Selecting contextually appropriate performance indicators in a circumpolar context: a modified Delphi approach

The intersection of social and Indigenous determinants of health for health system strengthening: a scoping review

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed long-standing gaps in health service systems and realities of environmental changes impacting Native nations and Indigenous communities in the US and circumpolar regions. Despite increased awareness and funding, there is limited research and few practical resources available for the work. This is a scoping review of the current literature on social determinants of health (SDOH) impacting Indigenous peoples, villages, and communities in the US and circumpolar region. The review used the York methodology to identify research questions, chart, and synthesize findings. Thirty-two articles were selected for full review and analysis. The articles were scoping reviews, evaluations, and studies. The methods used were 44% mixed (n = 14), 31% quantitative (n = 10) and 25% qualitative (n = 8). The synthesis identified four areas for discussion: 1) systemic and structural determinant study designs, 2) strengthening Indigenous health systems, 3) mapping the relationship of co-occurring health conditions and SDOH, and 4) emergent areas of inquiry. While the scoping review has limitations, it provides a snapshot of broad SDOH and shared Indigenous social determinants of health (ISDOH) to create tailored frameworks for use by tribal and urban Indigenous health organisations, with their partners, in public health and system strengthening.

Measuring what matters: Context-specific indicators for assessing immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries and Areas

Increasing countries' access to data can improve immunisation coverage through evidence-based decision-making. However, data collection and reporting is resource-intensive, so needs to be pragmatic, especially in low-and-middle-income countries. We aimed to identify which indicators are most important for measuring, and improving, national immunisation performance in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). We conducted an expert elicitation study, asking 13 experts involved in delivering immunisation programs, decision-makers, health information specialists, and global development partners across PICs to rate 41 indicators based on their knowledge of the feasibility and relevance of each indicator. We also asked experts their preferences for indicators to be retained or removed from a list of indicators for PICs. Experts participated in two rating rounds, with a discussion on the reasons for ratings before the second round. We calculated mean scores for feasibility and relevance, and ranked indicators based on experts' preferences and mean scores. We used framework analysis to identify reasons for selecting indicators. Experts agreed that certain indicators were essential to measure (e.g. data use in program planning and measles vaccination coverage), but preferences varied for most indicators. Preferences to include indicators in a set of indicators for PICs moderately correlated with scores for relevance (r = 0.68) and feasibility (r = 0.56). In discussions, experts highlighted usefulness for decision-making and ease of data collection, reporting and interpretation as the main reasons driving indicator selection. Country-specific factors such as health system factors, roles and influence of various immunisation actors, and macro-level factors (namely population size, distribution and mobility) affected relevance and feasibility, leading us to conclude that a single set of indicators for all PICs is inappropriate. Rather than having a strict set of indicators that all countries must measure and report against, performance indicators should be flexible, country-specific, and selected in consultation with immunisation actors who collect and use the data.

Practice of neuromonitoring in open and endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic repair-an international expert-based modified Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord injury is detrimental for patients undergoing open or endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. The aim of this survey and of the modified Delphi consensus was to gather information on current practices and standards in neuroprotection in patients undergoing open and endovascular TAAA.

METHODS

The Aortic Association conducted an international online survey on neuromonitoring in open and endovascular TAAA repair. In a first round an expert panel put together a survey on different aspects of neuromonitoring. Based on the answers from the first round of the survey, 18 Delphi consensus questions were formulated.

RESULTS

A total of 56 physicians completed the survey. Of these, 45 perform open and endovascular TAAA repair, 3 do open TAAA repair and 8 do endovascular TAAA repair. At least 1 neuromonitoring or protection modality is utilized during open TAAA surgery. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage was used in 97.9%, near infrared spectroscopy in 70.8% and motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials in 60.4%. Three of 53 centres do not utilize any form of neuromonitoring or protection during endovascular TAAA repair: 92.5% use CSF drainage; 35.8%, cerebral or paravertebral near infrared spectroscopy; and 24.5% motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials. The utilization of CSF drainage and neuromonitoring varies depending on the extent of the TAAA repair.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this survey and of the Delphi consensus show that there is broad consensus on the importance of protecting the spinal cord to avoid spinal cord injury in patients undergoing open TAAA repair. Those measures are less frequently utilized in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair but should be considered, especially in patients who require extensive coverage of the thoracoabdominal aorta.