Quasi-experimental designs are gaining popularity in epidemiology and health systems research-in particular for the evaluation of health care practice, programs, and policy-because they allow strong causal inferences without randomized controlled experiments. We describe the concepts underlying five important quasi-experimental designs: Instrumental Variables, Regression Discontinuity, Interrupted Time Series, Fixed Effects, and Difference-in-Differences designs. We illustrate each of the designs with an example from health research. We then describe the assumptions required for each of the designs to ensure valid causal inference and discuss the tests available to examine the assumptions.

Evidence from quasi-experimental studies is often excluded from systematic reviews of health systems research despite the fact that such studies can provide strong causal evidence when well conducted. This article discusses global coordination of efforts to institutionalize the inclusion of causal evidence from quasi-experiments in systematic reviews of health systems research. In particular, we are concerned with identifying opportunities for strengthening capacity at the global and local level for implementing protocols necessary to ensure that reviews that include quasi-experiments are consistently of the highest quality. We first describe the current state of the global infrastructure that facilitates the production of systematic reviews of health systems research. We identify five important types of actors operating within this infrastructure: review authors; synthesis collaborations that facilitate the review process; synthesis interest groups that supplement the work of the larger collaborations; review funders; and end users, including policymakers. Then, we examine opportunities for intervening to build the capacity of each type of actors to support the inclusion of quasi-experiments in reviews. Finally, we suggest practical next steps for proceeding with capacity building efforts. Because of the complexity and relative nascence of the field, we recommend a carefully planned and executed approach to strengthening global capacity for the inclusion of quasi-experimental studies in systematic reviews.

Quasi-experimental studies are increasingly used to establish causal relationships in epidemiology and health systems research. Quasi-experimental studies offer important opportunities to increase and improve evidence on causal effects: (1) they can generate causal evidence when randomized controlled trials are impossible; (2) they typically generate causal evidence with a high degree of external validity; (3) they avoid the threats to internal validity that arise when participants in nonblinded experiments change their behavior in response to the experimental assignment to either intervention or control arm (such as compensatory rivalry or resentful demoralization); (4) they are often well suited to generate causal evidence on long-term health outcomes of an intervention, as well as nonhealth outcomes such as economic and social consequences; and (5) they can often generate evidence faster and at lower cost than experiments and other intervention studies.

Health leadership and management capacity are essential for health system strengthening and for attaining universal health coverage by optimising the existing human, technological and financial resources. However, in health systems, health leadership and management training is not widely available. The use of information technology for education (ie, eLearning) could help address this training gap by enabling flexible, efficient and scalable health leadership and management training. We present a protocol for a systematic review on the effectiveness of eLearning for health leadership and management capacity building in improving health system outcomes.

Total domestic and international funding for malaria is inadequate to achieve WHO global targets in burden reduction by 2030. We describe the trends of investments in malaria-related research in sub-Saharan Africa and compare investment with national disease burden to identify areas of funding strength and potentially neglected populations. We also considered funding for malaria control.