Adherence to guidance for prioritizing higher risk groups for breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Ontario Breast Screening Program: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, was deferred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a prioritization framework to resume services according to breast cancer risk was developed. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic within the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) by comparing total volumes of screening mammographic examinations and volumes of screening mammographic examinations with abnormal results before and during the pandemic, and to assess backlogs on the basis of adherence to the prioritization framework.

METHODS

A descriptive study was conducted among women aged 50 to 74 years at average risk and women aged 30 to 69 years at high risk, who participated in the OBSP. Percentage change was calculated by comparing observed monthly volumes of mammographic examinations from March 2020 to March 2021 with 2019 volumes and proportions by risk group. We plotted estimates of backlog volumes of mammographic examinations by risk group, comparing pandemic with prepandemic screening practices. Volumes of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were plotted by risk group.

RESULTS

Volumes of mammographic examinations in the OBSP showed the largest declines in April and May 2020 (> 99% decrease) and returned to prepandemic levels as of March 2021, with an accumulated backlog of 340 876 examinations. As of March 2021, prioritization had reduced the backlog volumes of screens for participants at high risk for breast cancer by 96.5% (186 v. 5469 expected) and annual rescreens for participants at average risk for breast cancer by 13.5% (62 432 v. 72 202 expected); there was a minimal decline for initial screens. Conversely, the backlog increased by 7.6% for biennial rescreens (221 674 v. 206 079 expected). More than half (59.4%) of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were for participants in the higher risk groups.

INTERPRETATION

Prioritizing screening for those at higher risk for breast cancer may increase diagnostic yield and redirect resources to minimize potential long-term harms caused by the pandemic. This further supports the clinical utility of risk-stratified cancer screening.

The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals

AIMS

To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to establish priorities for future research in diabetes and pregnancy, according to women with experience of pregnancy, and planning pregnancy, with any type of diabetes, their support networks and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

The PSP used established James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology working with women and their support networks and healthcare professionals UK-wide. Unanswered questions about the time before, during or after pregnancy with any type of diabetes were identified using an online survey and broad-level literature search. A second survey identified a shortlist of questions for final prioritisation at an online consensus development workshop.

RESULTS

There were 466 responses (32% healthcare professionals) to the initial survey, with 1161 questions, which were aggregated into 60 unanswered questions. There were 614 responses (20% healthcare professionals) to the second survey and 18 questions shortlisted for ranking at the workshop. The top 10 questions were: diabetes technology, the best test for diabetes during pregnancy, diet and lifestyle interventions for diabetes management during pregnancy, emotional and well-being needs of women with diabetes pre- to post-pregnancy, safe full-term birth, post-natal care and support needs of women, diagnosis and management late in pregnancy, prevention of other types of diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, women's labour and birth experiences and choices and improving planning pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

These research priorities provide guidance for research funders and researchers to target research in diabetes and pregnancy that will achieve greatest value and impact.

Thyroid fine-needle aspiration trends before, during, and after the lockdown: what we have learned so far from the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

Nowadays, the clinical management of thyroid nodules needs to be multi-disciplinary. In particular, the crosstalk between endocrinologists and cytopathologists is key. When FNAs are properly requested by endocrinologists for nodules characterised by relevant clinical and ultrasound features, cytopathologists play a pivotal role in the diagnostic work-up. Conversely, improper FNA requests can lead to questionable diagnostic efficiency. Recently, recommendations to delay all non-urgent diagnostic procedures, such as thyroid FNAs, to contain the spread of COVID-19 infection, have made the interplay between endocrinologists and cytopathologists even more essential. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on our practice by evaluating the total number of FNAs performed and the distribution of the Bethesda Categories before, during, and after the lockdown.

METHODS

We analysed the FNA trends before (1st January 2019 to March 13th 2020), during (March 14th to May 15th), and after (May 16th to July 7th) the lockdown.

RESULTS

Although the total number of weekly FNAs dropped from 62.1 to 23.1, our referring endocrinologists managed to prioritise patients with high-risk nodules. In fact, in the post-lockdown, the weekly proportion of benign diagnoses dropped on average by 12% and that of high-risk diagnoses increased by 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The lesson we have learned so far from this pandemic is that by applying safety protocols to avoid contagion and by increasing the threshold for FNA requests for thyroid nodules, we can continue to guarantee our services to high-risk patients even in times of a health crisis.

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan

Various patient safety interventions have been implemented since the late 1990s, but their evaluation has been lacking. To obtain basic information for prioritizing patient safety interventions, this study aimed to extract high-priority interventions in Japan and to identify the factors that influence the setting of priority. Six perspectives (contribution, dissemination, impact, cost, urgency, and priority) on 42 patient safety interventions classified into 3 levels (system, organizational, and clinical) were evaluated by Japanese experts using the Delphi technique. We examined the relationships of the levels and the perspectives on interventions with the transition of the consensus state in rounds 1 and 3. After extracting the high-priority interventions, a chi-squared test was used to examine the relationship of the levels and the impact/cost ratio with high priority. Regression models were used to examine the influence of each perspective on priority. There was a significant relationship between the level of interventions and the transition of the consensus state (p = 0.033). System-level interventions had a low probability of achieving consensus. “Human resources interventions,” “professional education and training,” “medication management/reconciliation protocols,” “pay-for performance (P4P) schemes and financing for safety,” “digital technology solutions to improve safety,” and “hand hygiene initiatives” were extracted as high-priority interventions. The level and the impact/cost ratio of interventions had no significant relationships with high priority. In the regression model, dissemination and impact had an influence on priority (β = -0.628 and 0.941, respectively; adjusted R-squared = 0.646). The influence of impact and dissemination on the priority of interventions suggests that it is important to examine the dissemination degree and impact of interventions in each country for prioritizing interventions.

NICE and Fair? Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018

The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for conducting health technology assessment (HTA) on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS). In seeking to justify its recommendations to the NHS about which technologies to fund, NICE claims to adopt two complementary ethical frameworks, one procedural-accountability for reasonableness (AfR)-and one substantive-an 'ethics of opportunity costs' (EOC) that rests primarily on the notion of allocative efficiency. This study is the first to empirically examine normative changes to NICE's approach and to analyse whether these enhance or diminish the fairness of its decision-making, as judged against these frameworks. It finds that increasing formalisation of NICE's approach and a weakening of the burden of proof laid on technologies undergoing HTA have together undermined its commitment to EOC. This implies a loss of allocative efficiency and a shift in the balance of how the interests of different NHS users are served, in favour of those who benefit directly from NICE's recommendations. These changes also weaken NICE's commitment to AfR by diminishing the publicity of its decision-making and by encouraging the adoption of rationales that cannot easily be shown to meet the relevance condition. This signals a need for either substantial reform of NICE's approach, or more accurate communication of the ethical reasoning on which it is based. The study also highlights the need for further empirical work to explore the impact of these policy changes on NICE's practice of HTA and to better understand how and why they have come about.

Health is a political choice: why conduct healthcare research? Value, importance and outcomes to policy makers

This paper offers the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) viewpoint with Qatar as a case for lasting transformation of health systems. The Qatar case study illustrates the importance of research in the development of health policy. It provides description of a series of projects that have been undertaken in relevant national areas such as autism, dementia, genomics, palliative care and patient safety. The paper discourse draws attention to investment requirement in health research systems to respond to country national health priorities and to strengthen public health policies for improving health and social outcomes by narrowing the gap between research and politics. In short, the discussion highlights the following: i) health is a human right marching towards universal health care, with research underpinning every advance in health care and quality medical services; ii) evidence-based research is emerging as a critical tool to aid policy- and decision-makers; iii) investment necessity in healthcare research/systems to enable responding to a country's national health priorities and to strengthen public health policies; and iv) need for multi-sectoral involvement of stakeholders to bridge the gap between research and politics. Finally, atypical stakeholders' engagement and bond to politics is a prerequisite to achieve healthcare objectives and policy success so as to reap the benefits of public health results.

Assessment of Physician Priorities in Delivery of Preventive Care

IMPORTANCE

Primary care physicians have limited time to discuss preventive care, but it is unknown how they prioritize recommended services.

OBJECTIVE

To understand primary care physicians' prioritization of preventive services.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This online survey was administered to primary care physicians in a large health care system from March 17 to May 12, 2017. Physicians were asked whether they prioritize preventive services and which factors contribute to their choice (5-point Likert scale). Results were analyzed from July 8, 2017, to September 19, 2019.

EXPOSURES

A 2 × 2 factorial design of 2 hypothetical patients: (1) a 50-year-old white woman with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of breast cancer; and (2) a 45-year-old black man with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer. Two visit lengths (40 minutes vs 20 minutes) were given. Each patient was eligible for at least 11 preventive services.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Physicians rated their likelihood of discussing each service during the visit and reported their top 3 priorities for patients 1 and 2. Physician choices were compared with the preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy, using a previously published mathematical model.

RESULTS

Of 241 physicians, 137 responded (57%), of whom 74 (54%) were female and 85 (62%) were younger than 50 years. Physicians agreed they prioritized preventive services (mean score, 4.27 [95% CI, 4.12-4.42] of 5.00), mostly by ability to improve quality (4.56 [95% CI, 4.44-4.68] of 5.00) or length (4.53 [95% CI, 4.40-4.66] of 5.00) of life. Physicians reported more prioritization in the 20- vs 40-minute visit, indicating that they were likely to discuss fewer services during the shorter visit (median, 5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-8] vs 11 [IQR, 9-13] preventive services for patient 1, and 4 [IQR, 3-6] vs 9 [IQR, 8-11] for patient 2). Physicians reported similar top 3 priorities for both patients: smoking cessation, hypertension control, and glycemic control for patient 1 and smoking cessation, hypertension control, and colorectal cancer screening for patient 2. Physicians' top 3 priorities did not usually include diet and exercise or weight loss (ranked in their top 3 recommendations for either patient by only 48 physicians [35%]), although these were among the 3 preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy based on the mathematical model.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey study, physicians prioritized preventive services under time constraints, but priorities did not vary across patients. Physicians did not prioritize lifestyle interventions despite large potential benefits. Future research should consider whether physicians and patients would benefit from guidance on preventive care priorities.

Applying a Constrained Optimization Portfolio Model to Aid Prioritization of Public Health Interventions in Malaysia

OBJECTIVES

Countries have constrained healthcare budgets and must prioritize new interventions depending on health goals and time frame. This situation is relevant in the sphere of national immunization programs, for which many different vaccines are proposed, budgets are limited, and efficient choices must be made in the order of vaccine introduction.

METHODS

A constrained optimization (CO) model for infectious diseases was developed in which different intervention types (prophylaxis and treatment) were combined for consideration in Malaysia. Local experts defined their priority public health issues: pneumococcal disease, dengue, hepatitis B and C, rotavirus, neonatal pertussis, and cholera. Epidemiological, cost, and effectiveness data were informed from local or regionally published literature. The model aimed to maximize quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain through the reduction of events in each of the different diseases, under budget and intervention coverage constraints. The QALY impact of the interventions was assessed over 2 periods: lifetime and 20 years. The period of investment was limited to 15 years.

RESULTS

The assessment time horizon influenced the prioritization of interventions maximizing QALY gain. The incremental health gains compared with a uninformed prioritization were large for the first 8 years and declined thereafter. Rotaviral and pneumococcal vaccines were identified as key priorities irrespective of time horizon, hepatitis B immune prophylaxis and hepatitis C treatment were priorities with the lifetime horizon, and dengue vaccination replaced these with the 20-year horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

CO modeling is a useful tool for making economically efficient decisions within public health programs for the control of infectious diseases by helping prioritize the selection of interventions to maximize health gain under annual budget constraints.

A Qualitative Exploratory Study of Norwegian OR Nurses' Patient Positioning Priorities

The purpose of patient positioning is to provide optimal surgical site exposure for surgical team members and prevent negative patient outcomes. This study explores perioperative nurses' experiences when positioning patients for surgery. We collected data using focus group interviews of 17 OR nurses in Norway and used qualitative content analysis to analyze the data. The study findings showed that perioperative nurses emphasized their most important priorities as concepts that can be categorized into three themes: leading and coordinating patient positioning, ensuring patient safety, and promoting efficient use of OR nurses' expertise. The study findings also identify a need to define formal responsibilities in patient positioning and processes for determining positioning outcomes. Perioperative leaders should verify OR nurse competence for patient positioning to help ensure continuity and safety in complex patient pathways.

Functional concerns and treatment priorities among veterans receiving VHA Primary Care Behavioral Health services

INTRODUCTION

The Primary Care-Mental Health Integration program is a component of the Veterans Health Administration's patient-centered medical home, which emphasizes comprehensive, patient-centered care. One model of primary care-mental health integration, known as Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH), positions trained behavioral health providers as members of the primary care team. Whereas patient perspectives are essential to effective patient-centered care, little empirical information exists regarding patients' goals and priorities for addressing their biopsychosocial concerns in PCBH.

METHOD

A regional mail survey of Veterans Health Administration patients was used. We collected data from 281 veterans (27% response rate) who received PCBH services in a northeastern region.

RESULTS

Respondents identified difficulty with sleep (80%), low energy/amotivation (78%), and managing stress (72%) as the most prevalent individual concerns, although the majority endorsed concerns in multiple domains of functioning. Overwhelmingly, patients who endorsed any biopsychosocial problem area reported that they did (53-93%) or would like to (56-81%) address that concern with a behavioral health provider. Respondents most frequently identified anger as a top priority for future care, followed by stress management, energy/motivation, and sleep disturbance. Whereas sample means signaled neutral or better quality of life in most individual domains, total Quality of Life Inventory scores suggested very low (32%) to average (30%) overall quality-of -life ratings for most participants.

DISCUSSION

In addition to symptom-focused PCBH assessments, providers should gather biopsychosocial data to identify and monitor functional and quality-of -life concerns and evaluate patient preferences in addressing these concerns over the course of clinical care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Artificial neural networks and risk stratification in emergency departments

Emergency departments are characterized by the need for quick diagnosis under pressure. To select the most appropriate treatment, a series of rules to support decision-making has been offered by scientific societies. The effectiveness of these rules affects the appropriateness of treatment and the hospitalization of patients. Analyzing a sample of 1844 patients and focusing on the decision to hospitalize a patient after a syncope event to prevent severe short-term outcomes, this work proposes a new algorithm based on neural networks. Artificial neural networks are a non-parametric technique with the well-known ability to generalize behaviors, and they can thus predict severe short-term outcomes with pre-selected levels of sensitivity and specificity. This innovative technique can outperform the traditional models, since it does not require a specific functional form, i.e., the data are not supposed to be distributed following a specific design. Based on our results, the innovative model can predict hospitalization with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 79%, significantly increasing the appropriateness of medical treatment and, as a result, hospital efficiency. According to Garson's Indexes, the most significant variables are exertion, the absence of symptoms, and the patient's gender. On the contrary, cardio-vascular history, hypertension, and age have the lowest impact on the determination of the subject's health status. The main application of this new technology is the adoption of smart solutions (e.g., a mobile app) to customize the stratification of patients admitted to emergency departments (ED)s after a syncope event. Indeed, the adoption of these smart solutions gives the opportunity to customize risk stratification according to the specific clinical case (i.e., the patient's health status) and the physician's decision-making process (i.e., the desired levels of sensitivity and specificity). Moreover, a decision-making process based on these smart solutions might ensure a more effective use of available resources, improving the management of syncope patients and reducing the cost of inappropriate treatment and hospitalization.

Global Evolution of Obesity Research in Children and Youths: Setting Priorities for Interventions and Policies

BACKGROUND

Childhood obesity has become a major global epidemic that causes substantial social and health burdens worldwide. The effectiveness of childhood obesity control and prevention depends largely on understanding the issue, including its current development and associated factors in a contextualized perspective.

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to gauge this kind of understanding.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Web of Science database for studies concerning child obesity published up to 2017 and analyzed the volume of publications, growth rates, impact scores, collaborations, authors, affiliations, and journals. A total of 57,444 research papers were included.

RESULTS

The three subject categories with the highest number of papers (over 3,000) were (1) nutrition and dietetics, (2) pediatrics, and (3) public, environmental, and occupational health. We found a dramatic increase in the amount of scientific literature on childhood obesity in the past one or two decades, led by scholars from the USA - ranking at the top regarding the total number of papers (23,965 papers; 30.8%) and total number of citations (859,793 citations) - and multiple Western countries where the obesity epidemic is prevalent.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the need for improving international and local research capacities and collaboration to accelerate knowledge production and translation into contextualized and effective childhood obesity prevention.

Identifying top 10 primary care research priorities from international stakeholders using a modified Delphi method

BACKGROUND

High quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers.

METHODS

We adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries.

FINDINGS

Participants identified a list of top 10 international primary care research priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities' knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants' perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring research priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

The top 10 identified research priorities have the potential to guide research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care research and practice.

Transitioning to a High-Value Health Care Model: Academic Accountability

Health care spending in the United States has increased to unprecedented levels, and these costs have broken medical providers' promise to do no harm. Medical debt is the leading contributor to U.S. personal bankruptcy, more than 50% of household foreclosures are secondary to medical debt and illness, and patients are choosing to avoid necessary care because of its cost. Evidence that the health care delivery model is contributing to patient hardship is a call to action for the profession to transition to a high-value model, one that delivers the highest health care quality and safety at the lowest personal and financial cost to patients. As such, value improvement work is being done at academic medical centers across the country. To promote measurable improvements in practice on a national scale, academic institutions need to align efforts and create a new model for collaboration, one that transcends cross-institutional competition, specialty divisions, and geographical constraints. Academic institutions are particularly accountable because of the importance of research and education in driving this transition. Investigations that elucidate effective implementation methodologies and evaluate safety outcomes data can facilitate transformation. Engaging trainees in quality improvement initiatives will instill high-value care into their practice. This article charges academic institutions to go beyond dissemination of best practice guidelines and demonstrate accountability for high-value quality improvement implementation. By effectively transitioning to a high-value health care system, medical providers will convincingly demonstrate that patients are their most important priority.

Can Judges Ration with Compassion? A Priority-Setting Rights Matrix

How should courts supervise health service resource allocation? Although practice varies widely, four broad approaches can be represented on a matrix comparing, on two axes, (a) individual-community rights and (b) substantive-procedural remedies. Examples from each compartment of the matrix are discussed and, although the community-procedural approach is recommended as a general rule, a range of other responses within the matrix may also be desirable.

[Health Statistics in Senegal: between political stakes and role playing]

INTRODUCTION

Many countries have developed disease surveillance systems to deal with epidemics, but although health information systems have existed for more than two decades, constraints and biases in data collection limit the relevance of policy decisions and strategies in the field of health, as priority has been given to education and health in developing countries. Donor support has led to the development of systems for the production of statistics, designed, among other things, to more clearly target interventions in terms of educational objectives, action and credibility and enable health systems to continue to benefit from external funding.

METHODS

We used a classical anthropology approach based on observations and in-depth interviews with local and national health system actors.

RESULTS

The aim of this article is to analyse the real effects of the production of health statistics in health care systems and to determine the relevance of these figures in the context in which they apply.

DISCUSSIONS

Health priorities defined by international organizations and technical and financial partners focus on diseases considered to be ?priorities? to the detriment of neglected diseases, which are perceived as being more important at the local level due to their impact on the already limited health systems. We describe how health actors within healthcare structures adjust and adapt to public health requirements.

Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in Global Health: Taking a Multisectoral Perspective

Good health is a function of a range of biological, environmental, behavioral, and social factors. The consumption of quality health care services is therefore only a part of how good health is produced. Although few would argue with this, the economic framework used to allocate resources to optimize population health is applied in a way that constrains the analyst and the decision maker to health care services. This approach risks missing two critical issues: 1) multiple sectors contribute to health gain and 2) the goods and services produced by the health sector can have multiple benefits besides health. We illustrate how present cost-effectiveness thresholds could result in health losses, particularly when considering health-producing interventions in other sectors or public health interventions with multisectoral outcomes. We then propose a potentially more optimal second best approach, the so-called cofinancing approach, in which the health payer could redistribute part of its budget to other sectors, where specific nonhealth interventions achieved a health gain more efficiently than the health sector's marginal productivity (opportunity cost). Likewise, other sectors would determine how much to contribute toward such an intervention, given the current marginal productivity of their budgets. Further research is certainly required to test and validate different measurement approaches and to assess the efficiency gains from cofinancing after deducting the transaction costs that would come with such cross-sectoral coordination.

Setting health priorities in a community: a case example

OBJECTIVE

To describe the methodology used in the process of setting health priorities for community intervention in a community of older adults.

METHODS

Based on the results of a health diagnosis related to active aging, a prioritization process was conceived to select the priority intervention problem. The process comprised four successive phases of problem analysis and classification: (1) grouping by level of similarity, (2) classification according to epidemiological criteria, (3) ordering by experts, and (4) application of the Hanlon method. These stages combined, in an integrated manner, the views of health team professionals, community nursing and gerontology experts, and the actual community.

RESULTS

The first stage grouped the identified problems by level of similarity, comprising a body of 19 issues for analysis. In the second stage these problems were classified by the health team members by epidemiological criteria (size, vulnerability, and transcendence). The nine most relevant problems resulting from the second stage of the process were submitted to expert analysis and the five most pertinent problems were selected. The last step identified the priority issue for intervention in this specific community with the participation of formal and informal community leaders: Low Social Interaction in Community Participation.

CONCLUSIONS

The prioritization process is a key step in health planning, enabling the identification of priority problems to intervene in a given community at a given time. There are no default formulas for selecting priority issues. It is up to each community intervention team to define its own process with different methods/techniques that allow the identification of and intervention in needs classified as priority by the community.

OBJETIVO

Descrever a metodologia utilizada no processo de estabelecimento de prioridades em saúde para intervenção comunitária, numa comunidade idosa.

MÉTODOS

Partindo dos resultados de um diagnóstico de saúde no âmbito da promoção do envelhecimento ativo, concebeu-se um processo de estabelecimento de prioridades a fim de selecionar o problema prioritário para intervenção. O processo integrou quatro etapas sucessivas de análise e classificação dos problemas: (1) agrupamento por nível de similitude, (2) classificação de acordo com critérios epidemiológicos, (3) ordenação por peritos e (4) aplicação do método de Hanlon. No decurso destas etapas, combinaram-se, de forma integrada, as perspetivas dos profissionais da equipe de saúde, de peritos em enfermagem comunitária e gerontologia e da própria comunidade.

RESULTADOS

Na primeira etapa, agruparam-se por nível de similitude os problemas identificados, constituindo-se um corpo de 19 problemas para análise. Na segunda, esses problemas foram classificados pelos elementos da equipe de saúde, mediante a aplicação de critérios de cariz epidemiológico (magnitude, vulnerabilidade e transcendência). Os nove problemas mais relevantes resultantes da operacionalização da segunda etapa do processo foram submetidos a análise por peritos, e selecionados os cinco problemas com maior pertinência de atuação. Na última etapa, com recurso à participação de líderes formais e informais da comunidade, identificou-se o problema prioritário para intervenção nessa comunidade específica: a Baixa Interação Social na Participação Comunitária.

CONCLUSÕES

O processo de estabelecimento de prioridades é uma etapa fundamental do planejamento em saúde, permitindo identificar os problemas prioritários a intervir numa determinada comunidade e num determinado momento. Não existem fórmulas predeterminadas para a seleção de problemas prioritários. Cabe a cada equipe de intervenção comunitária a definição de um processo próprio com diferentes métodos/técnicas que possibilitem a identificação e intervenção em necessidades classificadas como prioritárias pela comunidade.

SPRINTT and the involvement of stakeholders: strategy and structure

The current healthcare systems are built around the traditional paradigm of patients suffering from a single acute illness. They are, therefore, largely unprepared to face the increasing demands for health services arising from the expansion of an older population with specific medical needs related to multiple chronic disorders. As a consequence, the medical conditions of a large and growing segment of the older European population are not efficiently managed by the available healthcare services. In the context of an aging population, policy makers such as the European Commission and European Institutions, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), devote time and resources to study and accompany the need of the aging population. The EMA recognizes the importance of making sure that the needs of the Elderly are considered during development, approval, and use of new medicines, and, therefore, engages with healthcare professional organisations. The Sarcopenia and Physical Frailty in Older People: Multicomponent Intervention Strategies (SPRINTT) is the obvious result of these strategies. The present article describes the SPRINTT workpackage activities aimed at engaging the scientific discussion on the physical frailty and sarcopenia with the EMA as one of its interlocutor, acknowledging the need to collaborate on this topic to foster a productive dialogue.

Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE

Health systems that aim to secure universal patient access through a scheme of prepayments-whether through taxes, social insurance, or a combination of the two-need to make decisions on the scope of coverage that they guarantee: such tasks often falling to a priority-setting agency. This article analyzes the decision-making processes at one such agency in particular-the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-and appraises their ethical justifiability. In particular, we consider the extent to which NICE's model can be justified on the basis of Rawls's conception of "reasonableness." This test shares certain features with the well-known Accountability for Reasonableness (AfR) model but also offers an alternative to it, being concerned with how far the values used by priority-setting agencies such as NICE meet substantive conditions of reasonableness irrespective of their procedural virtues. We find that while there are areas in which NICE's processes may be improved, NICE's overall approach to evaluating health technologies and setting priorities for health-care coverage is a reasonable one, making it an exemplar for other health-care systems facing similar coverage dilemmas. In so doing we offer both a framework for analysing the ethical justifiability of NICE's processes and one that might be used to evaluate others.

Origin and Goals of the “Gender Symmetry” Workshop

This article provides a brief account of the historical background to the Gender Symmetry Workshop and describes its major goals. The Workshop is a successor to an earlier workshop co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Justice in 1998, namely the Workshop on Building Data Systems for Monitoring and Responding to Violence Against Women. Some key issues that were left unresolved in that workshop provided the rationale for holding the Gender Symmetry Workshop. The Workshop was designed to cover three topic areas: (1) a typology of violence, (2) measurement issues, and (3) women’s use of violence.

Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method

Objective: Cost-utility analysis is gaining importance as a tool for setting priorities in health care. The approach requires quality-of-life weights on a scale from 0.00 (corresponding to death) to 1.00 (corresponding to perfect health). Different methods and perspectives of the evaluators tend to give different results. Time trade-off (TTO) is the most commonly used method to elicit quality-of-life weights for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). How reliable are the results of this method, when limited to one specific perspective, as input for cost-utility analysis?

Method: Systematic literature review of empirical studies in which the TTO is elicited by the respondent on their own behalf.

Results: In 56 papers, quality-of-life weights for 102 diagnostic groups were given. Ranking of the diagnostic groups according to their quality-of-life weights had no apparent relation to severity. One specific diagnostic group was assigned quality-of-life weights ranging from 0.39 to 0.84. Altogether, 57% of respondents did not trade any life-time at all in exchange for health improvements. The distributions studied were skewed towards 1.00 and were bimodal without a central tendency. The correlation between the TTO and related methods was generally weak. Possible explanations for the poor empirical properties of the TTO are inappropriate use of the method, lack of representative samples, or that the TTO does not measure what it claims to measure.

Conclusion: In the light of these findings, the TTO elicited from the patient perspective, as currently practised, should not be used as an input for QALYs or for comparisons of diagnostic groups.

High performance in healthcare priority setting and resource allocation: A literature- and case study-based framework in the Canadian context

Priority setting and resource allocation, or PSRA, are key functions of executive teams in healthcare organizations. Yet decision-makers often base their choices on historical patterns of resource distribution or political pressures. Our aim was to provide leaders with guidance on how to improve PSRA practice, by creating organizational contexts which enable high performance. We carried out in-depth case studies of six Canadian healthcare organizations to obtain from healthcare leaders their understanding of the concept of high performance in PSRA and the factors which contribute to its achievement. Individual and group interviews were carried out (n = 62) with senior managers, middle managers and Board members. Site observations and document review were used to assist researchers in interpreting the interview data. Qualitative data were analyzed iteratively with the literature on empirical examples of PSRA practice, in order to develop a framework of high performance in PSRA. The framework consists of four domains - structures, processes, attitudes and behaviours, and outcomes - within which are 19 specific elements. The emergent themes derive from case studies in different kinds of health organizations (urban/rural, small/large) across Canada. The elements can serve as a checklist for 'high performance' in PSRA. This framework provides a means by which decision-makers in healthcare might assess their practice and identify key areas for improvement. The findings are likely generalizable, certainly within Canada but also across countries. This work constitutes, to our knowledge, the first attempt to present a full package of elements comprising high performance in health care PSRA.

Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model

Growing consensus that health research funders should align their investments with national research priorities presupposes that such national priorities exist and are just. Arguably, justice requires national health research priority-setting to promote health equity. Such a position is consistent with recommendations made by the World Health Organization and at global ministerial summits that health research should serve to reduce health inequalities between and within countries. Thus far, no specific requirements for equity-oriented research priority-setting have been described to guide policymakers. As a step towards the explication and defence of such requirements, we propose that deep inclusion is a key procedural component of equity-oriented research priority-setting. We offer a model of deep inclusion that was developed by applying concepts from work on deliberative democracy and development ethics. This model consists of three dimensions--breadth, qualitative equality, and high-quality non-elite participation. Deep inclusion is captured not only by who is invited to join a decision-making process but also by how they are involved and by when non-elite stakeholders are involved. To clarify and illustrate the proposed dimensions, we use the sustained example of health systems research. We conclude by reviewing practical challenges to achieving deep inclusion. Despite the existence of barriers to implementation, our model can help policymakers and other stakeholders design more inclusive national health research priority-setting processes and assess these processes' depth of inclusion.

Applying a global justice lens to health systems research ethics: an initial exploration

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches.

Predictive validation of modeled health technology assessment claims: lessons from NICE

The use of cost-effectiveness modeling to prioritize healthcare spending has become a key foundation of UK government policy. Although the preferred method of evaluation-cost-utility analysis-is not without its critics, it represents a standard approach that can arguably be used to assess relative value for money across a range of disease types and interventions. A key limitation of economic modeling, however, is that its conclusions hinge on the input assumptions, many of which are derived from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses that cannot be reliably linked to real-world performance of treatments in a broader clinical context. This means that spending decisions are frequently based on artificial constructs that may project costs and benefits that are significantly at odds with those that are achievable in reality. There is a clear agenda to carry out some form of predictive validation for the model claims, in order to assess not only whether the spending decisions made can be justified post hoc, but also to ensure that budgetary expenditure continues to be allocated in the most rational way. To date, however, no timely, effective system to carry out this testing has been implemented, with the consequence that there is little objective evidence as to whether the prioritization decisions made are actually living up to expectations. This article reviews two unfulfilled initiatives that have been carried out in the UK over the past 20 years, each of which had the potential to address this objective, and considers why they failed to deliver the expected outcomes.

Current research funding methods dumb down health care and rehabilitation for disabled people and aging population: a call for a change

Health care systems in Western societies are faced with two major challenges: aging populations and the growing burden of chronic conditions. This translates into more persons with disabilities and the need for more Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) services. We raise the point of how these emerging needs are faced by the actual research funding. We briefly present the results of an analysis we made about research funding by the Italian National Health Service as an interesting case study, since it relates to Italy (the financer) and the United States, where National Institutes of Health (NIH) reviewers were identified according to their classification of research topics. The topics of potentially greatest interest for aging Western societies, like chronicity, disability and rehabilitation, were among those least often funded and considered in the traditional method of financing research projects. These results could be based on those PRM peculiarities that make the specialty different from all other classical biomedical specialties, namely the bio-psycho-social approach and its specific research methodologies. Moreover, PRM researchers are spread among the different topics as usually classified, and it is probable that PRM projects are judged by non-PRM reviewers. There are at least two possible ways in which research can be better placed to meet the emerging needs of Western societies (chronicity, disability and consequently also rehabilitation). One is to create specific keywords on these topics so as to improve the match between researchers and reviewers; the second is to allocate specific funds to research in these areas. In fact, the not coherence between emerging needs and research priorities have already been periodically addressed in the past with specific "political" and/or "social" initiatives, when researchers were forced to respond to new emergencies: some historical examples include cancer or HIV and viral diseases or the recent Ebola outbreak.

Aversion to health inequalities in healthcare prioritisation: a multicriteria optimisation perspective

In this paper we discuss the prioritisation of healthcare projects where there is a concern about health inequalities, but the decision maker is reluctant to make explicit quantitative value judgements and the data systems only allow the measurement of health at an aggregate level. Our analysis begins with a standard welfare economic model of healthcare resource allocation. We show how - under the assumption that the healthcare projects under consideration have a small impact on individual health--the problem can be reformulated as one of finding a particular subset of the class of efficient solutions to an implied multicriteria optimisation problem. Algorithms for finding such solutions are readily available, and we demonstrate our approach through a worked example of treatment for clinical depression.

Impact of a national system for waitlist prioritization: the experience with NIKE and cataract surgery in Sweden

PURPOSE

  To evaluate waiting times for first-eye cataract surgery in Sweden following widespread adoption of the Nationell Indikationsmodell for Kataraktextraktion (NIKE) tool for prioritizing patients for cataract surgery.

METHODS

  Waiting times for all first-eye cataract surgeries in Sweden in 2009-2011 were identified from the Swedish National Cataract Register. Waiting times were compared according to demographic, clinical and NIKE indication group for surgery. Multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to determine factors associated with waiting times less than the 3-month Government guarantee period.

RESULTS

  There were 141,070 first-eye cataract surgeries in 2009 to 2011; an annual increase of around 6%. Over the study period, mean waiting times decreased across all NIKE groups. The proportion waiting <3 months for surgery also increased across all NIKE groups. Surgery within 3 months of waitlisting was more likely for patients with a NIKE 1 indication classification (most need for surgery), in later years, male patients, younger patients and patients with a preoperative visual acuity in the better eye worse than 6/24.

CONCLUSIONS

  Prioritizing patients for cataract surgery using NIKE reduces waiting times for those with the greatest need.

The emergence of a global right to health norm--the unresolved case of universal access to quality emergency obstetric care

BACKGROUND

The global response to HIV suggests the potential of an emergent global right to health norm, embracing shared global responsibility for health, to assist policy communities in framing the obligations of the domestic state and the international community. Our research explores the extent to which this global right to health norm has influenced the global policy process around maternal health rights, with a focus on universal access to emergency obstetric care.

METHODS

In examining the extent to which arguments stemming from a global right to health norm have been successful in advancing international policy on universal access to emergency obstetric care, we looked at the period from 1985 to 2013 period. We adopted a qualitative case study approach applying a process-tracing methodology using multiple data sources, including an extensive literature review and limited key informant interviews to analyse the international policy agenda setting process surrounding maternal health rights, focusing on emergency obstetric care. We applied John Kingdon's public policy agenda setting streams model to analyse our data.

RESULTS

Kingdon's model suggests that to succeed as a mobilising norm, the right to health could work if it can help bring the problem, policy and political streams together, as it did with access to AIDS treatment. Our analysis suggests that despite a normative grounding in the right to health, prioritisation of the specific maternal health entitlements remains fragmented.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite United Nations recognition of maternal mortality as a human rights issue, the relevant policy communities have not yet managed to shift the policy agenda to prioritise the global right to health norm of shared responsibility for realising access to emergency obstetric care. The experience of HIV advocates in pushing for global solutions based on right to health principles, including participation, solidarity and accountability; suggest potential avenues for utilising right to health based arguments to push for policy priority for universal access to emergency obstetric care in the post-2015 global agenda.

[Priority setting for the health technology assessment]

The aim of this article is to analyze the different approaches of priority setting for health technology assessments (HTA). First, the paper identifies the reasons that make necessary to establish priorities and its importance for the success of the HTA models. Second, it studies the main stages that consider the determination of priorities based on the analysis of the models currently used by HTA agencies of developed countries. In the third place, the article describes the different criteria, methods of scoring and deliberation bodies included in the mechanism of priority setting of those agencies. Finally, the paper concludes mentioning lessons from the international experience that potentially can be an input for the design of a model of priority setting for HTA in our country.

Multi-criteria decision analysis tools for prioritising emerging or re-emerging infectious diseases associated with climate change in Canada

Global climate change is known to result in the emergence or re-emergence of some infectious diseases. Reliable methods to identify the infectious diseases of humans and animals and that are most likely to be influenced by climate are therefore required. Since different priorities will affect the decision to address a particular pathogen threat, decision makers need a standardised method of prioritisation. Ranking methods and Multi-Criteria Decision approaches provide such a standardised method and were employed here to design two different pathogen prioritisation tools. The opinion of 64 experts was elicited to assess the importance of 40 criteria that could be used to prioritise emerging infectious diseases of humans and animals in Canada. A weight was calculated for each criterion according to the expert opinion. Attributes were defined for each criterion as a transparent and repeatable method of measurement. Two different Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis tools were tested, both of which used an additive aggregation approach. These were an Excel spreadsheet tool and a tool developed in software 'M-MACBETH'. The tools were trialed on nine 'test' pathogens. Two different methods of criteria weighting were compared, one using fixed weighting values, the other using probability distributions to account for uncertainty and variation in expert opinion. The ranking of the nine pathogens varied according to the weighting method that was used. In both tools, using both weighting methods, the diseases that tended to rank the highest were West Nile virus, Giardiasis and Chagas, while Coccidioidomycosis tended to rank the lowest. Both tools are a simple and user friendly approach to prioritising pathogens according to climate change by including explicit scoring of 40 criteria and incorporating weighting methods based on expert opinion. They provide a dynamic interactive method that can help to identify pathogens for which a full risk assessment should be pursued.