Aligning care with the personal values of patients with complex care needs

OBJECTIVE

To identify opportunities to align care with the personal values of patients from three distinct groups with complex medical, behavioral, and social needs.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Between June and August 2019, we conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals with complex care needs in two integrated health care delivery systems.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

We interviewed three groups of patients at Kaiser Permanente Washington and Kaiser Permanente Colorado representing three distinct profiles of complex care needs: Group A ("obesity, opioid prescription, and low-resourced neighborhood"), Group B ("older, high medical morbidity, emergency department, and hospital use"), and Group C ("older, mental and physical health concerns, and low-resourced neighborhood"). These profiles were identified based on prior work and prioritized by internal primary care stakeholders. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Twenty-four patients participated; eight from each complex needs profile. Mean age across groups was 71 (range 48-86) years. We identified five themes common across the three groups that captured patients' views regarding values-aligned care. These themes focused on the importance of care teams exploring and acknowledging a patient's values, providing access to nonphysician providers who have different perspectives on care delivery, offering values-aligned mental health care, ensuring connection to community-based resources that support values and address needs, and providing care that supports the patient plus their family and caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest several opportunities to improve how care is delivered to patients with different complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. Future research is needed to better understand how to incorporate these opportunities into health care.

Personal responsibility for health? A phenomenographic analysis of general practitioners' conceptions

OBJECTIVE

To analyse and describe general practitioners' perceptions of the notion of a 'personal responsibility for health'.

DESIGN

Interview study, phenomenographic analysis.

SETTING

Swedish primary health care.

SUBJECTS

General Practitioners (GPs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Using the phenomenographic method, the different views of the phenomenon (here: personal responsibility for health) were presented in an outcome space to illustrate the range of perceptions.

RESULTS

The participants found the notion of personal responsibility for health relevant to their practice. There was a wide range of perceptions regarding the origins of this responsibility, which was seen as coming from within yourself; from your relationships to specific others; and/or from your relationship with the generalized other. Furthermore, the expressions of this responsibility were perceived as including owning your health problem; not offloading all responsibility onto the GP; taking active measures to keep and improve health; and/or accepting help in health. The GP was described as playing a key role in shaping and defining the patient's responsibility for his/her health. Some aspects of personal responsibility for health roused strong emotions in the participants, especially situations where the patient was seen as offloading all responsibility onto the GP.

CONCLUSION

The notion of personal responsibility for health is relevant to GPs. However, it is open to a broad range of interpretations and modulated by the patient-physician interaction. This may make it unsuitable for usage in health care priority settings. More research is mandated to further investigate how physicians work with patient responsibility, and how this affects the patient-physician relationship and the physician's own well-being.Key PointsThe notion of personal responsibility for health has relevance for discussions about priority setting and person-centred care.This study, using a phenomenographic approach, investigated the views of Swedish GPs about the notion of personal responsibility for health.The participants found the notion relevant to their practice. They expressed a broad range of views of what a personal responsibility for health entails and how it arises. The GP was described as playing a key role in shaping and defining the patient's responsibilities for his/her health.The notion was emotionally charged to the participants, and when patients were seen as offloading all responsibility onto the GP this gave rise to frustration.

[Health research in Madagascar: state-of-the-art, challenges and perspectives]

The evolution and contemporary challenges of health research (HR) in Madagascar are poorly documented. We aim to gain insights on the factors that shape Madagascar's National Health Research System (NHRS) to better understand their influence. We conducted a qualitative case study, which included a documentary review and semi-structured interviews with 38 key informants. We carried out a thematic analysis and used the WHO/AFRO NHRS Barometer to structure the presentation of the results. There is no legislative framework to support HR activities and institutions. There is, however, a policy document outlining national priorities for HS. Human resources for HR are insufficient, due to challenges in training and retaining researchers. International collaboration is almost the only source of HR funding. Collaborations contribute to developing human and institutional capacity, but they are not always aligned with research carried out locally and the country's priority health needs. Incomplete efforts to improve regulation and low public investment in research training and research implementation reflect an insufficient commitment to HR by the government. Negotiating equitable international partnerships, the availability of public funding, and aligning HR with national health priorities would constitute a solid basis for the development of the NHRS in Madagascar.

The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals

AIMS

To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to establish priorities for future research in diabetes and pregnancy, according to women with experience of pregnancy, and planning pregnancy, with any type of diabetes, their support networks and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

The PSP used established James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology working with women and their support networks and healthcare professionals UK-wide. Unanswered questions about the time before, during or after pregnancy with any type of diabetes were identified using an online survey and broad-level literature search. A second survey identified a shortlist of questions for final prioritisation at an online consensus development workshop.

RESULTS

There were 466 responses (32% healthcare professionals) to the initial survey, with 1161 questions, which were aggregated into 60 unanswered questions. There were 614 responses (20% healthcare professionals) to the second survey and 18 questions shortlisted for ranking at the workshop. The top 10 questions were: diabetes technology, the best test for diabetes during pregnancy, diet and lifestyle interventions for diabetes management during pregnancy, emotional and well-being needs of women with diabetes pre- to post-pregnancy, safe full-term birth, post-natal care and support needs of women, diagnosis and management late in pregnancy, prevention of other types of diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, women's labour and birth experiences and choices and improving planning pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

These research priorities provide guidance for research funders and researchers to target research in diabetes and pregnancy that will achieve greatest value and impact.

Stakeholders' Perspectives on the Unmet Needs and Health Priorities of the Urban Poor in South-East Nigeria

Relatively little is known about readiness of urban health systems to address health needs of the poor. This study explored stakeholders' perception of health needs and strategies for improving health of the urban poor using qualitative analysis. Focus group discussions (n = 5) were held with 26 stakeholders drawn from two Nigerian states during a workshop. Urban areas are characterised by double burden of diseases. Poor housing, lack of basic amenities, poverty, and poor access to information are determinants of health of the urban poor. Shortage of health workers, stock-out of medicines, high cost of care, lack of clinical practice guidelines, and dual practice constrain access to primary health services. An overarching strategy, that prioritises community-driven urban planning, health-in-all policies, structured linkages between informal and formal providers, financial protection schemes, and strengthening of primary health care system, is required to address health needs of the urban poor.

Priorities and preferences for care of people with multiple chronic conditions

Background

To guide the development of high‐quality care for people with multiple chronic conditions, partners of the European Joint Action CHRODIS developed the Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model. To assess its suitability for improving care for people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, the model was piloted in a primary care setting with both patients and care providers.

Aim

This paper reports on the patient perspective, and aims to explore the priorities, underlying values and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity.

Participants and methods

Twenty persons with multimorbidity (selected from general practice registries) participated in a focus group or telephone interview. Subsequently, a questionnaire was completed by 863 persons with multimorbidity registered with 14 general practices. Qualitative data were thematically analysed and quantitative data by means of descriptive statistics.

Results

Frequently prioritized elements of care were the use of shared electronic health records, regular comprehensive assessments, self‐management support and shared decision making, and care coordination. Preferences for how these elements should be specifically addressed differed according to individual values (eg weighing safety against privacy) and needs (eg ways of coping with multimorbidity).

Conclusion

The JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model reflects the priorities and preferences for care of people with multimorbidity in the Netherlands, which supports its relevance to guide the development of person‐centred integrated care for people with multiple chronic conditions in the Netherlands.

Patient contribution

European patient experts contributed to the development and applicability assessment of the JA‐CHRODIS Integrated Multimorbidity Care Model; Dutch patients participated in focus groups, interviews and a survey.

The Integration of Psychosocial Care into National Dementia Strategies across Europe: Evidence from the Skills in DEmentia Care (SiDECar) Project

There is evidence supporting the use of psychosocial interventions in dementia care. Due to the role of policy in clinical practice, the present study investigates whether and how the issue of psychosocial care and interventions has been addressed in the national dementia plans and strategies across Europe. A total of 26 national documents were found. They were analyzed by content analysis to identify the main pillars associated with the topic of psychosocial care and interventions. Specifically, three categories emerged: (1) Treatment, (2) Education, and (3) Research. The first one was further divided into three subcategories: (1) Person-centred conceptual framework, (2) Psychosocial interventions, and (3) Health and social services networks. Overall, the topic of psychosocial care and interventions has been addressed in all the country policies. However, the amount of information provided differs across the documents, with only the category of ‘Treatment’ covering all of them. Furthermore, on the basis of the existing policies, how the provision of psychosocial care and interventions would be enabled, and how it would be assessed are not fully apparent yet. Findings highlight the importance of policies based on a comprehensive and well-integrated system of care, where the issue of psychosocial care and interventions is fully embedded.

Priority Setting in the Polish Health Care System According to Patients' Perspective

Identification of health priorities is concerned with equitable distribution of resources and is an important part of strategic planning in the health care system. The aim of this article is to describe health priorities in the Polish health care system from the patients’ perspective. The study included 533 patients hospitalized in the Lodz region. The average age of the respondents was 48.5 years and one third (36.6%) had university education. Most of the respondents (64.9%) negatively assessed the functioning of the health care system in Poland. Most of them claimed the following aspects require improvements: financing health services (85.8%), determining priorities in health care (80.3%), the role of health insurance (80.3%), and medical education (70.8%). Over 70% of the respondents agreed the role of politicians in designing and implementing health system reforms should be limited. The fact that the respondents so negatively assessed the Polish health care system implies there is a need for full discussion on redefining health priorities.

Cancer Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues, now disproportionately affecting the richest and best-resourced country in the world. Although the death rates per affected individual have decreased from the initial wave in New York City, the United States is in the unfathomable situation of having more than 50,000 new cases per day, and the case numbers are increasing. The pandemic is now expected to remain a vexing health problem for months and perhaps years to come, and the implications for health promotion and disease prevention have taken on new importance given the need for ongoing attention to acute and long-term issues. However, the health-promoting behaviors of many Americans have changed during the pandemic, setting up risk for additional collateral losses, such as from an increase in cancer diagnoses.

Development and validation of a Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN-HN) in a scarce resource setting: Response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, access to surgical care for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) is limited and unpredictable. Determining which patients should be prioritized is inherently subjective and difficult to assess. The authors have proposed an algorithm to fairly and consistently triage patients and mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes.

Methods

Two separate expert panels, a consensus panel (11 participants) and a validation panel (15 participants), were constructed among international HNC surgeons. Using a modified Delphi process and RAND Corporation/University of California at Los Angeles methodology with 4 consensus rounds and 2 meetings, groupings of high‐priority, intermediate‐priority, and low‐priority indications for surgery were established and subdivided. A point‐based scoring algorithm was developed, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN). Agreement was measured during consensus and for algorithm scoring using the Krippendorff alpha. Rankings from the algorithm were compared with expert rankings of 12 case vignettes using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

Results

A total of 62 indications for surgical priority were rated. Weights for each indication ranged from −4 to +4 (scale range; −17 to 20). The response rate for the validation exercise was 100%. The SPARTAN‐HN demonstrated excellent agreement and correlation with expert rankings (Krippendorff alpha, .91 [95% CI, 0.88‐0.93]; and rho, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.45‐0.95]).

Conclusions

The SPARTAN‐HN surgical prioritization algorithm consistently stratifies patients requiring HNC surgical care in the COVID‐19 era. Formal evaluation and implementation are required.

Lay Summary

Many countries have enacted strict rules regarding the use of hospital resources during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Facing delays in surgery, patients may experience worse functional outcomes, stage migration, and eventual inoperability.

Treatment prioritization tools have shown benefit in helping to triage patients equitably with minimal provider cognitive burden.

The current study sought to develop what to the authors' knowledge is the first cancer–specific surgical prioritization tool for use in the COVID‐19 era, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN). This algorithm consistently stratifies patients requiring head and neck cancer surgery in the COVID‐19 era and provides evidence for the initial uptake of the SPARTAN‐HN.

To the authors' knowledge, the Surgical Prioritization and Ranking Tool and Navigation Aid for Head and Neck Cancer (SPARTAN‐HN) is the first cancer surgery–specific prioritization tool for use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. The SPARTAN‐HN algorithm is reliable and valid for the stratification of patients with head and neck cancer who require urgent cancer care in resource‐restricted practice environments.

Translating COVID-19 Evidence to Maximize Physical Therapists' Impact and Public Health Response

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has sounded alarm bells throughout global health systems. As of late May, 2020, over 100,000 COVID-19-related deaths were reported in the United States, which is the highest number of any country. This article describes COVID-19 as the next historical turning point in the physical therapy profession's growth and development. The profession has had over a 100-year tradition of responding to epidemics, including poliomyelitis; 2 world wars and geographical regions experiencing conflicts and natural disasters; and, the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The evidence-based role of noninvasive interventions (nonpharmacological/nonsurgical) that hallmark physical therapist practice has emerged as being highly relevant today in addressing COVID-19 in 2 primary ways. First, despite some unique features, COVID-19 presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome in its severe acute stage. Acute respiratory distress syndrome is very familiar to physical therapists in intensive care units. Body positioning and mobilization, prescribed based on comprehensive assessments/examinations, counter the negative sequelae of recumbency and bedrest; augment gas exchange and reduce airway closure, deconditioning, and critical illness complications; and maximize long-term functional outcomes. Physical therapists have an indisputable role across the contiuum of COVID-19 care. Second, over 90% of individuals who die from COVID-19 have comorbidities, most notably cardiovascular disease, hypertension, chronic lung disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and obesity. Physical therapists need to redouble their efforts to address NCDs by assessing patients for risk factors and manifestations and institute evidence-based health education (smoking cessation, whole-food plant-based nutrition, weight control, physical activity/exercise), and/or support patients' efforts when these are managed by other professionals. Effective health education is a core competency for addressing risk of death by COVID-19 as well as NCDs. COVID-19 is a wake-up call to the profession, an opportunity to assert its role throughout the COVID-19 care continuum, and augment public health initiatives by reducing the impact of the current pandemic.

Head and neck cancer survivorship from the patient perspective

BACKGROUND

Survivorship is a critical part of head and neck cancer (HNC) care. In order to design better processes, we assessed care provided to long-term HNC survivors and their priorities for ongoing care.

METHODS

A survey was provided to HNC survivors at clinic appointments, including our HNC survivorship clinic. Questions focused on priorities for care in the otolaryngology clinic, types of care provided, and opioid use.

RESULTS

Of 168 respondents, the most common priority for survivors was surveillance for recurrence (first priority in 75%), with general health the next most common (8%). Few respondents reported active primary care involvement in survivorship. About 10% of patients reported current opioid use.

CONCLUSION

Survivors face a large burden of symptoms and deficits, but our data show that most survivors focus on recurrence. Few survivors reported recall of survivorship care plan delivery or discussing cancer care needs with primary care providers.

"We are becoming older women and then we have two stigmas": voicing women's biopsychosocial health issues as they age with HIV

In April 2019, nine older women (age 50+) living with HIV in Palm Springs, California, participated in a 90-minute focus group to identify their major health issues, strengths, and HIV and aging-related health priorities. Using the rigorous and accelerated data reduction (RADaR) technique, we identified four major themes: (1) mental health, (2) HIV comorbidities, (3) social determinants of health, and (4) resiliencies. These results reinforce the need to conduct additional research focused on women aging with HIV, an understudied population that requires more effective, tailored interventions to promote better quality of life and healthy aging.

Which Priorities for Health and Well-Being Stand Out After Accounting for Tangled Threats and Costs? Simulating Potential Intervention Portfolios in Large Urban Counties

Policy Points Interventions in a regional system with intertwined threats and costs should address those threats that have the strongest, quickest, and most pervasive cross-impacts. Instead of focusing on an individual county's apparent shortcomings, a regional intervention portfolio can yield greater results when it is designed to counter those systemic threats, especially poverty and inadequate social support, that most undermine health and well-being virtually everywhere. Likewise, efforts to reduce smoking, addiction, and violent crime and to improve routine care, health insurance, and youth education are important for most counties to unlock both short- and long-term potential.

CONTEXT

Counties across the United States must contend with multiple, intertwined threats and costs that defy simple solutions. Decision makers face the necessary but difficult task of prioritizing those interventions with the greatest potential to produce equitable health and well-being.

METHODS

Using County Health Rankings data for a predefined peer group of 39 urban US counties, we performed statistical regressions to identify 37 cross-impacts among 15 threats to health and well-being. Adding appropriate time delays, we then developed a dynamic model of these cross-impacts and simulated each of the counties over 20 years to assess the likely impact of 12 potential interventions-individually and in a combined portfolio-for three outcomes: (1) years of potential life lost, (2) fraction of adults in fair or poor health, and (3) total spending on urgent services.

FINDINGS

The combined portfolio yielded improvements by year 20 that are considerably greater than those at year 5, indicating that the time delays have a major effect. Despite the wide variation in threat levels across counties, the list of top-ranked interventions is strikingly similar. Poverty reduction and social support were the most highly ranked interventions, even in the shorter term, for all outcomes in all counties. Interventions affecting smoking, addiction, routine care, health insurance, violent crime, and youth education also were important contributors to some outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

To safeguard health and well-being in a system dominated by tangled threats and costs, the most important priorities for a county cannot be simply inferred from a profile of its relative strengths and weaknesses. Two interventions stood out as the top priorities for almost all the counties in this study, and six others also were important contributors. Interventions directed toward these priority areas are likely to yield the greatest impact, irrespective of the county's specifics. A significant concentration of resources in a regional portfolio therefore ought to go to these strongest contributors for equitable health and well-being.

Health Outcome Prioritization in Alzheimer's Disease: Understanding the Ethical Landscape

BACKGROUND

Dementia has been described as the greatest global health challenge in the 21st Century on account of longevity gains increasing its incidence, escalating health and social care pressures. These pressures highlight ethical, social, and political challenges about healthcare resource allocation, what health improvements matter to patients, and how they are measured. This study highlights the complexity of the ethical landscape, relating particularly to the balances that need to be struck when allocating resources; when measuring and prioritizing outcomes; and when individual preferences are sought.

OBJECTIVE

Health outcome prioritization is the ranking in order of desirability or importance of a set of disease-related objectives and their associated cost or risk. We analyze the complex ethical landscape in which this takes place in the most common dementia, Alzheimer's disease.

METHODS

Narrative review of literature published since 2007, incorporating snowball sampling where necessary. We identified, thematized, and discussed key issues of ethical salience.

RESULTS

Eight areas of ethical salience for outcome prioritization emerged: 1) Public health and distributive justice, 2) Scarcity of resources, 3) Heterogeneity and changing circumstances, 4) Knowledge of treatment, 5) Values and circumstances, 6) Conflicting priorities, 7) Communication, autonomy and caregiver issues, and 8) Disclosure of risk.

CONCLUSION

These areas highlight the difficult balance to be struck when allocating resources, when measuring and prioritizing outcomes, and when individual preferences are sought. We conclude by reflecting on how tools in social sciences and ethics can help address challenges posed by resource allocation, measuring and prioritizing outcomes, and eliciting stakeholder preferences.

Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities

CONTEXT

Engaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities.

METHODS

Participants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants' views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants' knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow-up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators.

RESULTS

Deliberators (age 18-88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow-up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate.

CONCLUSIONS

Deliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews.

METHODS

Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews.

RESULTS

Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care.

CONCLUSIONS

Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

Zika, contraception and the non-identity problem

The 2016 outbreak of the Zika arbovirus was associated with large numbers of cases of the newly‐recognised Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS). This novel teratogenic epidemic raises significant ethical and practical issues. Many of these arise from strategies used to avoid cases of CZS, with contraception in particular being one proposed strategy that is atypical in epidemic control.

Using contraception to reduce the burden of CZS has an ethical complication: interventions that impact the timing of conception alter which people will exist in the future. This so‐called ‘non‐identity problem’ potentially has significant social justice implications for evaluating contraception, that may affect our prioritisation of interventions to tackle Zika.

This paper combines ethical analysis of the non‐identity problem with empirical data from a novel survey about the general public's moral intuitions. The ethical analysis examines different perspectives on the non‐identity problem, and their implications for using contraception in response to Zika. The empirical section reports the results of an online survey of 93 members of the US general public exploring their intuitions about the non‐identity problem in the context of the Zika epidemic. Respondents indicated a general preference for a person‐affecting intervention (mosquito control) over an impersonal intervention (contraception). However, their responses did not appear to be strongly influenced by the non‐identity problem.

Despite its potential philosophical significance, we conclude from both theoretical considerations and analysis of the attitudes of the community that the non‐identity problem should not affect how we prioritise contraception relative to other interventions to avoid CZS.

How does priority setting for resource allocation happen in commissioning dental services in a nationally led, regionally delivered system: a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with NHS England dental commissioners

OBJECTIVES

To understand approaches to priority setting for healthcare service resource allocation at an operational level in a nationally commissioned but regionally delivered service.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and a Framework analysis.

SETTING

National Health Service dentistry commissioning teams within subregional offices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

All 31 individuals holding the relevant role (dental lead commissioner in subregional offices) were approached directly and from this 14 participants were recruited, with 12 interviews completed. Both male and female genders and all regions were represented in the final sample.

RESULTS

Three major themes arose. First, 'Methods of priority setting and barriers to explicit approaches' was a common theme, specifically identifying the main methods as: perpetuating historical allocations, pressure from politicians and clinicians and use of needs assessments while barriers were time and skill deficits, a lack of national guidance and an inflexible contracting arrangements stopping resource allocation. Second, 'Relationships with key stakeholders and advisors' were discussed, showing the important nature of relationships with clinical advisors but variation in the quality of these relationships was noted. Finally, 'Tensions between national and local responsibilities' were illustrated, where there was confusion about where power and autonomy lay.

CONCLUSIONS

Commissioners recognised a need for resource allocation but relied on clinical advice and needs assessment in order to set priorities. More explicit priority setting was prevented by structure of the commissioning system and standard national contracts with providers. Further research is required to embed and simplify adoption of tools to aid priority setting.

Principle of rational prescribing and deprescribing in older adults with multiple chronic conditions

Although the majority of older adults in the developed world live with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), the task of selecting optimal treatment regimens is still fraught with difficulty. Older adults with MCCs may derive less benefit from prescribed medications than healthier patients as a result of the competing risk of several possible outcomes including, but not limited to, death before a benefit can be accrued. In addition, these patients may be at increased risk of medication-related harms in the form of adverse effects and significant burdens of treatment. At present, the balance of these benefits and harms is often uncertain, given that older adults with MCCs are often excluded from clinical trials. In this review, we propose a framework to consider patients' own priorities to achieve optimal treatment regimens. To begin, the practicing clinician needs information on the patient's goals, what the patient is willing and able to do to achieve these goals, an estimate of the patient's clinical trajectory, and what the patient is actually taking. We then describe how to integrate this information to understand what matters most to the patient in the context of an array of potential tradeoffs. Finally, we propose conducting serial therapeutic trials of prescribing and deprescribing, with success measured as progress towards the patient's own health outcome goals. The process described in this manuscript is truly an iterative process, which should be repeated regularly to account for changes in the patient's priorities and clinical status. With this process, we aim to achieve optimal prescribing, that is, treatment regimens that maximize benefits that matter to the patient and minimize burdens and potential harms.

Shared research priorities for pessary use in women with prolapse: results from a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

OBJECTIVES

To identify the shared priorities for future research of women affected by and clinicians involved with pessary use for the management of prolapse.

DESIGN

A priority setting project using a consensus method.

SETTING

A James Lind Alliance Pessary use for prolapse Priority Setting Partnership (JLA Pessary PSP) conducted from May 2016 to September 2017 in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

The PSP was run by a Steering Group of three women with experience of pessary use, three experienced clinicians involved with management of prolapse, two researchers with relevant experience, a JLA adviser and a PSP leader. Two surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The first gathered questions about pessaries, and the second asked respondents to prioritise a list of questions. A final workshop was held on 8 September 2017 involving 10 women and 13 clinician representatives with prolapse and pessary experience.

RESULTS

A top 10 list of priorities for future research in pessary use for prolapse was agreed by consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with experience of pessary use and clinicians involved with prolapse management have worked together to determine shared priorities for future research. Aligning the top 10 results with existing research findings will highlight the gaps in current evidence and signpost future research to areas of priority. Effective dissemination of the results will enable research funding bodies to focus on gathering the evidence to answer the questions that matter most to those who will be affected.

The development of funding recommendations for health technologies at the state level: A South Australian case study

OBJECTIVES

State governments often face capped budgets that can restrict expenditure on health technologies and their evaluation, yet many technologies are introduced to practice through state-funded institutions such as hospitals, rather than through national evaluation mechanisms. This research aimed to identify the criteria, evidence, and standards used by South Australian committee members to recommend funding for high-cost health technologies.

METHODS

We undertook 8 semi-structured interviews and 2 meeting observations with members of state-wide committees that have a mandate to consider the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-cost health technologies.

RESULTS

Safety and effectiveness were fundamental criteria for decision makers, who were also concerned with increasing consistency in care and equitable access to technologies. Committee members often consider evidence that is limited in quantity and quality; however, they perceive evaluations to be rigorous and sufficient for decision making. Precise standards for safety, effective, and cost-effectiveness could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of new technologies at the state level is grounded in the desire to improve health outcomes and equity of access for patients. High quality evidence is often limited. The impact funding decisions have on population health is unclear due to limited use of cost-effectiveness analysis and unclear cost-effectiveness standards.

[Establishing research priorities for chronic kidney disease of non-traditional causes in Central AmericaDeterminação de prioridades em pesquisa da doença renal crônica associada a causas não tradicionais na América Central]

Introducción

En 2013, los Estados Miembros de la OPS reconocieron la epidemia de enfermedad renal crónica de causas no tradicionales (ERCnT) como un grave problema de salud pública. Este artículo describe el establecimiento de prioridades de investigación para abordar de manera integral la ERCnT en Centroamérica.

Métodos

Se estructuró una encuesta virtual utilizando la metodología Delphi mediante una búsqueda de estudios de investigación efectuados en Centroamérica y de agendas de investigación previas sobre la ERC. Los encuestados se identificaron en diversas fuentes. La primera ronda buscó refinar y añadir tópicos de investigación y priorizar los más relevantes. La segunda ronda priorizó los tópicos más relevantes. Se realizó un análisis por fuzzy sets para estimar umbrales de decisión y puntajes por tópico.

Resultados

La encuesta se envió a 83 personas de habla hispana y 38 de habla inglesa y respondió 46,2%. Para la segunda ronda, se envió la encuesta a 56 personas en español y 16 en inglés que habían contestado a la la primera. Se priorizaron 18 tópicos de investigación enmarcados en 10 áreas: políticas públicas, determinantes, etiología, diagnóstico y tratamiento de la ERC, prevención primaria, prestación de servicios, recursos humanos, sistemas de información y financiamiento. Se comprobó que la investigación en ERCnT es escasa y está restringida a ciertos tópicos.

Conclusiones

Además de los factores etiológicos, se dio gran relevancia a aspectos relacionados con la respuesta de los sistemas de salud, incluidos el abordaje de la prestación de servicios, los recursos humanos, el financiamiento y aspectos ocupacionales y ambientales.

[Health technology assessment for decision-making in Latin America: good practice principles]

OBJECTIVE

Identify the most relevant, applicable, and priority good practice principles in health technology assessment (HTA) in Latin America, and potential barriers to implementing them in the region.

METHODS

HTA good practice principles postulated worldwide were identified and then explored through a deliberative process in a forum of evaluators, funders, and technology producers.

RESULTS

Forty-two representatives from ten Latin American countries participated in the forum. The good practice principles postulated at the international level were considered valid and potentially applicable in Latin America. Five principles were identified as priorities and as having greater potential to be expanded at this time: transparency in carrying out HTA; involvement of stakeholders in the HTA process; existence of mechanisms to appeal decisions; existence of clear mechanisms for HTA priority-setting; and existence of a clear link between assessment and decision-making. The main challenge identified was to find a balance between application of these principles and available resources, to prevent the planned improvements from jeopardizing report production times and failing to meet decision-makers' needs.

CONCLUSIONS

The main recommendation was to gradually advance in improving HTA and its link to decision-making by developing appropriate processes for each country, without attempting to impose, in the short term, standards taken from examples at the international level without adequate adaptation to the local context.

Reducing Smoking Among People With Schizophrenia: Perspectives on Priorities for Advancing Research

Although tobacco smoking is very common among people with schizophrenia and has devastating effects on health, strategies to ameliorate the risk are lacking. Some studies have reported promising results yet quit rates are much lower than in the general population. There is a need to advance research into smoking cessation efforts among people with schizophrenia. We posed the following question to five leading international experts in the field: "What are the top three research ideas we need to prioritize in order to advance the field of reducing smoking amongst people with schizophrenia?" They identified three broad priorities: (i) deeper understanding about the relationship between smoking, smoking cessation and symptomatology; (ii) targeted, adaptive and responsive behavioral interventions evaluated with smarter methodologies; and (iii) improvements in delivery of interventions. Efforts should be made to establish a collaborative international research agenda.