Making Policy When The Evidence Is In Dispute

The what, the when and the how: A qualitative study of allied health decision-maker perspectives on factors influencing the development and implementation of advanced and extended scopes of practice in Australia

BACKGROUND

Health workforce supply is critical to ensuring the delivery of essential healthcare and may be enhanced via mechanisms which alter the scopes of practice of health professions. The aim of this paper is to study the collective perspectives of allied health decision-makers on factors which influence their development and implementation of advanced and extended scope of practice initiatives, and how they contribute to scope of practice change. The reasoning for the selection of each factor will also be examined.

METHODS

A grounded-theory, qualitative study of the experiences of allied health directors and senior managers across two Australian State/Territory jurisdictions.

RESULTS

Twenty allied health decision-makers participated in the study. Data coding of interview transcripts identified 14 factors specific to scope of practice change, spanning rational (n = 8) and non-rational (n = 6) decision-making approaches. Leadership, Governance, Needs of organisational leaders, Resourcing, Knowledge, skills & experience - clinical, Supporting resources, Knowledge & skills - change and Sustainability were identified as being rational and enabling in and of themselves, with Leadership seen as being most influential. Comparatively, the non-rational factors of Socio-economic & political environment, Perceived patient need, Organisational environment, Change culture & appetite, Perceived professional territorialism and Actual professional territorialism were more varied, and primarily influenced the timing/catalyst and application of decision-making. The complex interplay between these factors was conceptually represented as a decision-making construct.

CONCLUSION

Allied health decision-makers hold a complex, systems-level understanding of scope of practice change. Whilst rational decision criteria were predominant and seen to enable scope change, non-rational influences reflected greater variation in decision timing/catalyst and application, thus emphasising the human dimensions of decision-making. Further research is required to better understand how decision-makers integrate and weight these decision-making factors to determine their relative importance and to inform the development of structured decision tools.

Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the Summit

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review-a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders-that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria.

METHODS

We participated in a chiropractic meeting (Global Summit) that aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of mobilization or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment of nonmusculoskeletal disorders. After considering an early draft of the resulting manuscript, we identified points of concern and therefore declined authorship. The present article was developed to describe those concerns about the review and its conclusions.

RESULTS

Three main concerns were identified: the inherent limitations of a systematic review of 6 articles on the topic of SMT for nonmusculoskeletal disorders, the lack of biological plausibility of collapsing 5 different disorders into a single category, and considerations for best practices when using evidence in policy-making. We propose that the following conclusion is more consistent with a review of the 6 articles. The small cadre of high- or moderate-quality randomized controlled trials reviewed in this study found either no or equivocal effects from SMT as a stand-alone treatment for infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, or migraine, and found no or low-quality evidence available to support other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if SMT may have an effect in these and other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Until the results of such research are available, the benefits of SMT for specific or general nonmusculoskeletal disorders should not be promoted as having strong supportive evidence. Further, a lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as counterevidence, nor used as evidence of falsification or verification.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence, some statements generated from the Summit were extrapolated beyond the data, have the potential to misrepresent the literature, and should be used with caution. Given that none of the trials included in the literature review were definitively negative, the current evidence suggests that more research on nonmusculoskeletal conditions is warranted before any definitive conclusions can be made. Governments, insurers, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should avoid using systematic reviews in decisions where the research is insufficient to determine the clinical appropriateness of specific care.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.

Stakeholder perspectives on clinical research related to therapies for rare diseases: therapeutic misconception and the value of research

Background

For many rare diseases, few treatments are supported by strong evidence. Patients, family members, health care providers, and policy-makers thus have to consider whether to accept, recommend, or fund treatments with uncertain clinical effectiveness. They must also consider whether and how to contribute to clinical research that may involve receiving or providing the therapy being evaluated.

Objective

To understand why and how patients and families with rare metabolic diseases, specialist metabolic physicians, and health policy advisors choose whether to participate in studies and how they use and value research.

Methods

We conducted separate focus group interviews with each stakeholder group (three groups in total); two groups were conducted by telephone and the third was held in-person. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling. We analyzed each interview transcript sequentially using a qualitative description approach to inductively identify key themes. Several strategies to ensure credibility and trustworthiness were used including debriefing sessions after each focus group and having multiple team members review transcripts.

Results

Four patients/caregivers, six physicians, and three policy advisors participated. Our findings did not support conventional perspectives that therapeutic misconception (gaining access to treatment) is the main motivating factor for patients/caregivers to participate in clinical research. Rather, patients’/caregivers’ expressed reasons for participating in research included advancing science for the next generation and having an opportunity to share their experiences. Patients/caregivers and physicians described the difficulties in weighing risks versus benefits of accepting treatments not well-supported by evidence. Physicians also reported feeling conflicted in their dual role as patient advisor/advocate and evaluator of the evidence. Policy advisors were primarily focused on critically appraising the evidence to make recommendations for the health system.

Conclusions

Stakeholders differ in their perspectives on rare disease research but share concerns about the risks versus benefits of therapies when making individual- and population-level decisions.

Powerful numbers: Exemplary quantitative studies of science that had policy impact

Much scientometric research aims to be relevant to policy, but such research only rarely has a notable policy impact. In this paper, we examine four exemplary cases of policy impact from quantitative studies of science. The cases are analyzed in light of lessons learned about the use of evidence in policy making in health services, which provides very thorough explorations of the problems inherent in policy use of academic research. The analysis highlights key dimensions of the examples, which offer lessons for those aspiring to influence policy with quantitative studies of science.

Using a meta-narrative literature review and focus groups with key stakeholders to identify perceived challenges and solutions for generating robust evidence on the effectiveness of treatments for rare diseases

INTRODUCTION

For many rare diseases, strong analytic study designs for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions are challenging to implement because of small, geographically dispersed patient populations and underlying clinical heterogeneity. The objective of this study was to integrate perspectives from published literature and key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges and proposed methodological approaches to research on clinical interventions for rare diseases.

METHODS

We used a meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews with key rare disease stakeholders to better understand the perceived challenges in generating and synthesizing treatment effectiveness evidence, and to describe various research methods for mitigating these identified challenges. Data from both components of this study were synthesized narratively according to research paradigms that emerged from our data.

RESULTS

Results from our meta-narrative literature review and focus group interviews revealed three fundamental challenges in generating robust treatment effectiveness evidence for rare diseases: i) limitations in recruiting a sufficient sample size to achieve planned statistical power; ii) inability to account for clinical heterogeneity and assess treatment effects across a clinical spectrum; and iii) reliance on short-term, surrogate outcomes whose clinical relevance is often unclear. We mapped these challenges and associated solutions to three interrelated research paradigms: i) explanatory evidence generation; ii) comparative effectiveness/pragmatic evidence generation; and iii) patient-oriented evidence generation. Within each research paradigm, numerous criticisms and potential solutions have been described with respect to overcoming these challenges from a research study design perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Over time, discussions about clinical research for interventions for rare diseases have moved beyond methodological approaches to overcome challenges related to explanatory evidence generation, with increased recognition of the importance of pragmatic and patient-oriented evidence. Future directions for our work include developing a framework to expand current evidence synthesis practices to take into consideration many of the concepts discussed in this paper.

What Contribution Did Economic Evidence Make to the Adoption of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Policies in the United States?

Universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), when accompanied by timely access to intervention services, can improve language outcomes for children born deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) and result in economic benefits to society. Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs promote UNHS and using information systems support access to follow-up diagnostic and early intervention services so that infants can be screened no later than 1 month of age, with those who do not pass their screen receiving diagnostic evaluation no later than 3 months of age, and those with diagnosed hearing loss receiving intervention services no later than 6 months of age. In this paper, we first document the rapid roll-out of UNHS/EHDI policies and programs at the national and state/territorial levels in the United States between 1997 and 2005. We then review cost analyses and economic arguments that were made in advancing those policies in the United States. Finally, we examine evidence on language and educational outcomes that pertain to the economic benefits of UNHS/EHDI. In conclusion, although formal cost-effectiveness analyses do not appear to have played a decisive role, informal economic assessments of costs and benefits appear to have contributed to the adoption of UNHS policies in the United States.

Establishing core outcome sets for phenylketonuria (PKU) and medium-chain Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency in children: study protocol for systematic reviews and Delphi surveys

BACKGROUND

Inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) are a large group of rare single-gene disorders that are typically diagnosed early in life. There are important evidence gaps related to the comparative effectiveness of therapies for IMD, which are in part due to challenges in conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for rare diseases. Registry-based RCTs present a unique opportunity to address these challenges provided the registries implement standardized collection of outcomes that are important to patients and their caregivers and to clinical providers and healthcare systems. Currently there is no core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating interventions for paediatric IMD. This protocol outlines a study that will establish COS for each of two relatively common IMD in children, phenylketonuria (PKU) and medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency.

METHODS

This two-part study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Part 1 includes a rapid review and development of an evidence map to identify a comprehensive listing of outcomes reported in past studies of PKU and MCAD deficiency. The review follows established methods for knowledge synthesis, including a comprehensive search strategy, two stages of screening citations against inclusion/exclusion criteria by two reviewers working independently, and extraction of important data elements from eligible studies, including details of the outcomes collected and outcome measurement instruments. The review findings will inform part 2 of our study, a set of Delphi surveys to establish consensus on the highest priority outcomes for each condition. Healthcare providers, families of children with PKU or MCAD deficiency, and health system decision-makers will be invited to participate in two to three rounds of Delphi surveys. The design of the surveys will involve parents of children with IMD who are part of a family advisory forum.

DISCUSSION

This protocol is a crucial step in developing the capacity to launch RCTs with meaningful outcomes that address comparative effectiveness questions in the field of paediatric IMD. Such trials will contribute high-quality evidence to inform decision-making by patients and their family members, clinicians, and policy-makers.

Does Medical Malpractice Law Improve Health Care Quality?

We assess the potential for medical liability forces to deter medical errors and improve health care treatment quality, identifying liability's influence by drawing on variations in the manner by which states formulate the negligence standard facing physicians. Using hospital discharge records from the National Hospital Discharge Survey and clinically-validated quality metrics inspired by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, we find evidence suggesting that treatment quality may improve upon reforms that expect physicians to adhere to higher quality clinical standards. We do not find evidence, however, suggesting that treatment quality may deteriorate following reforms to liability standards that arguably condone the delivery of lower quality care. Similarly, we do not find evidence of deterioration in health care quality following remedy-focused liability reforms such as caps on non-economic damages awards.

Enhancing Participation in Depression Care in Outpatient Perinatal Care Settings: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To examine a wide range of study designs and outcomes to estimate the extent to which interventions in outpatient perinatal care settings are associated with an increase in the uptake of depression care.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus (EMBASE) were searched for studies published between 1999 and 2014 that evaluated mental health care use after screening for depression in perinatal care settings.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were: 1) English language; 2) pregnant and postpartum women who screened positive for depression; 3) exposure (validated depression screening in outpatient perinatal care setting); and, 4) outcome (mental health care use). Searches yielded 392 articles, 42 met criteria for full-text review, and 17 met inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black scale.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Articles were independently reviewed by two abstractors and consensus reached. Study design, intervention components, and mental health care use were defined and categorized. Seventeen articles representing a range of study designs, including one randomized controlled trial and one cluster randomized controlled trial, were included. The average quality rating was 61% (31.0-90.0%). When no intervention was in place, an average of 22% (13.8-33.0%) of women who screened positive for depression had at least one mental health visit. The average rate of mental health care use was associated with a doubling of this rate with patient engagement strategies (44%, 29.0-90.0%), on-site assessments (49%, 25.2-90.0%), and perinatal care provider training (54%, 1.0-90.0%). High rates of mental health care use (81%, 72.0-90.0%) were associated with implementation of additional interventions, including resource provision to women, perinatal care provider training, on-site assessment, and access to mental health consultation for perinatal care providers.

CONCLUSION

Screening alone was associated with 22% mental health care use among women who screened positive for depression; however, implementation of additional interventions was associated with a two to fourfold increased use of mental health care. Although definitive studies are still needed, screening done in conjunction with interventions that target patient, health care provider, and practice-level barriers is associated with increased improved rates of depression detection, assessment, referral, and treatment in perinatal care settings.

Newborn bloodspot screening policy framework for Australia

BACKGROUND

The aim of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is to identify rare genetic and non-genetic conditions in children soon after birth in order to commence therapies that prevent the development of progressive, serious, and irreversible disabilities. Universal NBS programmes have been implemented in most countries, with minor adaptations to target conditions most relevant to the local healthcare environment.

AIMS

In this article, we describe the initiatives of international and Australian governments to develop policies to address the expansion of NBS in their healthcare systems.

METHODS

We have reviewed published public policies and literature to formulate recommendations based on clinical, social, legal, and ethical principles to inform a national governance and policy framework for Australia.

RESULTS

Australian policy makers have been slow to develop a coordinated plan. While the experience from other governments can guide our national policy, there are specific areas that require further consideration by Australian health experts. Key reforms involve the separation of policy and operational activities, multidisciplinary decision-making and oversight by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council for policy direction.

CONCLUSION

A formal national policy framework will guide the coordination of NBS services that can adapt to the needs of Australian children and families.

Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study

OBJECTIVES

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) panels have expanded to include conditions for which treatment effects are less certain, creating debate about population-based screening criteria. We investigated Canadian public expectations and values regarding the types of conditions that should be included in NBS and whether parents should provide consent.

METHODS

Eight focus groups (FG; n = 60) included education, deliberative discussion and pre-/post-questionnaires. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.

RESULTS

Quantitatively, the majority supported NBS for serious disorders for which treatment is not available (95-98, 82%). A majority endorsed screening without explicit consent (77-88%) for treatable disorders, but 62% supported unpressured choice for screening for untreatable disorders. Qualitatively, participants valued treatment-related benefits for infants and informational benefits for families. Concern for anxiety, stigma and unwanted knowledge depended upon disease context and strength of countervailing benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipated benefits of expanded infant screening were prioritized over harms, with information provision perceived as a mechanism for mitigating harms and enabling choice. However, we urge caution around the potential for public enthusiasm to foster unlimited uptake of infant screening technologies.

Policymaking Under Uncertainty: Routine Screening for Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health issue affecting around three million U.S. women during their lifetimes; this article provides guidance to policymakers on addressing IPV. In 2011, an Institute of Medicine panel recommended routine IPV screening for women and adolescents as part of comprehensive preventive care services, which is in conflict with the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. The current evidence base for policymaking suffers weaknesses related to study design, which should be addressed in future research. Meanwhile, policymakers should consider available evidence in their settings, assess local needs, and make recommendations where appropriate.

Recent trends in clinicians providing care to pregnant women in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Health care needs of pregnant women are met by a variety of clinicians in a changing policy and practice environment. This study documents recent trends in types of clinicians providing care to pregnant women in the United States.

METHODS

We used a repeat cross-sectional design and data from the Integrated Health Interview Series (2000-2009), a nationally representative data set, for respondents who reported being pregnant at the time of the survey (N = 3204). Using longitudinal logistic regression models, we analyzed changes over time in pregnant women's reported use of care from 1) obstetrician-gynecologists; 2) midwives, nurse practitioners (NPs), or physician assistants (PAs); or 3) both an obstetrician-gynecologist and a midwife, NP, or PA.

RESULTS

The percentage of pregnant women who reported seeing an obstetrician-gynecologist (87%) remained steady from 2000 through 2009. After controlling for demographic and clinical variables, the percentage who reported receiving care from a midwife, NP, or PA increased 4% annually (yearly adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.04; P < .001), indicating a cumulative increase of 48% over the decade. The percentage of pregnant women who received care from both an obstetrician-gynecologist and a midwife, NP, or PA also increased (AOR 1.027; P < .001), for a cumulative increase of 30%.

DISCUSSION

The increasing role of midwives, NPs, and PAs in the provision of maternity care suggests changes in the perinatal workforce and practice models that may promote collaborative care and quality improvement. However, better data collection is required to gather detailed information on specific provider types, these trends, and their implications.

The nutrition policy process: the role of strategic capacity in advancing national nutrition agendas

Undernutrition is the single largest contributor to the burden of disease in developing countries and has documented effects on social and economic development, yet progress in reducing undernutrition remains slow. This paper identifies the range of factors that have influenced the nutrition agenda in developing countries, in order to inform the implementation of three major global initiatives related to undernutrition. Data sources include interviews with nutrition practitioners at the national and international level, written accounts from six African countries, and observations of the policy process in five countries. Data were thematically coded to identify recurrent factors that facilitated or inhibited progress in addressing undernutrition. The data reveal the following: First, societal conditions and catalytic events pose a variety of challenges and opportunities to enlarge and shape the nutrition agenda. Some countries have been successful in using such opportunities, while others have been less successful and there have been some unintended consequences. Second, disagreements over interventions and strategies are an almost universal feature of the nutrition policy process, occur primarily among mid-level actors rather than among politicians or senior administrators, and are primarily the product of structural factors such as organizational mandates, interests, and differences in professional perspectives. Third, many of these structural factors can be molded, aligned, and/or circumvented through strategic action on the part of the mid-level actors to strengthen movement on the nutrition agenda. This evidence that strategic action can redirect and/or overcome the effects of structural factors has important implications for future efforts to advance the nutrition agenda.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Lyme guidelines: a cautionary tale about the development of clinical practice guidelines

Flawed clinical practice guidelines may compromise patient care. Commercial conflicts of interest on panels that write treatment guidelines are particularly problematic, because panelists may have conflicting agendas that influence guideline recommendations. Historically, there has been no legal remedy for conflicts of interest on guidelines panels. However, in May 2008, the Attorney General of Connecticut concluded a ground-breaking antitrust investigation into the development of Lyme disease treatment guidelines by one of the largest medical societies in the United States, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Although the investigation found significant flaws in the IDSA guidelines development process, the subsequent review of the guidelines mandated by the settlement was compromised by a lack of impartiality at various stages of the IDSA review process. This article will examine the interplay between the recent calls for guidelines reform, the ethical canons of medicine, and due process considerations under antitrust laws as they apply to the formulation of the IDSA Lyme disease treatment guidelines. The article will also discuss pitfalls in the implementation of the IDSA antitrust settlement that should be avoided in the future.

Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers

BACKGROUND

Current healthcare systems have extended the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to health policy and delivery decisions, such as access-to-care, healthcare funding and health program continuance, through attempts to integrate valid and reliable evidence into the decision making process. These policy decisions have major impacts on society and have high personal and financial costs associated with those decisions. Decision models such as these function under a shared assumption of rational choice and utility maximization in the decision-making process.

DISCUSSION

We contend that health policy decision makers are generally unable to attain the basic goals of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) and evidence-based policy making (EBPM) because humans make decisions with their naturally limited, faulty, and biased decision-making processes. A cognitive information processing framework is presented to support this argument, and subtle cognitive processing mechanisms are introduced to support the focal thesis: health policy makers' decisions are influenced by the subjective manner in which they individually process decision-relevant information rather than on the objective merits of the evidence alone. As such, subsequent health policy decisions do not necessarily achieve the goals of evidence-based policy making, such as maximizing health outcomes for society based on valid and reliable research evidence.

SUMMARY

In this era of increasing adoption of evidence-based healthcare models, the rational choice, utility maximizing assumptions in EBDM and EBPM, must be critically evaluated to ensure effective and high-quality health policy decisions. The cognitive information processing framework presented here will aid health policy decision makers by identifying how their decisions might be subtly influenced by non-rational factors. In this paper, we identify some of the biases and potential intervention points and provide some initial suggestions about how the EBDM/EBPM process can be improved.

An evidence-based public health approach to injury priorities and prevention recommendations for the u.s. Military

Injuries are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality confronting U.S. military forces in peacetime or combat operations. Not only are injuries the biggest health problem of the military services, they are also a complex problem. The leading causes of deaths are different from those that result in hospitalization, which are different from those that result in outpatient care. As a consequence, it is not possible to focus on just one level of injury severity if the impact of injuries on military personnel is to be reduced. To effectively reduce the impact of a problem as big and complex as injuries requires a systematic approach. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) review the steps of the public health process for injury prevention; (2) review literature on evaluation of the scientific quality and consistency of information needed to make decisions about prevention policies, programs, and interventions; and (3) summarize criteria for setting objective injury prevention priorities. The review of these topics will serve as a foundation for making recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of injury prevention efforts in the military and similarly large communities. This paper also serves as an introduction to the other articles in this supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that illustrate the recommended systematic approach.

Access with evidence development: the US experience

The concept of access with evidence development (AED), also known as 'coverage with evidence development' in the Medicare programme, has long been discussed as a policy option for ensuring more appropriate use of new technologies in the US. This article provides a comprehensive overview of more than 10 years of US experience with AED, both in the public and private healthcare sectors. Beginning with a discussion of the successes of private plans' conditional coverage for high-density chemotherapy for autologous bone marrow transplants for metastatic breast cancer and Medicare's conditional coverage of lung-volume-reduction surgery in the 1990s, the article moves on to describe how Medicare worked to codify AED as one of its coverage policy options in the early part of this decade. More recent private and public sector initiatives are also discussed, including an overview of barriers to implementing AED. Despite the complexity of political, financial and ethical issues faced in implementation, AED is now a permanent fixture of US coverage policy. Future initiatives within the Medicare programme and with private payers in the US are much more likely to succeed by relying upon the simple but consequential principles laid out at a Summit convened in Banff, Alberta, Canada in 2009 and presented in another article in this issue.

Evidence and argument in policymaking: development of workplace smoking legislation

Background

We sought to identify factors that affect the passage of public health legislation by examining the use of arguments, particularly arguments presenting research evidence, in legislative debates regarding workplace smoking restrictions.

Methods

We conducted a case-study based content analysis of legislative materials used in the development of six state workplace smoking laws, including written and spoken testimony and the text of proposed and passed bills and amendments. We coded testimony given before legislators for arguments used, and identified the institutional affiliations of presenters and their position on the legislation. We compared patterns in the arguments made in testimony to the relative strength of each state's final legislation.

Results

Greater discussion of scientific evidence within testimony given was associated with the passage of workplace smoking legislation that provided greater protection for public health, regardless of whether supporters outnumbered opponents or vice versa.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that an emphasis on scientific discourse, relative to other arguments made in legislative testimony, might help produce political outcomes that favor public health.

Legal concerns trigger prostate-specific antigen testing

BACKGROUND

In the United States, lawsuits against physicians have had an impact on their behaviour, resulting in overdiagnosis and other forms of 'defensive medicine'. Does a similar situation exist in Switzerland? Using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening as an example, we surveyed Swiss physicians and assessed the extent to which liability fears influenced their recommendation for testing.

METHODS

At a continuing medical education conference we distributed a pilot-tested questionnaire to 552 participants. Two hundred and fifty of them (45%) completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the participants, 158 (68%) were general practitioners and 73 (32%) specialists in internal medicine. Seventy-five per cent of both groups recommend regular PSA screening to men older than age 50. Yet only 56% of the general physicians and 53% of the internists believe that PSA measurement is an effective screening method. A substantial proportion of the physicians - 41% of general practitioners and 43% of internists - reported that they sometimes or often recommend this test for legal reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

Defensive medicine is not a phenomenon particular to the USA, but is also observable in Switzerland. This result is surprising, given that in Switzerland and other European countries, a physician who does not recommend a test or treatment whose effectiveness is controversial need not fear litigation.

Using evidence in pain practice: Part II: Interpreting and applying systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

Systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines are useful tools for bringing evidence into pain practice. However, even when their conclusions or recommendations appear valid, interpreting and applying systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines in everyday practice is not always straightforward. Judging external validity or applicability of findings requires careful consideration of factors related to patient selection, clinical setting, feasibility, costs, and availability of interventions. Clinicians should also consider whether effects on clinically relevant outcomes are large enough to warrant use of the intervention in question. Other challenges to using systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines in pain practice include the need to make decisions about pain interventions when evidence is weak or inconclusive, and the increasing and confusing presence of discordant systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. This article discusses how to evaluate applicability and clinical relevance of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, and provides a framework for approaching clinical decisions when evidence is weak or conflicting.

"Developing good taste in evidence": facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government

CONTEXT

Policymaking is a highly complex process that is often difficult to predict or influence. Most of the scholarship examining the role of research evidence in policymaking has focused narrowly on characteristics of the evidence and the interactions between scientists and government officials. The real-life context in which policymakers are situated and make decisions also is crucial to the development of evidence-informed policy.

METHODS

This qualitative study expands on other studies of research utilization at the state level through interviews with twenty-eight state legislators and administrators about their real-life experiences incorporating evidence into policymaking. The interviews were coded inductively into the following categories: (1) the important or controversial issue or problem being addressed, (2) the information that was used, (3) facilitators, and (4) hindrances.

FINDINGS

Hindrances to evidence-informed policymaking included institutional features; characteristics of the evidence supply, such as research quantity, quality, accessibility, and usability; and competing sources of influence, such as interest groups. The policymakers identified a number of facilitators to the use of evidence, including linking research to concrete impacts, costs, and benefits; reframing policy issues to fit the research; training to use evidence-based skills; and developing research venues and collaborative relationships in order to generate relevant evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain hindrances to the incorporation of research into policy, like limited budgets, are systemic and not readily altered. However, some of the barriers and facilitators of evidence-informed health policymaking are amenable to change. Policymakers could benefit from evidence-based skills training to help them identify and evaluate high-quality information. Researchers and policymakers thus could collaborate to develop networks for generating and sharing relevant evidence for policy.

Issues related to the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders

This paper explores issues and implications for diagnosis and treatment, stemming from the growing number of children identified with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Recent developments and innovations in special education and Medicaid programs are emphasized. Eligibility determination policies, innovations in diagnostic practices, the cost and financing of assessment, variability among programs in diagnostic criteria, and racial/ethnic disparities in the timing of diagnosis all influence the capacity of service systems to provide diagnoses in a timely, coordinated, accurate, economical, and equitable manner. There are several barriers to the more widespread provision of intensive intervention for children with ASDs, including lack of strong evidence of effectiveness in scaled-up public programs, uncertainty about the extent of obligations to provide services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, high cost of intervention, and variability among states in their willingness to fund intensive intervention via Medicaid. Innovative policy experiments with respect to financing intensive intervention through schools and Medicaid are being conducted in a number of states.

Changing perspectives on the benefits of newborn screening

The likelihood of benefit is fundamental to decision making about newborn screening. But benefit is construed in different ways by different stakeholders. This article begins with a review of benefit as considered historically by various expert panels and organizations. We then show how 78 conditions fared when experts recently rated them on benefit using a scoring system recommended by a task force of the American College of Medical Genetics. Finally, we analyze how benefit is reflected in the public comments submitted in response to the ACMG report. Results show that benefit has been and remains a core consideration for screening decisions. Historically the focus has been on improved physical health as a result of medical treatment; however, in only 4 of the 78 conditions rated does newborn screening prevent all negative consequences. In fact the majority of both core conditions (51.7%) and secondary targets (87.5%) recommended in the ACMG report were rated as having treatments that prevented only some negative consequences. All conditions rated had perceived benefits for family and society, but currently no conditions are screened on the basis of family or societal benefits alone. No agreed-upon threshold exists for what would be considered meaningful benefit, and stakeholder groups differ in their perceptions of benefit. We conclude by suggesting several key research studies needed to further inform public policy.

Newborn Screening: Current Status

Newborn screening, which represents one of the major advances in child health of the past century, has been carried out in all fifty U.S. states since the 1970s. Newborn screening programs are state-run, and decisions are left to the individual states regarding the conditions to be screened for, the mechanism for confirmatory testing, follow-up care, and financing of the programs. Laboratory advances in tandem mass spectrometry make it possible to screen newborns for many rare inborn errors of metabolism. This raises many policy issues including screening's cost-effectiveness, ethics, quality, and oversight.

[The development of evidence-based prevention. Health promotion and education as an approach to continuous quality improvement of health care]

Evidence-based health promotion and education relies on the systematic and critical discussion of the best available research on the effectiveness of interventions. In the last decade, evidence-based reviews provided decisive proof for the effectiveness of health promotion and education. The approach is also capable of identifying high-quality interventions and deficiencies. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing dispute concerning the transfer of evidence-based medicine to health promotion and education. Arguments concern databases, research strategies, validity and practical applicability of results. A discussion of these issues suggests that the methodology of evidence-based medicine is pertinent and informative. Some adaptations for health promotion and education would make sense, though: contexts and characteristics of interventions should be documented and published in rather more detail in order to reach better causal models. Pre-post studies which are of particular importance for health promotion and education should be elaborated according to the psychological multi-trait multi-method strategy (multiple measurements, modelling of process levels, multidimensional operationalization of complex outcomes). All relevant knowledge including qualitative studies should be integrated into cycles of theory formulation and evidence testing. Finally, a reappraisal of expert opinion is proposed relying on specific criteria for the transparency and plurality of consensus procedures ruling out conflicts of interest.

Implementing practice guidelines: a workshop on guidelines dissemination and implementation with a focus on asthma and COPD

The present supplement summarizes the proceedings of the symposium "Implementing practice guidelines: A workshop on guidelines dissemination and implementation with a focus on asthma and COPD", which took place in Quebec City, Quebec, from April 14 to 16, 2005. This international symposium was a joint initiative of the Laval University Office of Continuing Medical Education (Bureau de la Formation Médicale Continue), the Canadian Thoracic Society and the Canadian Network for Asthma Care, and was supported by many other organizations and by industrial partners. The objectives of this meeting were to examine the optimal implementation of practice guidelines, review current initiatives for the implementation of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines in Canada and in the rest of the world, and develop an optimal strategy for future guideline implementation. An impressive group of scientists, physicians and other health care providers, as well as policy makers and representatives of patients' associations, the pharmaceutical industry, research and health networks, and communications specialists, conveyed their perspectives on how to achieve these goals. This important event provided a unique opportunity for all participants to discuss key issues in improving the care of patients with asthma and COPD. These two diseases are responsible for an enormous human and socioeconomic burden around the world. Many reports have indicated that current evidence-based guidelines are underused by physicians and others, and that there are many barriers to an effective translation of recommendations into day-to-day care. There is therefore a need to develop more effective ways to communicate key information to both caregivers and patients, and to promote appropriate health behaviours. This symposium contributed to the initiation of what could become the "Canadian Asthma and COPD Campaign", aimed at improving care and, hence, the quality of life of those suffering from these diseases. It is hoped that this event will be followed by other meetings that focus on how to improve the transfer of key recommendations from evidence-based guidelines into current care, and how to stimulate research to accomplish this.

Emerging Lessons From The Drug Effectiveness Review Project

The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) is an alliance of fifteen states and two private organizations, which have pooled resources to synthesize and judge clinical evidence for drug-class reviews. The experience shines a bright light on challenges involved in implementing an evidence-based medicine process to inform drug formulary decisions: When should evidence reviewers accept surrogate markers and assume therapeutic class effects? How open and participatory should review procedures be? Should reviewers consider cost-effectiveness information? What is the appropriate role of the public sector in judging evidence? The DERP illustrates that attempts to undertake evidence-based reviews, apart from the methods themselves, which continue to evolve, involve questions of organization, process, and leadership.

The Common Drug Review: a NICE start for Canada?

Prescription drugs are one of the fastest growing cost components of modern health care systems. Efforts to control escalating costs while simultaneously maximizing population health outcomes have led many countries to implement restrictive criteria on the funding of certain drugs. While drugs are licensed for sale based on evidence of safety and efficacy versus a placebo, many funders now require evidence of clinical- and cost-effectiveness compared to existing drugs as part of their reimbursement criteria. In some countries, concerns about duplication of drug assessment and administrative effort across different jurisdictions have led to experimentation with various forms of centralized drug review processes. Centralized drug reviews strive to standardize, inform, and improve drug reimbursement decisions through critical assessments of comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. The ultimate objective is to inform formulary listing decisions that both maximize health outcomes and achieve good "value for money". This paper describes the Common Drug Review (CDR), a uniquely Canadian version of a centralized drug review process, and compares it with the much-studied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. Through this analysis, which draws on prior critiques and experiences of NICE, we highlight several critical issues for pharmaceutical priority setting that must be considered in the operation and appraisal of centralized drug review processes. These include the selection of drugs for review, centralized versus decentralized decision-making, receptor capacity at local decision making levels, and public participation.

Evidence-based medicine in pathology: an introduction

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a school of thought that has spread rapidly through medicine in the past 2 decades and is eliciting an increasing interest in Anatomic Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. It has been defined as "the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients." The environmental factors that created a need for EBM and basic concepts of this discipline are reviewed. Methods for the accrual and critical appraisal of the validity of available evidence and its impact, applicability and usefulness in pathology practice are discussed. Basic concepts of bayesian data analysis with an emphasis on concepts such as prior and posterior probability and the use of "holdout" or "test" data are introduced. The future of EBM in pathology is discussed and potential applications of these concepts to pathology practice and research are proposed.

The application of special technologies in diagnostic anatomic pathology: is it consistent with the principles of evidence-based medicine?

Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have emphasized the need to consider the quality of different sources of medical information and have proposed various methods to integrate available "best evidence" into rules, guidelines and other diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic models. The various factors that can affect the internal validity of studies in anatomic pathology, such as interobserver variability, use of retrospective rather than prospective data and others, are reviewed. The need for testing for the external validity of the results of anatomic pathology studies is introduced, using "test sets" of cases that have not been used to generate the classification or prognostic models. This methodology has been seldom used in anatomic pathology to validate the generalizability of various "entities," usefulness of diagnostic tests under different conditions and other information. Basic concepts of meta-analysis for research synthesis are introduced; these methods have been seldom used in anatomic pathology to integrate information from different studies using quantitative techniques rather than summary tables that merely list the results of various publications. The potential use of decision analysis and value of information analysis for the adoption of new tests is briefly discussed.