Evidence of integrated health service delivery during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a scoping review

Integrated health service delivery system

The importance of integrated, people-centered health systems was globally affirmed in 2016 with an adopted resolution of the sixty-ninth World Health Assembly [8] and is increasingly recognized as a central component of achieving Universal Health Coverage [9]. This research adopts the definition of integrated health service delivery (IHSD) system from the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe:

“An approach to strengthen people-centered health systems through the promotion of the comprehensive delivery of quality services across the life-course, designed according to the multidimensional needs of the population and the individual and delivered by a coordinated multidisciplinary team of providers working across settings and levels of care… … with feedback loops to continuously improve performance and to tackle upstream causes of ill health and to promote well-being through intersectoral and multisectoral actions.” [10]

The above definition represents a comprehensive view of IHSD and captures integration from the multiple perspectives of health systems stakeholders (patients, providers, managers, and policymakers). Within the broad definition, four dimensions of integration are explored: organizational, functional, service, and clinical [11]. These dimensions are summarized in Table 1, adapted from Lewis et al. 2008 [11].

Integrated health service delivery for pandemic preparedness, response, and recovery

The World Health Organization’s 2017 guide on influenza risk management outlines four pandemic phases [6] – (i) interpandemic, (ii) alert, (iii) pandemic, and (iv) transition, that align with three components of risk assessment – (a) preparedness, (b) response, and (c) recovery. Literature specific to pandemic preparedness also highlights aspects of system integration, albeit from a broader perspective than the definition of IHSD used here.

It is possible that typologies of integration recommended to prepare and respond to a health emergency could relate to, or even advance, broader movements towards an IHSD system. For example, a coordinated approach – including comprehensive risk management, multidisciplinary health sector collaboration, and building community resilience – is recommended for emergency management [6]. This requires planning to surge capacity, developing triage systems, managing the continuity of essential health services, and prevention of secondary effects are emphasized for pandemic preparedness [6]. It is highly likely that integration across the components of health systems, levels of care, and across types of providers will prove necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The interdependency between the IHSD system and pandemic preparedness is especially pertinent in LMICs. The surge of infection related to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spared the LMICs in the early stages of the pandemic. However, as COVID-19 incidence is increasing rapidly through developing countries like India, the pandemic has drawn attention towards the required integration of a range of health services and supply chains that are often under-resourced in LMICs, such as ambulatory care, mental health services, and oxygen provision. Historically health systems in the LMICs were structured and sustained as vertical and disease-focused, and we acknowledge that significant success were achieved. However, the same fragmentation in the health system could create challenges to the coordinated pandemic preparedness, response, and recovery effort against COVID-19.

Bolstered by the 40th anniversary of the Alma Alta Declaration and the movement towards Universal Health Coverage, many LMIC health systems have moved away from a vertical disease focus towards IHSD approaches [12,13]. This shift has also been increasingly advocated by bilateral and multilateral donor agencies and international organizations as a means to respond to the changing burden of disease (from infectious to non-communicable diseases), improve people-centeredness, and increase efficiency [12–14]. This review can identify any emerging evidence on where integrated care has improved health systems outcomes during COVID-19 in LMICs and provide guidance on the further testing of emerging approaches.

Stage one: conceptualizing research question

The overarching research question leading this scoping review is: How are the health systems of LMICs utilizing IHSD approaches to prepare for and/or respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? This research question aligns itself with the research objective mentioned in the above section.

Stage two: identification of relevant literature

Followed by the development of the research objective, a comprehensive and replicable literature search strategy is being structured to extract the references of the relevant peer reviewed articles from literature repositories (Table 2). To implement this process, first, the research team has identified key literature from PubMed and Google Scholar to select keyword and index terms and develop the search terms. Next, using the keywords and search terms, the study will conduct a comprehensive search across seven electronic databases.

The search strategy of the electronic database consists of four concepts: (i) Integrated care, (ii) pandemic preparedness, (iii) COVID-19, and (iv) names of the countries belong to the low- and low-middle-income group according to the World Bank Classification [24]. Using these concepts, the initial search strategy developed for PubMed generated only 15 records published between 01 December 2019 to 22 April 2020 (Search conducted on 22 April 2020). The proposed search strategy is presented in Table 3 and detailed in the supplementary material of this protocol.

As the literature on COVID-19 is rapidly changing, a brief title and abstract scan was conducted to review the performance of the search strategy. Upon this brief review, the research team concluded that few articles were published from LMICs until 22 April 2020. Thus, a decision was taken to conduct a second round of literature search on 12 June 2020. The second implementation of the search strategy in PubMed generated 92 records, published between 01 December 2019 to 12 June 2020 (Search conducted on 12 June 2020).

After implementing the search strategy in all seven databases, the title and abstracts will be downloaded, and citations will be imported into Covidence systematic review software (covidence.org). At this stage, we will remove the duplicates and organize the search records to review their titles and abstracts.

Stage three: study selection

During the third stage, all input articles will be screened utilizing the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria found in Table 3. In line with Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for scoping reviews, the inclusion and exclusion criteria represent a broad view of the subject, and the evidence characteristics may be satisfied by a range of study designs and methodologies [20].

Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each imported document against the Table 4 criteria, and any conflicting recommendations will be reviewed and adjudicated by a third reviewer for consistency. Next, the full text of the initially selected articles will be screened using the same criteria by two independent reviewers, followed by review and adjudication of conflicting recommendations by the third reviewer. As scoping reviews are often iterative [20,25], any suggested modifications to the inclusion or exclusion criteria will be reviewed by the entire research team with the senior member making final decisions regarding necessary modifications. If changes to the criteria are agreed upon, all previously excluded documents will be re-screened to ensure appropriate inclusion or exclusion against the modified criteria.

Stage four: charting data

Eligible articles from the full-text review will be re-examined, and the relevant data from the articles will be charted using a data extraction form. Table 5 provides an overview of the initial overview of data elements, which will be extracted for the study (see the supplementary materials for the full extraction form and overview of terms).

Stage five: reporting the results

Charted information will be analyzed thematically and reported in a narrative format using tables and figures. Per standardized methodology for scoping reviews, the quality of evidence will not be assessed during the reporting process [20]. Data displays and matrixes will be utilized to explore aspects of integration vis a vis the risk assessment phases of pandemic response. Dedoose (dedoose.com) will be utilized to explore clusters of findings geographically and across phases of pandemic response.

Stage six: expert consultation

Expert consultation is an optional stage proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [20]. We believe that there is an inherent value of the expert consultation to translate the findings of this scoping review. Though we intend to perform a brief expert consultation, implementation of this stage will be based on the feasibility and progression of the scoping review.

The potential roster of experts can be developed from the Department of International Health of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHSPH), Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JHCHS) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Gmbh.