Qualitative study of states' capacity to support alcohol prevention policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA

INTRODUCTION

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated rates of alcohol purchasing and related harms in the USA. The increases followed governors' emergency orders that increased alcohol availability, including the allowance of alcohol home delivery, alcohol to-go from restaurants and bars, and curbside pickup from retailers.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 53 participants involved in state-level alcohol prevention policy across 48 states. Interviewees' perspectives on changes to alcohol prevention policies during the COVID-19 pandemic, including capacity to respond to alcohol-focused executive and legislative changes to alcohol availability, were explored. Initial codes were developed collectively and refined through successive readings of transcripts using a phenomenological, action-oriented research approach. Themes were identified semantically after all transcripts were coded and reviewed.

RESULTS

Four themes were developed including: (i) alcohol prevention policies and capacity during COVID-19; (ii) industry-related challenges during COVID-19; (iii) limited pre-COVID-19 alcohol prevention capacity; and (iv) needs to strengthen alcohol prevention capacity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic exacerbated states' capacity limitations for alcohol prevention efforts and created additional impediments to public health messaging about alcohol health risks related to greater alcohol availability. Participants offered a myriad of strategies to improve alcohol prevention and to reduce alcohol-related harms. Recommendations included dedicated federal and state prioritisation, more funding for community organisations, greater coordination, consistent high-quality trainings, stronger surveillance and widespread prevention messaging. States' alcohol prevention efforts require dedicated leadership, additional funding and support to strengthen population-based strategies to reduce sustained alcohol-related harms associated with increases in alcohol availability.

A Scoping Review on Resources, Tools, and Programs to Support Women's Leadership in Global Health: What Is Available, What Works, and How Do We Know?

Background

The unequal representation of women in global health leadership is a prevalent issue laterally across global health fields and vertically down experience levels. Although women compose much of the workforce, gender-based barriers prevent female talent from filling their appropriate leadership roles, which funnels unique expertise and problem-solving skills on a diversity of health topics out of positions of leadership. Currently, many calls to action have been proposed to raise awareness of the lack of women's global health leadership, with Women in Global Health as one of the more prominent movements. This paper evaluates how the priorities and strategies for leadership training and development set forth by such movements have changed the landscape of available programs and resources for women in global health, based on availability, success, and evaluation.

Objectives

This manuscript maps existing programs and resources that support women's leadership in global health and describes available evaluations and documented outcomes.

Methods

We used a dual approach of a peer-reviewed and gray literature search to build a comprehensive list of existing programs and resources designed to support women's leadership in global health. Out of 54 items included for full-text review and 22 gray literature items screened for inclusion, a total of 31 resources were processed in the final extraction. We used descriptive quantitative analysis for categorical and binary variables, while qualitative data from evaluations were analyzed for outcomes.

Findings

Resources were in the form of conferences, supplemental resources to conferences, certificate programs, coursework, stand-alone documents, single-focus programs, and mostly multicomponent programs. Most resources did not have a global health focus area, and a third of the total resources identified women first authors from predominantly high-income countries. About half of the resources mention mentorship and networking as activities incorporated as part of the resource. Over half of the resources did not have a target audience, and most resources were free to users.While there is a lack of consistent and meaningful evaluation of the resources, the available captured metrics of success were described as the number of career-advancing opportunities after using the resources. Examples of opportunities include enrollment in graduate school, receiving academic promotions, participating in internships, presenting at conferences, and publications.

Conclusion

While the supply of existing programming and resources to advance women's leadership in the global health field is limited in terms of quantity, it is rich in diverse formats, content, and implementation. This scoping review supports the notion that empowered female leadership in global health requires a complementary support system that encourages the unique needs and talents of female leaders. Such a support system needs inclusive targeting regardless of experience level, academic degree, or location. Furthermore, evaluations of resources will be critical in maintaining meaningful interventions that effectively dismantle the infrastructures that continue to limit the success of women leaders in global health.

Improving the availability of prescription drugs in Lebanon: a critical analysis of alternative policy options

The economic downfall in Lebanon and the destruction of the Beirut Port have had a crippling effect on all players in the health sector, including hospitals, healthcare providers, and the pharmaceutical and medical supply industry. The outbreak of COVID-19 has further aggravated the crisis. To address the challenges facing the pharmaceutical industry, Lebanon must create a stable and secure source of prescription drug production. Two alternative approaches are presented to address the crisis: (1) amending the subsidy system and supporting local pharmaceutical production, and (2) promoting the prescription and use of generic drugs. Investing in local production is promising and can lead to establishing trust in the quality of drugs produced locally. These efforts can be complemented by promoting the prescription and use of generic drugs at a later stage, after having had established a well-operating system for local drug production.

Stakeholders’ views and perspectives on treatments of visceral leishmaniasis and their outcomes in HIV-coinfected patients in East Africa and South-East Asia: A mixed methods study

Background

In visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), combination therapy (liposomal amphotericin B infusion and oral miltefosine) is being considered as an alternative to liposomal amphotericin B monotherapy. We aimed to assess the views of stakeholders in relation to these treatment options.

Methodology

In a mixed methods study, we surveyed and interviewed patients, government functionaries, programme managers, health service providers, nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and World Health Organization (WHO) personnel. We used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for data collection planning and analysis. Constructs of interest included valuation of outcomes, impact on equity, feasibility and acceptability of the treatment options, implementation considerations, monitoring and evaluation, and research priorities.

Principal findings/Conclusion

Mortality and non-serious adverse events were rated as “critical” by respectively the highest (61%) and lowest percentages (47%) of survey participants. Participants viewed clinical cure as essential for patients to regain productivity. Non-patient stakeholders emphasized the importance of “sustained” clinical cure. For most survey participants, combination therapy, compared with monotherapy, would increase health equity (40%), and be more acceptable (79%) and feasible (57%). Interviews revealed that combination therapy was more feasible and acceptable than monotherapy when associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization. The findings of the interviews provided insight into those of the survey. When choosing between alternative options, providers should consider the outcomes that matter to patients as well as the impact on equity, feasibility, and acceptability of the options.

In East Africa and South Asia, the number of patients with visceral leishmaniasis (VL) co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been increasing over the years. In addition to independently posing major health challenges, the two conditions have detrimental effects on each other. In light of new evidence on treatment regimens for this patient population, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently updated its evidence-based region-specific treatment recommendations. To inform this process, we assessed the views of stakeholders on the outcomes of interest and on medication treatment options. The mixed methods study consisted of an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Outcomes such as mortality, complications, clinical cure, relapse and serious adverse events were viewed as important because of the burden associated with their experience, their consequences, and the co-infection status of the patients. Outcomes such as non-serious adverse events were viewed as less important for reasons relating to patient tolerability and ease of treatment. As compared to monotherapy, combination therapy was found to be more equitable, acceptable, and feasible. While our findings are important to consider by clinicians treating patients with VL patients coinfected with HIV, they also inform decisions made by other stakeholders such as guideline developers and program managers.

Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review

Objective

To systematically identify and describe approaches to prioritise primary research topics in any health-related area.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL databases and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers screened studies and extracted data in duplicate and independently. We synthesised the information across the included approaches by developing common categorisation of relevant concepts.

Results

Of 44 392 citations, 30 articles reporting on 25 approaches were included, addressing the following fields: health in general (n=9), clinical (n=10), health policy and systems (n=10), public health (n=6) and health service research (n=5) (10 addressed more than 1 field). The approaches proposed the following aspects to be addressed in the prioritisation process: situation analysis/ environmental scan, methods for generation of initial list of topics, use of prioritisation criteria, stakeholder engagement, ranking process/technique, dissemination and implementation, revision and appeal mechanism, and monitoring and evaluation. Twenty-two approaches proposed involving stakeholders in the priority setting process. The most commonly proposed stakeholder category was ‘researchers/academia’ (n=17, 77%) followed by ‘healthcare providers’ (n=16, 73%). Fifteen of the approaches proposed a list of criteria for determining research priorities. We developed a common framework of 28 prioritisation criteria clustered into nine domains. The criterion most frequently mentioned by the identified approaches was ‘health burden’ (n=12, 80%), followed by ‘availability of resources’ (n=11, 73%).

Conclusion

We identified and described 25 prioritisation approaches for primary research topics in any health-related area. Findings highlight the need for greater participation of potential users (eg, policy-makers and the general public) and incorporation of equity as part of the prioritisation process. Findings can guide the work of researchers, policy-makers and funders seeking to conduct or fund primary health research. More importantly, the findings should be used to enhance a more coordinated approach to prioritising health research to inform decision making at all levels.

COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are uncertainties about mitigating strategies for swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an opportunity to learn from the experience of previous re-openings to better plan the future one. Our objectives are to systematically review the evidence on (1) the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission; and (2) the effects of strategies for preventing COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid systematic review. We searched in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 19, 2021. We included non-randomized studies for the review on association of COVID-19 transmission and swimming-related activities. We included guidance documents reporting on the strategies for prevention of COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. We also included studies on the efficacy and safety of the strategies. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. For the guidance documents, a single reviewer assessed the eligibility and a second reviewer verified the judgement. Teams of two reviewers extracted data independently. We summarized the findings of included studies narratively. We synthesized information from guidance documents according to the identified topics and subtopics, and presented them in tabular and narrative formats.

RESULTS

We identified three studies providing very low certainty evidence for the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission. The analysis of 50 eligible guidance documents identified 11 topics: ensuring social distancing, ensuring personal hygiene, using personal protective equipment, eating and drinking, maintaining the pool, managing frequently touched surfaces, ventilation of indoor spaces, screening and management of sickness, delivering first aid, raising awareness, and vaccination. One study assessing the efficacy of strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission did not find an association between compliance with precautionary restrictions and COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There are major gaps in the research evidence of relevance to swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the synthesis of the identified strategies from guidance documents can inform public health management strategies for swimming-related activities, particularly in future re-opening plans.

Health-related articles on Syria before and after the start of armed conflict: a scoping review for The Lancet-American University of Beirut Commission on Syria

Introduction

Armed conflict may influence the size and scope of research in Arab countries. We aimed to assess the impact of the 2011 Syrian conflict on health articles about Syria published in indexed journals.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review on Syrian health-related articles using seven electronic databases. We included clinical, biomedical, public health, or health system topics published between 1991 and 2017. We excluded animal studies and studies conducted on Syrian refugees. We used descriptive and social network analyses to assess the differences in rates, types, topics of articles, and authorship before and after 2011, the start of the Syrian conflict.

Results

Of 1138 articles, 826 (72.6%) were published after 2011. Articles published after 2011 were less likely to be primary research; had a greater proportion reporting on mental health (4.6% vs. 10.0%), accidents and injuries (2.3% vs. 18.8%), and conflict and health (1.7% vs. 7.8%) (all p < 0.05); and a lower proportion reporting on child and maternal health (8.1 to 3.6%, p = 0.019). The proportion of research articles reporting no funding increased from 1.1 to 14.6% (p < 0.01). While international collaborations increased over time, the number of articles with no authors affiliated to Syrian institutions overtook those with at least one author affiliation to a Syrian institution for the first time in 2015.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of armed conflict on health scholarship in Syria. The Syrian conflict was associated with a change in the rates, types, and topics of the health-related articles, and authors’ affiliations. Our findings have implications for the prioritization of research funding, development of inclusive research collaborations, and promoting the ethics of conducting research in complex humanitarian settings.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s13031-020-00316-7.

Social capital, social cohesion, and health of Syrian refugee working children living in informal tented settlements in Lebanon: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Since 2011, the protracted Syrian war has had tragic consequences on the lives of the Syrian people, threatening their stability, health, and well-being. The most vulnerable are children, who face interruption of schooling and child labor. This study explored the relationship between social capital and the physical health and emotional well-being of Syrian refugee working children in rural areas of Lebanon.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 4,090 Syrian refugee children working in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon in 2017. Children (8-18 years) gave direct testimony on their living and social environment in face-to-face interviews. Logistic regressions assessed the association of social capital and social cohesion with the health and emotional well-being of Syrian refugee working children; specifically, poor self-rated health, reporting a health problem, engaging in risky health behavior, feeling lonely, feeling optimistic, and being satisfied with life. Of the 4,090 working children in the study, 11% reported poor health, 16% reported having a health problem, and 13% were engaged in risky behaviors. The majority (67.5%) reported feeling lonely, while around 53% were optimistic and 59% were satisfied with life. The study findings suggest that positive social capital constructs were associated with better health. Lower levels of social cohesion (e.g., not spending time with friends) were significantly associated with poor self-rated health, reporting a physical health problem, and feeling more lonely ([adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.4; CI 1.76-3.36, p < 0.001], [AOR, 1.9; CI 1.44-2.55, p < 0.001], and [AOR, 0.5; CI 0.38-0.76, p < 0.001], respectively). Higher levels of social support (e.g., having good social relations), family social capital (e.g., discussing personal issues with parents), and neighborhood attachment (e.g., having a close friend) were all significantly associated with being more optimistic ([AOR, 1.5; CI 1.2-1.75, p < 0.001], [AOR, 1.3; CI 1.11-1.52, p < 0.001], and [AOR, 1.9; CI 1.58-2.29, p < 0.001], respectively) and more satisfied with life ([AOR, 1.3; CI 1.01-1.54, p = 0.04], [AOR, 1.2; CI 1.01-1.4, p = 0.04], and [AOR, 1.3; CI 1.08-1.6, p = 0.006], respectively). The main limitations of this study were its cross-sectional design, as well as other design issues (using self-reported health measures, using a questionnaire that was not subject to a validation study, and giving equal weighting to all the components of the health and emotional well-being indicators).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the association between social capital, social cohesion, and refugee working children's physical and emotional health. In spite of the poor living and working conditions that Syrian refugee children experience, having a close-knit network of family and friends was associated with better health. Interventions that consider social capital dimensions might contribute to improving the health of Syrian refugee children in informal tented settlements (ITSs).

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

PURPOSE

To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews).

DATA SYNTHESIS

123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs.

LIMITATION

Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported.

CONCLUSION

Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Health care workers in conflict and post-conflict settings: Systematic mapping of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) are essential for the delivery of health care services in conflict areas and in rebuilding health systems post-conflict.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically identify and map the published evidence on HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings. Our ultimate aim is to inform researchers and funders on research gap on this subject and support relevant stakeholders by providing them with a comprehensive resource of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic mapping of the literature. We included a wide range of study designs, addressing any type of personnel providing health services in either conflict or post-conflict settings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and built two interactive systematic maps organized by country, study design and theme.

RESULTS

Out of 13,863 identified citations, we included a total of 474 studies: 304 on conflict settings, 149 on post-conflict settings, and 21 on both conflict and post-conflict settings. For conflict settings, the most studied counties were Iraq (15%), Syria (15%), Israel (10%), and the State of Palestine (9%). The most common types of publication were opinion pieces in conflict settings (39%), and primary studies (33%) in post-conflict settings. In addition, most of the first and corresponding authors were affiliated with countries different from the country focus of the paper. Violence against health workers was the most tackled theme of papers reporting on conflict settings, while workforce performance was the most addressed theme by papers reporting on post-conflict settings. The majority of papers in both conflict and post-conflict settings did not report funding sources (81% and 53%) or conflicts of interest of authors (73% and 62%), and around half of primary studies did not report on ethical approvals (45% and 41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic mapping provides a comprehensive database of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale that is often needed to inform policies and strategies on effective workforce planning and management and in reducing emigration. It can also be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps to direct future primary research, and knowledge clusters.

Safe management of bodies of deceased persons with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: a rapid systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Proper strategies to minimise the risk of infection in individuals handling the bodies of deceased persons infected with 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to scope and assess the effects of specific strategies for the management of the bodies.

METHODS

We searched five general, three Chinese and four coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-specific electronic databases. We searched registries of clinical trials, websites of governmental and other relevant organisations, reference lists of the included papers and relevant systematic reviews, and Epistemonikos for relevant systematic reviews. We included guidance documents providing practical advice on the handling of bodies of deceased persons with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Then, we sought primary evidence of any study design reporting on the efficacy and safety of the identified strategies in coronaviruses. We included evidence relevant to contextual factors (ie, acceptability). A single reviewer extracted data using a pilot-tested form and graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. A second reviewer verified the data and assessments.

RESULTS

We identified one study proposing an uncommon strategy for autopsies for patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. The study provided very low-certainty evidence that it reduced the risk of transmission. We identified 23 guidance documents providing practical advice on the steps of handling the bodies: preparation, packing, and others and advice related to both the handling of the dead bodies and the use of personal protective equipment by individuals handling them. We did not identify COVID-19 evidence relevant to any of these steps.

CONCLUSION

While a substantive number of guidance documents propose specific strategies, we identified no study providing direct evidence for the effects of any of those strategies. While this review highlights major research gaps, it allows interested entities to build their own guidance.

A common framework of steps and criteria for prioritizing topics for evidence syntheses: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to systematically review the literature for proposed approaches and exercises conducted to prioritize topics or questions for systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses in any health-related area.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review. We searched Medline and CINAHL databases in addition to Cochrane website and Google Scholar. Teams of two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 31 articles reporting on 29 studies: seven proposed approaches for prioritization and 25 conducted prioritization exercises (three studies did both). The included studies addressed the following fields: clinical (n = 19; 66%), public health (n = 10; 34%), and health policy and systems (n = 8; 28%), with six studies (21%) addressing more than one field. We categorized prioritization into 11 steps clustered in 3 phases (preprioritization, prioritization, and postprioritization). Twenty-eight studies (97%) involved or proposed involving stakeholders in the priority-setting process. These 28 studies referred to twelve stakeholder categories, most frequently to health care providers (n = 24; 86%) and researchers (n = 21; 75%). A common framework of 25 prioritization criteria was derived, clustered in 10 domains.

CONCLUSION

We identified literature that addresses different aspects of prioritizing topics or questions for evidence syntheses, including prioritization steps and criteria. The identified steps and criteria can serve as a menu of options to select from, as judged appropriate to the context.

The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review

Background

The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update.

Objective

To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way.

Results

Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs.

Conclusions

This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.

Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review

Background

Patients and consumers are increasingly engaged in health policymaking, research and drug regulation. Having financial relationships with the health industry creates situations of conflicts of interest (COI) and might compromise their meaningful and unbiased participation.

Objective

To synthesize available evidence on the financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE. We selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We reported on outcomes related to financial relationships of individuals with, and/or funding of organizations by the health industry.

Results

We identified a total of 14 510 unique citations, of which 24 reports of 23 studies were eligible. Three studies (13%) addressed the financial relationship of patient and consumer representatives with the health industry. Of these, two examined the proportion of public speakers in drug regulatory processes who have financial relationships; the proportions in the two studies were 25% and 19% respectively. Twenty studies (87%) addressed funding of patient and consumer organizations. The median proportion of organizations that reported funding from the health industry was 62% (IQR: 34%‐69%) in questionnaire surveys, and 75% (IQR: 58%‐85%) in surveys of their websites. Among organizations for which there was evidence of industry funding, a median proportion of 29% (IQR: 27%‐44%) acknowledged on their websites receiving that funding.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between the health industry and patient and consumer representatives and their organizations are common and may not be disclosed. Stricter regulation on disclosure and management is needed.

Prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines: a systematic review

Background

Given the considerable efforts and resources required to develop practice guidelines, developers need to prioritize what topics and questions to address. This study aims to identify and describe prioritization approaches in the development of clinical, public health, or health systems guidelines.

Methods

We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. We included papers describing prioritization approaches in sufficient detail allowing for reproducibility. We synthesized findings in a semi-quantitative way. We followed an iterative process to develop a common framework of prioritization criteria that captures all of the criteria reported by each included study.

Results

Our search captured 33,339 unique citations out of which we identified 10 papers reporting prioritization approaches for guideline development. All of the identified approaches focused on prioritizing guideline topics but none on prioritizing recommendation questions or outcomes. The two most frequently reported steps of the development process for these approaches were reviewing the grey literature (9 out of 10, 90%) and engaging various stakeholders (9 out of 10, 90%). We derived a common framework of 20 prioritization criteria that can be used when prioritizing guideline topics. The most frequently reported criteria were the health burden of disease which was included in all of the approaches, practice variation (8 out of 10, 80%), and impact on health outcomes (7 out of 10, 70%). Two of the identified approaches stood out as being comprehensive and detailed.

Conclusions

We described 10 prioritization approaches in the development of health practice guidelines. There is a need to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the identified approaches and to develop standardized and validated priority setting tools.