Creating a priority list of non-communicable diseases to support health research funding decision-making

Patients' and carers' priorities for cancer research in Aotearoa/New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Discrepancies have been reported between what is being researched, and what patients/families deem important to be investigated. Our aim was to understand research priorities for those who live with cancer in Aotearoa/New Zealand, with emphasis on Māori.

METHODS

Adult outpatients with cancer and their whānau/family completed a survey (demographics, selecting keywords, free-text comments) at Christchurch hospital. Quantitative and qualitative data were evaluated using standard statistical and thematic analyses, respectively.

RESULTS

We recruited 205 participants, including both tūroro/patients (n = 129) and their whānau/family/carer (n = 76). Partnership with Māori health workers enabled greater recruitment of Māori participants (19%), compared to the proportion of Māori in Canterbury (9%). Cancer research was seen as a priority by 96% of participants. Priorities were similar between Māori and non-Māori participants, with the keywords 'Cancer screening', 'Quality of Life' and 'Development of new drugs' chosen most often. Free-text analysis identified three themes; 'Genetics and Prevention', 'Early Detection and Treatment', and 'Service Delivery', with some differences by ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer research is a high priority for those living with cancer. In addition, participants want researchers to listen to their immediate and practical needs. These findings may inform future cancer research in Aotearoa.

MāORI TERMS AND TRANSLATION

Aotearoa (New Zealand) he aha ō whakaaro (what are your thoughts) hui (gathering) mate pukupuku (cancer) mokopuna (descendent) Ōtautahi (Christchurch) rongoā (traditional healing) tāne (male) te reo (Māori language) Te Whatu Ora (weaving of wellness, Health New Zealand) tikanga (methods, customary practices) tūroro (patients) (alternative terms used: whānau affected by cancer or tangata whaiora (person seeking health)) wahine (female) Waitaha (Canterbury) whakapapa (genealogy) whānau ((extended) family, based on whakapapa, here also carer).

Prioritization of intervention domains to prevent cardiovascular disease: a country-level case study using global burden of disease and local data

AIM

We aimed to combine Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study data and local data to identify the highest priority intervention domains for preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the case study country of Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ).

METHODS

Risk factor data for CVD in NZ were extracted from the GBD using the "GBD Results Tool." We prioritized risk factor domains based on consideration of the size of the health burden (disability-adjusted life years [DALYs]) and then by the domain-specific interventions that delivered the highest health gains and cost-savings.

RESULTS

Based on the size of the CVD health burden in DALYs, the five top prioritized risk factor domains were: high systolic blood pressure (84,800 DALYs; 5400 deaths in 2019), then dietary risk factors, then high LDL cholesterol, then high BMI and then tobacco (30,400 DALYs; 1400 deaths). But if policy-makers aimed to maximize health gain and cost-savings from specific interventions that have been studied, then they would favor the dietary risk domain (e.g., a combined fruit and vegetable subsidy plus a sugar tax produced estimated lifetime savings of 894,000 health-adjusted life years and health system cost-savings of US$11.0 billion; both 3% discount rate). Other potential considerations for prioritization included the potential for total health gain that includes non-CVD health loss and potential for achieving relatively greater per capita health gain for Māori (Indigenous) to reduce health inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to show how CVD risk factor domains could be systematically prioritized using a mix of GBD and country-level data. Addressing high systolic blood pressure would be the top ranked domain if policy-makers focused just on the size of the health loss. But if policy-makers wished to maximize health gain and cost-savings using evaluated interventions, dietary interventions would be prioritized, e.g., food taxes and subsidies.