Exploring the Need for Medical Futures Studies: Insights From a Scoping Review of Health Care Foresight

BACKGROUND

The historical development and contemporary instances of futures studies, an interdisciplinary field that focuses on exploring and formulating alternative futures, exemplify the increasing significance of using futures methods in shaping the health care domain. Despite the wide array of these methodologies, there have been limited endeavors to employ them within the medical community thus far.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook the first scoping review to date about the application of futures methodologies and published foresight projects in health care.

METHODS

Through the use of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) method, we identified 59 studies that were subsequently categorized into the following 5 distinct themes: national strategies (n=19), strategic health care foresight (n=15), health care policy and workforce dynamics (n=6), pandemic preparedness and response (n=7), and specialized medical domains (n=12).

RESULTS

Our scoping review revealed that the application of futures methods and foresight has been successfully demonstrated in a wide range of fields, including national strategies, policy formulation, global threat preparedness, and technological advancements. The results of our review indicate that a total of 8 futures methods have already been used in medicine and health care, while there are more than 50 futures methods available. It may underscore the notion that the field is unexploited. Furthermore, the absence of structured methodologies and principles for employing foresight and futures techniques in the health care domain warrants the creation of medical futures studies as a separate scientific subfield within the broad domains of health care, medicine, and life sciences. This subfield would focus on the analysis of emerging technological trends, the evaluation of policy implications, and the proactive anticipation and mitigation of potential challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Futures studies can significantly enhance medical science by addressing a crucial deficiency in the promotion of democratic participation, facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue, and shaping alternative futures. To further contribute to the development of a new research community in medical futures studies, it is recommended to establish a specialized scientific journal. Additionally, appointing dedicated futurists in decision-making and national strategy, and incorporating futures methods into the medical curriculum could be beneficial.

From "learning from the field" to jointly driving change

The theme of the 8th edition of the Geneva Health Forum (GHF) was Improving access to health: learning from the field. While ‘the field’ often denotes people, patients, communities, and healthcare workers, we challenge the notion and its usage. A group of like-minded conference participants set up a working group to examine the term ‘the field’ and look at questions related to language, power, participation, and rights. By highlighting deficiencies of existing terms and jargon, we explain why language is a form of power that matters in public health. We describe global, regional, and national case studies that facilitate full participation to achieve more equitable health outcomes. By concluding with concrete recommendations, we hope to contribute to these shared goals: to correct power imbalances between health authorities and the people that they intend, and are expected, to serve. The authors are all members of the working group.

Public and patient involvement in health data governance (DATAGov): protocol of a people-centred, mixed-methods study on data use and sharing for rare diseases care and research

INTRODUCTION

International policy imperatives for the public and patient involvement in the governance of health data coexist with conflicting cross-border policies on data sharing. This can challenge the planning and implementation of participatory data governance in healthcare services locally. Engaging with local stakeholders and understanding how their needs, values and preferences for governing health data can be articulated with policies made at the supranational level is crucial. This paper describes a protocol for a project that aims to coproduce a people-centred model for involving patients and the public in decision-making processes about the use and sharing of health data for rare diseases care and research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multidisciplinary project draws on an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. A hospital-based survey with patients, informal carers, health professionals and technical staff recruited at two reference centres for rare diseases in Portugal will be conducted first. The qualitative study will follow consisting of semi-structured interviews and scenario-based workshops with a subsample of the participant groups recruited at baseline. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Inductive and deductive approaches will be combined to analyse the qualitative interviews. Data from scenario-based workshops will be iteratively compared using the constant comparison method to identify cross-cutting themes and categories.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee for Health from the University Hospital Centre São João/Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto approved the study protocol (Ref. 99/19). Research findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and science promotion events, and through public meetings involving patient representatives, practitioners, policy-makers and students, a project website and peer-reviewed journal publications.

Years of Life Lost to Death—A Comprehensive Analysis of Mortality in Germany Conducted as Part of the BURDEN 2020 Project

BACKGROUND

Knowing which diseases and causes of death account for most of the years of life lost (YLL) can help to better target appropriate prevention and intervention measures. The YLL in Germany for specific causes of death were estimated as part of the BURDEN 2020 project at the Robert Koch Institute.

METHODS

Data from cause-of-death statistics were used for the analysis. ICD codes were grouped into causes of death categories at different levels of disaggregation. The YLL were estimated by combining each cause of death with the remaining life expectancy at the age of death. Deaths and YLL were compared by sex, age category, and regional distribution.

RESULTS

Approximately 11.6 million years were estimated to be lost in Germany in 2017, of which 42.8% were lost by women and 57.2% by men. The largest number of YLL were due to (malignant) neoplasms (35.2%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (27.6%), gastrointestinal diseases (5.8%), and neurological diseases (5.7%). Deaths at younger ages had a greater impact on population health if expressed in YLL: the death share of persons under age 65 was 14.7%, but the years of life lost in this age group amounted to 38.3% of all YLL. The most common causes of death in this group include accidents, self-injury and violence, malignant neoplasms, and alcohol-related diseases.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of YLL is borne by young and middle-aged persons. These findings emphasize the need to introduce preventive strategies early in life to reduce the YLL at younger ages, as well as to prevent risk factors for diseases in older ages.

A Technological Scenario for a Healthier, More Equitable and Sustainable Europe in 2040: Citizen Perceptions and Policy Implications

This article aims at exploring, understanding and comparing European citizens’ insights and perceptions towards “My life between realities”, a positive future scenario which depicts a narrative of reaching healthier, more equitable and sustainable societies by 2040 with the support of technology and technological solutions. It responds to the need for gathering and incorporating more citizen insights into future policy developments and strategic actions to tackle the global challenge of unsustainable development. Citizens of five European countries—the Czech Republic, Germany, North Macedonia, Spain and the United Kingdom—have been consulted through focus groups. The exercise has uncovered citizens’ preferences and attitudes towards four main lifestyle areas; namely, green spaces, energy efficient housing, active mobility and (food) consumption. The technological attributes of the scenario led to citizens expressing diametrically opposed and critical perceptions and attitudes. Given the prospects of technology in driving sustainable development, based on these insights, policy recommendations for the better integration and acceptance of technological advances by the public are discussed herein.