. doi:10.1111/jep.13100. pmid:30632246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Varallyay NI,
    2. Bennett SC,
    3. Kennedy C,
    4. Ghaffar A,
    5. Peters DH
    . How does embedded implementation research work? Examining core features through qualitative case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(Suppl 2):ii98–ii111. doi:10.1093/heapol/czaa126. pmid:33156937
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Bryce J,
    2. Requejo JH,
    3. Moulton LH,
    4. Ram M,
    5. Black RE
    . A common evaluation framework for the African Health Initiative. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13 (Suppl 2):S10. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-s2-s10. pmid:23819778
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Sherr K,
    2. Fernandes Q,
    3. Kanté AM,
    4. et al
    . Measuring health systems strength and its impact: experiences from the African Health Initiative. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(Suppl 3):827. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2658-5. pmid:29297341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Phillips JF,
    2. Awoonor-Williams JK,
    3. Bawah AA,
    4. et al
    . What do you do with success? The science of scaling up a health systems strengthening intervention in Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):484. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3250-3. pmid:29929512
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Fernandes QF,
    2. Wagenaar BH,
    3. Anselmi L,
    4. Pfeiffer J,
    5. Gloyd S,
    6. Sherr K
    . Effects of health-system strengthening on under-5, infant, and neonatal mortality: 11-year provincial-level time-series analyses in Mozambique. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(8):e468–e477. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70276-1. pmid:25103520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Sherr K,
    2. Cuembelo F,
    3. Michel C,
    4. et al
    . Strengthening integrated primary health care in Sofala, Mozambique. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S4. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-S2-S4. pmid:23819552
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Srivastava A,
    2. Thomson SB
    . Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. J Admin Gov. 2009;4(2):72–79. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2760705
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Varallyay NI,
    2. Langlois EV,
    3. Tran N,
    4. Elias V,
    5. Reveiz L
    . Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):64. doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00579-9. pmid:32522238
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Damschroder LJ,
    2. Aron DC,
    3. Keith RE,
    4. Kirsh SR,
    5. Alexander JA,
    6. Lowery JC
    . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50. pmid:19664226
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Inguane C,
    2. Soi C,
    3. Gimbel S,
    4. et al
    . Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify early implementation determinants for the Integrated District Evidence-to-Action Program in Mozambique. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2022;10(Suppl 1):e2100714. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-21-00714
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Ethiopia Data Use Partnership. Ethiopia Data Use Partnership - Year 4 Narratives. 2020.
  39. 39.↵
    1. Kushitor MK,
    2. Biney AA,
    3. Wright K,
    4. Phillips JF,
    5. Awoonor-Williams JK,
    6. Bawah AA. A
    qualitative appraisal of stakeholders’ perspectives of a community-based primary health care program in rural Ghana. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):675. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4506-2. pmid:31533696
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.
    1. Kweku M,
    2. Amu H,
    3. Awolu A,
    4. et al
    . Community-Based Health Planning and Services Plus programme in Ghana: a qualitative study with stakeholders in two systems learning districts on improving the implementation of primary health care. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0226808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226808. pmid:31914122
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Kweku M,
    2. Amu H,
    3. Adjuik M,
    4. et al
    . Community involvement and perceptions of the Community-Based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) Strategy for improving health outcomes in Ghana: quantitative comparative evidence from two system learning districts of the CHPS+ project. Adv Public Health. 2020;2020:1–12. doi:10.1155/2020/2385742
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Darwin Holmes AG
    . Researcher positionality - a consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research - a new researcher guide. Shanlax Int J Educ. 2020;8(4):1–10. doi:10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.↵
    1. Bourke B
    . Positionality: reflecting on the research process. Qual Rep. 2014;19(33):1–9. doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1026
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    1. Pinnock H,
    2. Barwick M,
    3. Carpenter CR,
    4. et al
    . Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) statement. BMJ. 2017;356:i6795. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6795. pmid:28264797
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 10 (Supplement 1)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 10, No. Supplement 1
September 15, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Embedding Research on Implementation of Primary Health Care Systems Strengthening: A Commentary on Collaborative Experiences in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Embedding Research on Implementation of Primary Health Care Systems Strengthening: A Commentary on Collaborative Experiences in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique
African Health Initiative Partnership Collaborative for Embedded Implementation Research
Global Health: Science and Practice Sep 2022, 10 (Supplement 1) e2200061; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00061

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Embedding Research on Implementation of Primary Health Care Systems Strengthening: A Commentary on Collaborative Experiences in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique
African Health Initiative Partnership Collaborative for Embedded Implementation Research
Global Health: Science and Practice Sep 2022, 10 (Supplement 1) e2200061; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00061
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • BACKGROUND
    • THE AFRICAN HEALTH INITIATIVE
    • CORE FEATURES AND PROCESSES OF EMBEDDED IR
    • BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS OF EMBEDDED IR
    • LESSONS LEARNED
    • CONCLUSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Funding
    • Author contributions
    • Competing interests
    • Translation
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Review of Vitamin A Supplementation in South Sudan: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for the Way Forward
  • Integrating Human-Centered Design to Advance Global Health: Lessons From 3 Programs
Show more PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Cross-Cutting Topics
    • Health Systems
US AIDJohns Hopkins Center for Communication ProgramsUniversity of Alberta

Follow Us On

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • GH Journals Database

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2023 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire