Skip to content

✪ Reimagining policy implementation science in a global context: a theoretical discussion

Authors:

Kellie List, Peter Agamile, Didier Yélognissè Alia, Peter Cherutich, Kristen Danforth, John Kinuthia, Arianna Rubin Means, Irene Mukui, Nancy Ngumbau, Yanfang Su, Anjuli Dawn Wagner, Bryan J Weiner, and Sarah Masyuko

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: September 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Introduction

Policy implementation science (IS) is defined here as generating knowledge and deploying implementation strategies to effectively adopt and integrate evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into policy designs and improve policy implementation and effectiveness (1–3). Most existing policy IS scholarly works originate from the Global North (United States, Canada, and Western Europe) and describe or evaluate strategies to increase the uptake of EBIs (4). The existing Global North-generated frameworks focus less on the critical resources needed to formulate and implement a policy in diverse settings. Current approaches to policy IS lack sufficient contextual nuance to be applicable to...[read more].

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Implementation measurement in global mental health: Results from a modified Delphi panel and investigator survey

Authors:

Christopher G. Kemp, Kristen Danforth, Luke Aldridge, Laura K. Murray, and Emily E. Haroz

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: October 2023

Read the full text open access in the journal Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health

Abstract:

Limited guidance exists to support investigators in the choice, adaptation, validation and use of implementation measures for global mental health implementation research. Our objectives were to develop consensus on best practices for implementation measurement and identify strengths and opportunities in current practice. We convened seven expert panelists. Participants rated approaches to measure adaptation and validation according to appropriateness and feasibility. Follow-up interviews were conducted and a group discussion was held. We then surveyed investigators who have used quantitative implementation measures in global mental health implementation research. Participants described their use of implementation measures, including approaches to adaptation and validation, alongside challenges and opportunities. Panelists agreed that investigators could rely on evidence of a measure’s validity, reliability and dimensionality from similar contexts. Panelists did not reach consensus on whether to establish the pragmatic qualities of measures in novel settings. Survey respondents (n = 28) most commonly reported using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Inner Setting Measures (n = 9) and the Program Assessment Sustainability Tool (n = 5). All reported adapting measures to their settings; only two reported validating their measures. These results will support guidance for implementation measurement in support of mental health services in diverse global settings.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of essential packages of health services

Authors:

Kristen Danforth, Ahsan Maqbool Ahmad, Karl Blanchet, Muhammad Khalid, Arianna Rubin Means, Solomon Tessema Memirie, Ala Alwan & David Watkins

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: March 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal BMJ Global Health

Abstract:

Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and they must ensure that processes are put in place to act quickly on emergent implementation challenges. Evaluation frameworks could learn from the field of implementation science; for example, by adapting the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to policy implementation. While each country will need to develop its own locally relevant M&E indicators, we encourage all countries to include a set of core indicators that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets and indicators. Our paper concludes with a call to reprioritise M&E more generally and to use the EPHS process as an opportunity for strengthening national health information systems. We call for an international learning network on EPHS M&E to generate new evidence and exchange best practices.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**