1
|
Hoekstra D, Gerhardus A, Lhachimi SK. Priority setting to support a public health research agenda: a modified Delphi study with public health stakeholders in Germany. Health Res Policy Syst 2023; 21:86. [PMID: 37641128 PMCID: PMC10463880 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-023-01039-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 08/10/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Research priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany. METHODS Our RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round. RESULTS In total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS This research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dyon Hoekstra
- Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS) & Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
- Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
- Department of Special Needs Education and Rehabilitation, Carl Von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
| | - Ansgar Gerhardus
- Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
- Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University Bremen, Bremen, Germany
| | - Stefan K Lhachimi
- Research Group for Evidence-Based Public Health, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology (BIPS) & Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
- Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
- Department for Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research (IPP), University Bremen, Bremen, Germany
- Department of Health, Nursing, Management, University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, 17033, Neubrandenburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gotsche CI, Weishaar H, Hanefeld J. Global health in Germany: Understanding interdisciplinarity in the academic sector. Health Policy 2023; 130:104715. [PMID: 36753792 DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Revised: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Global Health (GH) in Germany increasingly becomes subject of political priority and scientists and policy makers. The aim of this study was to gain understanding of the current state, potential barriers and enablers of interdisciplinarity in GH in the academic sector in Germany. METHODS Between October 2019 and February 2020, we conducted thirteen semi-structured interviews with ten academics and three policymakers engaged in GH in Germany. Purposive and maximum contrast sampling based on review of the literature was performed to ensure a heterogenous set of study participants. FINDINGS We found that interdisciplinary exchange in GH research and education is limited in the German academic setting. Several context-specific barriers of interdisciplinary collaboration in the academic sector in Germany were detected, including terminological ambiguities and more biomedical actors being involved in global health compared to other disciplines. At the same time, enablers such as promotion of young academics and fostering topic-specific collaboration in GH research and education were identified to improve interdisciplinary working. CONCLUSION The importance of following an interdisciplinary approach is discussed and acknowledged across scientists working on GH in Germany. The current challenge is to identify which GH topics lend themselves to the collaboration of Germany-based scientists from various backgrounds and to establish common goals to advance interdisciplinarity research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline I Gotsche
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
| | - Heide Weishaar
- Centre for International Health Protection, Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
| | - Johanna Hanefeld
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom; Centre for International Health Protection, Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Evaluating Public Health Efforts to Prevent and Control Chronic Disease: A Systems Modeling Approach. SYSTEMS 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/systems10040089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
The growing burden of chronic disease represents a complex challenge to public health. Innovative approaches, such as system dynamics simulation modeling, can aid public health professionals in understanding such complex issues and identifying effective solutions. This paper describes a system dynamics model and its application in projecting the impacts of evidence-based interventions on chronic disease for the state of Colorado. The development of the model was guided by data and input from subject matter expertise, peer-reviewed literature, and surveillance data. The model includes 28 intervention levers for chronic disease prevention, screening, and management. Interventions were simulated from 2020 to 2050 to project their impact on ten preventable causes of death. The simulations indicated the 6 most impactful interventions by 2050 to be adult smoking prevention, diabetes prevention, smoking cessation, blood pressure management, adult physical activity promotion, and colorectal cancer screening. Together, these 6 interventions could reduce preventable deaths by 7.1%, or 74% of the 9.6% reduction from all 28 interventions combined. This system dynamics model is a flexible tool that could be adapted or extended to include other populations or preventable chronic diseases. Prioritization and wide-scale implementation of the most impactful interventions could significantly reduce preventable deaths resulting from chronic disease.
Collapse
|
4
|
Korkmaz HI, Niessen FB, Pijpe A, Sheraton VM, Vermolen FJ, Krijnen PA, Niessen HW, Sloot PM, Middelkoop E, Gibbs S, van Zuijlen PP. Scar formation from the perspective of complexity science: a new look at the biological system as a whole. J Wound Care 2022; 31:178-184. [PMID: 35148632 DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2022.31.2.178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
A burn wound is a complex systemic disease at multiple levels. Current knowledge of scar formation after burn injury has come from traditional biological and clinical studies. These are normally focused on just a small part of the entire process, which has limited our ability to sufficiently understand the underlying mechanisms and to predict systems behaviour. Scar formation after burn injury is a result of a complex biological system-wound healing. It is a part of a larger whole. In this self-organising system, many components form networks of interactions with each other. These networks of interactions are typically non-linear and change their states dynamically, responding to the environment and showing emergent long-term behaviour. How molecular and cellular data relate to clinical phenomena, especially regarding effective therapies of burn wounds to achieve minimal scarring, is difficult to unravel and comprehend. Complexity science can help bridge this gap by integrating small parts into a larger whole, such that relevant biological mechanisms and data are combined in a computational model to better understand the complexity of the entire biological system. A better understanding of the complex biological system of post-burn scar formation could bring research and treatment regimens to the next level. The aim of this review/position paper is to create more awareness of complexity in scar formation after burn injury by describing the basic principles of complexity science and its potential for burn care professionals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Ibrahim Korkmaz
- Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences (AMS) Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Burn Center and Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.,Association of Dutch Burn Centres (ADBC), Beverwijk, The Netherlands
| | - Frank B Niessen
- Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences (AMS) Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anouk Pijpe
- Burn Center and Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands
| | - Vivek M Sheraton
- Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Fred J Vermolen
- Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.,Computational Mathematics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
| | - Paul Aj Krijnen
- Department of Pathology and Cardiac Surgery, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences (ACS), Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hans Wm Niessen
- Department of Pathology and Cardiac Surgery, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences (ACS), Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Ma Sloot
- Institute for Advanced Study, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Complexity Institute, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.,ITMO University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
| | - Esther Middelkoop
- Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences (AMS) Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Burn Center and Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.,Association of Dutch Burn Centres (ADBC), Beverwijk, The Netherlands
| | - Susan Gibbs
- Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Oral Cell Biology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Pm van Zuijlen
- Department of Plastic Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences (AMS) Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Burn Center and Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.,Paediatric Surgical Centre, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, Greaves F, Harper L, Hawe P, Moore L, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Shiell A, Thomas J, White M. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet 2017. [PMID: 28622953 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31267-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 538] [Impact Index Per Article: 76.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Harry Rutter
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
| | - Natalie Savona
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Ketevan Glonti
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Jo Bibby
- The Health Foundation, London, UK
| | - Steven Cummins
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Penelope Hawe
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Laurence Moore
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Mark Petticrew
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Eva Rehfuess
- Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Alan Shiell
- Australian Prevention Partnership Centre and Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Martin White
- Centre for Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|