Deliberation and Research Unit on Health Policies and Systems

Deliberation and Research Unit on Health Policies and Systems of the School of Medicine of Universidad de Antioquia takes advantage of the best available global and local findings to produce evidence summaries. Citizens, researchers, decision makers, and all those interested are called by the Unit to participate at deliberative dialogues with the aim of sharing the established health policies and improving the health outcomes of the Colombian population.

About Us

Mission

To produce evidence summaries and conduct deliberative dialogues using the best available evidence and local knowledge to impact policy agendas and actions.

Vision

To be a leading unit in the improvement of health outcomes of the Colombian population through collective solution to health problems. The best available evidence will be used. Citizens, researchers, decision makers, and all those interested will be called to dialogue in order to train action-oriented leaders who face health problems.

Objectives

To build and strengthen the ability of researchers, decision makers, civil society, and the media to use research in decision-making.

To inform policy making by using the best available evidence and calling citizens, decision makers, and all those interested to take part in deliberative dialogues.

To develop research with the aim of strengthening communication mechanisms of policymaking.

Working Methodology

The need to address any problem, in order to solve it, will be generated by the decision maker. After the proposal has been accepted, the Unit will convene the establishment of the steering committee composed of representatives of the center and the product sponsor. Then, the terms of reference will be developed and defined, particularly those related to the problem framing and the viable options to face it. All this should be developed by the steering committee and key informants by means of various conceptual frameworks that organize ideas on how to deal with the issue.

Procedures

Create a directing committee formed by representatives of the center and the service sponsor.

Develop and define terms of reference, particularly those related to the problem framing and viable options to face it. The terms should be developed by the directing committee and key informants by means of various conceptual frameworks organizing ideas on how to deal with the issue.

Evidence summary development

• Identify, select, assess, and summarize relevant research about the problem, and implementation options and considerations.

• Write a draft of the evidence summary. Global and local evidence must be submitted in a concise way and in accessible language.

• Finish the evidence summary according to the contribution of merit review (reviewed by a decision maker, a researcher, and another person).

• Develop a summary for citizens.

• Create a citizen’s panel (18 to 20 participants).

• Call for a deliberative dialogue.

• Gather 18 to 22 decision makers, researchers, and other people interested in taking part in a dialogue that will give elements to each participant to generate actions that face the problem.

• Circulate evidence summary and political issue summary among participants of the dialogue before the event.

• Prepare and circulate a dialogue summary after the event. This will be a public access document.

Partner Organizations

• Group of organizations with whom we have cooperation:

• McMaster University

• Health Forum

• World Health Organization

• Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR): https://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/about/hpsr/en/

Services

Evidence Summary: an evidence summary circulates evidence generated by global and local research about a problem, options for addressing the problem, and implementation considerations. As soon as possible, the summary should be nurtured by systematic reviews of scientific literature and from primary studies. This summary will not include suggestions.

Summary for Citizens: this summary draws on a documentary analysis and interviews with key participants about the problem, options to address the problem, and implementation considerations raised in the evidence summary. This summary complements the evidence summary and does not include suggestions.

Citizen’s panel: it is a scenario that gives citizens the opportunity to make informed judgments about high-priority issues based on their values and preferences. These panels help to find unique interpretations of prioritized topics and generate ideas about viable solutions.

Deliberative dialogue among different actors: global and national evidence, from evidence summary; citizens’ preferences and values, from citizen’s panel; and vision, experiences, and tactical knowledge from participants about the political issue under discussion are taken into account in the deliberative dialogue. One of the purposes of the dialogues is to expose particular interpretations of the issue and generate ideas that can only result from joint work of those involved or affected by future decisions on the subject. A second objective is to generate action by those involved in the dialogue, and by those who review the summary of the dialogue and videos of interviews conducted with the participants.

Quick Response: response to urgent requests from policymakers in short periods of time (3-10-30 days). The best available evidence will be summarized in it.

Support to media: evidence is provided to media with the aim of supporting health reports obtained from the evidence.

Other Services

Clinical Practice Guidelines

They are the result of a rigorous methodological process carried out by our expert team in research technology and potential users. They include evidence-based recommendations, meets the quality standards proposed by the AGREE collaboration, and have editorial independence.

We are working on...

Partners for Evidence and Rapid Learning in Social Systems (PERLSS)

This project is funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Hewlett Foundation. It involves and supports 11 countries including Colombia, that is represented by Universidad de Antioquia, and Canada, by the leader institution McMaster University.

The purpose of the project is to facilitate the use of evidence for policymakers and stakeholders involved in social systems. Therefore, problems and causes can be clarified, faced, and solved.

The project lasts 36 months, starting from December 1, 2018.

Research to Enhance the Adaptation and Implementation of Health Systems Guidelines (RAISE)

This project supports six countries among which Colombia was benefited thanks to the endorsement of the project of Universidad de Antioquia. The project is convened by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) in support of Knowledge Translation (KT) Program belonging to Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of the St. Michaels's Hospital and it is funded by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The main objectives of the project are:

Improve science on adapting and implementing health system guidelines at low- and middle-income countries, including those related regulations as a result of search based on a contextual framework.

Strengthen participants’ ability from middle- and low-income countries to conduct research on health systems.

Support efforts to improve the comprehension of health system guidelines and thereby strengthening health systems at middle- and low-income countries.

Our project name is "Implementation of prioritized health systems-related recommendations from WHO Health System Guidelines and from Colombian Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines".

The Project lasts for 24 months, starting from August 2019.

The Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative (GESI)

Universidad de Antioquia was invited to participate in the project “Synthesized Evidence on Conflict and War: a systematic map and critical appraisal of systematic reviews”. This project is convened by GESI and seeks to explore existing reviews in the humanitarian field and verify their quality.

The objectives of this systematic mapping are:

Rigorously identify and critically evaluate existing systematic reviews on the humanitarian field.

Publish an accessible and easy-to-understand map of published evidence.