Among people experiencing severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD), poor oral health is common and linked to smoking, substance use and high sugar intake. Studies have explored interventions addressing oral health and related behaviours; however, factors related to the implementation of these interventions remain unclear. This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence on the implementation and sustainability of interventions to improve oral health and related health behaviours among adults experiencing SMD.

Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EBSCO, Scopus) and grey literature were searched from inception to February 2023. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were screened and extracted independently by two researchers. Quality appraisal was undertaken, and results were synthesised using narrative and thematic analyses.

Seventeen papers were included (published between 1995 and 2022). Studies were mostly of moderate quality and included views from SMD groups and service providers. From the qualitative synthesis, most findings were related to aspects such as trust, resources and motivation levels of SMD groups and service providers. None of the studies reported on diet and none included repeated offending (one of the aspects of SMD). From the quantitative synthesis, no difference was observed in programme attendance between the interventions and usual care, although there was some indication of sustained improvements in participation in the intervention group.

This review provides some evidence that trust, adequate resources and motivation levels are potentially important in implementing interventions to improve oral health and substance use among SMD groups. Further research is needed from high quality studies and focusing on diet in this population.

CRD42020202416.

Despite their widespread use, the evidence base for the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives remains mixed. Lack of clarity about ‘what good looks like’ in collaboratives remains a persistent problem. We aimed to identify the distinctive features of a state-wide collaboratives programme that has demonstrated sustained improvements in quality of care in a range of clinical specialties over a long period.

Qualitative case study involving interviews with purposively sampled participants, observations and analysis of documents.

The Michigan Collaborative Quality Initiatives programme.

38 participants, including clinicians and managers from 10 collaboratives, and staff from the University of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

We identified five features that characterised success in the collaboratives programme: learning from positive deviance; high-quality coordination; high-quality measurement and comparative performance feedback; careful use of motivational levers; and mobilising professional leadership and building community. Rigorous measurement, securing professional leadership and engagement, cultivating a collaborative culture, creating accountability for quality, and relieving participating sites of unnecessary burdens associated with programme participation were all important to high performance.

Our findings offer valuable learning for optimising collaboration-based approaches to improvement in healthcare, with implications for the design, structure and resourcing of quality improvement collaboratives. These findings are likely to be useful to clinicians, managers, policy-makers and health system leaders engaged in multiorganisational approaches to improving quality and safety.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most essential services experienced some level of disruption. Disruption in LMICs was more severe than in HICs. Early reports suggested that services for maternal and newborn health were disproportionately affected, raising concerns about health equity. Most disruption indicators measure demand-side disruption, or they conflate demand-side and supply-side disruption. There is currently no published guidance on measuring supply-side disruption. The primary objective of this review was to identify methods and approaches used to measure supply-side service disruptions to maternal and newborn health services in the context of COVID-19.

We carried out a systematic review and have created a typology of measurement methods and approaches using narrative synthesis.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health in January 2023. We also searched the grey literature.

We included empirical studies describing the measurement of supply-side service disruption of maternal and newborn health services in LMICs in the context of COVID-19.

We extracted the aim, method(s), setting, and study outcome(s) from included studies. We synthesised findings by type of measure (ie, provision or quality of services) and methodological approach (ie, qualitative or quantitative).

We identified 28 studies describing 5 approaches to measuring supply-side disruption: (1) cross-sectional surveys of the nature and experience of supply-side disruption, (2) surveys to measure temporal changes in service provision or quality, (3) surveys to create composite disruption scores, (4) surveys of service users to measure receipt of services, and (5) clinical observation of the provision and quality of services.

Our review identified methods and approaches for measuring supply-side service disruption of maternal and newborn health services. These indicators provide important information about the causes and extent of supply-side disruption and provide a useful starting point for developing specific guidance on the measurement of service disruption in LMICs.