METHODS: The development process was managed by a technical working group led by the Institute for Health Systems Research in the Ministry of Health. Situational analysis was conducted through a multi-pronged approach, underpinned by a review of the past and present healthcare sectoral and quality plans and guided by the WHO NQPS framework. This approach involved: (i) review of quality-related policy documents, (ii) online surveys of healthcare providers and the public, (iii) key-informant facilitated discussions and (iv) mapping of existing quality improvement initiatives (QIIs). Data gathered from these approaches informed the content of the new policy. Following thematic analysis, the findings were grouped into specific domains, which were then organized into a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) framework.
RESULTS: Ten key areas of concern identified were (i) a people-centred holistic approach, (ii) governance for quality, (iii) resources, (iv) quality culture, (v) stakeholder engagement, (vi) health management information system, (vii) workforce competency, (viii) knowledge exchange, (ix) quality indicators and (x) monitoring and evaluation of quality activities. These led to the formulation of seven strategic priorities for the planning of improvements aimed at addressing the key areas of concern. The national definition of quality was affirmed. A total of 40 QIIs were mapped and grouped into three broad categories, namely (i) regulatory, (ii) domain-specific QIIs and (iii) Quality Improvement (QI) method.
CONCLUSIONS: The National Policy for Quality in Healthcare for Malaysia was developed through a comprehensive situational analysis using a multi-method approach that identified priorities across national, state, institutional and community levels. This evidence-informed approach led to meaningful contextual adaptation of the NQPS framework to shape the strategic direction to advance quality and achieve effective and safe outcomes for all Malaysians.
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.
METHODS: This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Only national, or international physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour guidelines were included in the review. Included guidelines targeted children and adolescents aged between 5 and 18 years. A grey literature search was undertaken incorporating electronic databases, custom Google search engines, targeted websites and international expert consultation. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument (AGREE II).
RESULTS: The search resulted in 50 national or international guidelines being identified. Twenty-five countries had a national guideline and there were three international guidelines (European Union, Nordic countries (used by Iceland, Norway and Sweden), World Health Organization (WHO)). Nineteen countries and the European Union adopted the WHO guidelines. Guidelines varied in relation to date of release (2008 to 2019), targeted age group, and guideline wording regarding: type, amount, duration, intensity, frequency and total amount of physical activity. Twenty-two countries included sedentary behaviour within the guidelines and three included sleep. Total scores for all domains of the AGREE II assessment for each guideline indicated considerable variability in guideline quality ranging from 25.8 to 95.3%, with similar variability in the six individual domains. Rigorous guideline development is essential to ensure appropriate guidance for population level initiatives.
CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed considerable variability between national/international physical activity guideline quality, development and recommendations, highlighting the need for rigorous and transparent guideline development methodologies to ensure appropriate guidance for population-based approaches. Where countries do not have the resources to ensure this level of quality, the adoption or adolopment (framework to review and update guidelines) of the WHO guidelines or guidelines of similar quality is recommended.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Review registration: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017072558.