METHODS: Eligible studies were included if they used any models to assess the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on any health services. Articles published from January 2020 to December 2022 were identified from PubMed, Embase and CINAHL, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, modelling and healthcare disruptions. Two reviewers independently extracted the data in four domains. A descriptive analysis of the included studies was performed under the format of a narrative report.
RESULTS: This scoping review has identified a total of 52 modelling studies that employed several models (n=116) to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services. The majority of the models were simulation models (n=86; 74.1%). Studies covered a wide range of health conditions from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases. COVID-19 has been reported to disrupt supply of health services, demand for health services and social change affecting factors that influence health. The most common outcomes reported in the studies were clinical outcomes such as mortality and morbidity. Twenty-five studies modelled various mitigation strategies; maintaining critical services by ensuring resources and access to services are found to be a priority for reducing the overall impact.
CONCLUSION: A number of models were used to assess the potential impact of disruptions to essential health services on various outcomes. There is a need for collaboration among stakeholders to enhance the usefulness of any modelling. Future studies should consider disparity issues for more comprehensive findings that could ultimately facilitate policy decision-making to maximise benefits to all.
METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed.
RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability.
CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.