David H. Peters

Bio: David H. Peters is an academic researcher from Johns Hopkins University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health policy & Health care. The author has an hindex of 49, co-authored 176 publications receiving 9376 citations. Previous affiliations of David H. Peters include Philippine Institute for Development Studies & World Bank.

Poverty and access to health care in developing countries.

Abstract: People in poor countries tend to have less access to health services than those in better-off countries, and within countries, the poor have less access to health services. This article documents disparities in access to health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), using a framework incorporating quality, geographic accessibility, availability, financial accessibility, and acceptability of services. Whereas the poor in LMICs are consistently at a disadvantage in each of the dimensions of access and their determinants, this need not be the case. Many different approaches are shown to improve access to the poor, using targeted or universal approaches, engaging government, nongovernmental, or commercial organizations, and pursuing a wide variety of strategies to finance and organize services. Key ingredients of success include concerted efforts to reach the poor, engaging communities and disadvantaged people, encouraging local adaptation, and careful monitoring of effects on the poor. Yet governments in LMICs rarely focus on the poor in their policies or the implementation or monitoring of health service strategies. There are also new innovations in financing, delivery, and regulation of health services that hold promise for improving access to the poor, such as the use of health equity funds, conditional cash transfers, and coproduction and regulation of health services. The challenge remains to find ways to ensure that vulnerable populations have a say in how strategies are developed, implemented, and accounted for in ways that demonstrate improvements in access by the poor.

Implementation research: what it is and how to do it

Abstract: The field of implementation research is growing, but it is not well understood despite the need for better research to inform decisions about health policies, programmes, and practices. This article focuses on the context and factors affecting implementation, the key audiences for the research, implementation outcome variables that describe various aspects of how implementation occurs, and the study of implementation strategies that support the delivery of health services, programmes, and policies. We provide a framework for using the research question as the basis for selecting among the wide range of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods that can be applied in implementation research, along with brief descriptions of methods specifically suitable for implementation research. Expanding the use of well designed implementation research should contribute to more effective public health and clinical policies and programmes. Implementation research attempts to solve a wide range of implementation problems; it has its origins in several disciplines and research traditions (supplementary table A). Although progress has been made in conceptualising implementation research over the past decade,1 considerable confusion persists about its terminology and scope.2–,4 The word “implement” comes from the Latin “implere,” meaning to fulfil or to carry into effect.5 This provides a basis for a broad definition of implementation research that can be used across research traditions and has meaning for practitioners, policy makers, and the interested public: “Implementation research is the scientific inquiry into questions concerning implementation—the act of carrying an intention into effect, which in health research can be policies, programmes, or individual practices (collectively called interventions).” Implementation research can consider any aspect of implementation, including the factors affecting implementation, the processes of implementation, and the results of implementation, including how to introduce potential solutions into a health system or how to promote their large scale use and …

Understanding pathways for scaling up health services through the lens of complex adaptive systems

Abstract: Despite increased prominence and funding of global health initiatives, efforts to scale up health services in developing countries are falling short of the expectations of the Millennium Development Goals. Arguing that the dominant assumptions for scaling up are inadequate, we propose that interpreting change in health systems through the lens of complex adaptive systems (CAS) provides better models of pathways for scaling up. Based on an understanding of CAS behaviours, we describe how phenomena such as path dependence, feedback loops, scale-free networks, emergent behaviour and phase transitions can uncover relevant lessons for the design and implementation of health policy and programmes in the context of scaling up health services. The implications include paying more attention to local context, incentives and institutions, as well as anticipating certain types of unintended consequences that can undermine scaling up efforts, and developing and implementing programmes that engage key actors through transparent use of data for ongoing problem-solving and adaptation. We propose that future efforts to scale up should adapt and apply the models and methodologies which have been used in other fields that study CAS, yet are underused in public health. This can help policy makers, planners, implementers and researchers to explore different and innovative approaches for reaching populations in need with effective, equitable and efficient health services. The old assumptions have led to disappointed expectations about how to scale up health services, and offer little insight on how to scale up effective interventions in the future. The alternative perspectives offered by CAS may better reflect the complex and changing nature of health systems, and create new opportunities for understanding and scaling up health services.

Better Health Systems for India's Poor: Findings, Analysis, and Options

Abstract: This report focuses on four areas of the health system in which reforms, and innovations would make the most difference to the future of the Indian health system: oversight, public health service delivery, ambulatory curative care, and inpatient care (together with health insurance). Part 1 of the report contains four chapters that discuss current conditions, and policy options. Part 2 presents the theory, and evidence to support the policy choices. The general reader may be most interested in the overview chapter, and in the highlights found at the beginning of each of the chapters in part 2. These highlights outline the empirical findings, and the main policy challenges discussed in the chapter. The report does not set out to prescribe detailed answers for India's future health system. It does however, have a goal: to support informed debate, and consensus building, and to help shape a health system that continually strives to be more effective, equitable, efficient, and accountable to the Indian people, and particularly to the poor.

Implementation Research in Health: A Practical Guide

Abstract: Over the past decade the science related to developing and identifying "evidence-based practices and programs" has improved -- however the science related to implementing these programs with fidelity and good outcomes for consumers lag far behind. To this end our intent is to describe the current state of the science of implementation and identify what it will take to transmit innovative programs and practices to mental health social services juvenile justice education early childhood education employment services and substance abuse prevention and treatment. This monograph summarizes findings from the review of the research literature on implementation and proposes frameworks for understanding effective implementation processes. The results of this literature review and synthesis confirm that systematic implementation practices are essential to any national attempt to use the products of science -- such as evidence-based programs -- to improve the lives of its citizens.

Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Abstract: Importance The increasing burden due to cancer and other noncommunicable diseases poses a threat to human development, which has resulted in global political commitments reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases. To determine if these commitments have resulted in improved cancer control, quantitative assessments of the cancer burden are required. Objective To assess the burden for 29 cancer groups over time to provide a framework for policy discussion, resource allocation, and research focus. Evidence Review Cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were evaluated for 195 countries and territories by age and sex using the Global Burden of Disease study estimation methods. Levels and trends were analyzed over time, as well as by the Sociodemographic Index (SDI). Changes in incident cases were categorized by changes due to epidemiological vs demographic transition. Findings In 2016, there were 17.2 million cancer cases worldwide and 8.9 million deaths. Cancer cases increased by 28% between 2006 and 2016. The smallest increase was seen in high SDI countries. Globally, population aging contributed 17%; population growth, 12%; and changes in age-specific rates, −1% to this change. The most common incident cancer globally for men was prostate cancer (1.4 million cases). The leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (1.2 million deaths and 25.4 million DALYs). For women, the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was breast cancer (1.7 million incident cases, 535 000 deaths, and 14.9 million DALYs). In 2016, cancer caused 213.2 million DALYs globally for both sexes combined. Between 2006 and 2016, the average annual age-standardized incidence rates for all cancers combined increased in 130 of 195 countries or territories, and the average annual age-standardized death rates decreased within that timeframe in 143 of 195 countries or territories. Conclusions and Relevance Large disparities exist between countries in cancer incidence, deaths, and associated disability. Scaling up cancer prevention and ensuring universal access to cancer care are required for health equity and to fulfill the global commitments for noncommunicable disease and cancer control.

Research Methods in Health. Investigating health and health services

Abstract: This new edition of Ann Bowling's well-known and highly respected text has been thoroughly revised and updated to reflect key methodological developments in health research. It is a comprehensive, easy to read, guide to the range of methods used to study and evaluate health and health services. It describes the concepts and methods used by the main disciplines involved in health research, including: demography, epidemiology, health economics, psychology and sociology.The research methods described cover the assessment of health needs, morbidity and mortality trends and rates, costing health services, sampling for survey research, cross-sectional and longitudinal survey design, experimental methods and techniques of group assignment, questionnaire design, interviewing techniques, coding and analysis of quantitative data, methods and analysis of qualitative observational studies, and types of unstructured interviewing. With new material on topics such as cluster randomization, utility analyses, patients' preferences, and perception of risk, the text is aimed at students and researchers of health and health services. It has also been designed for health professionals and policy makers who have responsibility for applying research findings in practice, and who need to know how to judge the value of that research.