In Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), integration across the healthcare continuum has been a key approach to strengthening the health system and improving health outcomes. A key example has been four regional District Health Board (DHB) groupings, which, from 2011 to 2022, required the country’s 20 DHBs to work together regionally. This research explores how this initiative functioned, examining how, for whom and in what circumstances regional DHB groupings worked to deliver improvements in system integration and health outcomes and equity.

We used a realist-informed evaluation study design. We used documentary analysis to develop programme logic models to describe the context, structure, capabilities, implementation activities and impact of each of the four regional groupings and then conducted interviews with stakeholders. We developed a generalised context-mechanisms-outcomes model, identifying key commonalities explaining how regional work ‘worked’ across NZ while noting important regional differences.

NZ’s four regional DHB groupings.

Forty-nine stakeholders from across the four regional groupings. These included regional DHB governance groups and coordinating regional agencies, DHB senior leadership, Māori and Pasifika leadership and lead clinicians for regional work streams.

Regional DHB working was layered on top of an already complex DHB environment. Organisational heterogeneity and tensions between local and regional priorities were key contextual factors. In response, regional DHB groupings leveraged a combination of ‘hard’ policy and planning processes, as well as ‘soft’, relationship-based mechanisms, aiming to improve system integration, population health outcomes and health equity.

The complexity of DHB regional working meant that success hinged on building relationships, leadership and trust, alongside robust planning and process mechanisms. As NZ reorients its health system towards a more centralised model underpinned by collaborations between local providers, our findings point to a need to align policy expectations and foster environments that support connection and collegiality across the health system.

Improving healthcare quality in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs) is a critical step in the pathway to Universal Health Coverage and health-related sustainable development goals. This study aimed to map the available evidence on the impacts of health system governance interventions on the quality of healthcare services in LMICs.

We conducted a scoping review of the literature. The search strategy used a combination of keywords and phrases relevant to health system governance, quality of healthcare and LMICs. Studies published in English until August 2023, with no start date limitation, were searched on PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and ProQuest. Additional publications were identified by snowballing. The effects reported by the studies on processes of care and quality impacts were reviewed.

The findings from 201 primary studies were grouped under (1) leadership, (2) system design, (3) accountability and transparency, (4) financing, (5) private sector partnerships, (6) information and monitoring; (7) participation and engagement and (8) regulation.

We identified a stronger evidence base linking improved quality of care with health financing, private sector partnerships and community participation and engagement strategies. The evidence related to leadership, system design, information and monitoring, and accountability and transparency is limited.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer.

RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient’s specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation.

The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients.

ISRCTN11613852.