Explore the vast range of titles available.

Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be increasing worldwide.

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4 is to reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by a third by 2030 relative to 2015 levels, and to promote mental health and wellbeing. We used data on cause-specific mortality to characterise the risk and trends in NCD mortality in each country and evaluate combinations of reductions in NCD causes of death that can achieve SDG target 3.4. Among NCDs, ischaemic heart disease is responsible for the highest risk of premature death in more than half of all countries for women, and more than three-quarters for men. However, stroke, other cardiovascular diseases, and some cancers are associated with a similar risk, and in many countries, a higher risk of premature death than ischaemic heart disease. Although premature mortality from NCDs is declining in most countries, for most the pace of change is too slow to achieve SDG target 3.4. To investigate the options available to each country for achieving SDG target 3.4, we considered different scenarios, each representing a combination of fast (annual rate achieved by the tenth best performing percentile of all countries) and average (median of all countries) declines in risk of premature death from NCDs. Pathways analysis shows that every country has options for achieving SDG target 3.4. No country could achieve the target by addressing a single disease. In at least half the countries, achieving the target requires improvements in the rate of decline in at least five causes for women and in at least seven causes for men to the same rate achieved by the tenth best performing percentile of all countries. Tobacco and alcohol control and effective health-system interventions—including hypertension and diabetes treatment; primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention in high-risk individuals; low-dose inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; treatment of acute cardiovascular diseases, diabetes complications, and exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and effective cancer screening and treatment—will reduce NCD causes of death necessary to achieve SDG target 3.4 in most countries.

The third UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) on Sept 27, 2018, will review national and global progress towards the prevention and control of NCDs, and provide an opportunity to renew, reinforce, and enhance commitments to reduce their burden. NCD Countdown 2030 is an independent collaboration to inform policies that aim to reduce the worldwide burden of NCDs, and to ensure accountability towards this aim. In 2016, an estimated 40·5 million (71%) of the 56·9 million worldwide deaths were from NCDs. Of these, an estimated 1·7 million (4% of NCD deaths) occurred in people younger than 30 years of age, 15·2 million (38%) in people aged between 30 years and 70 years, and 23·6 million (58%) in people aged 70 years and older. An estimated 32·2 million NCD deaths (80%) were due to cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes, and another 8·3 million (20%) were from other NCDs. Women in 164 (88%) and men in 165 (89%) of 186 countries and territories had a higher probability of dying before 70 years of age from an NCD than from communicable, maternal, perinatal, and nutritional conditions combined. Globally, the lowest risks of NCD mortality in 2016 were seen in high-income countries in Asia-Pacific, western Europe, and Australasia, and in Canada. The highest risks of dying from NCDs were observed in low-income and middle-income countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and, for men, in central Asia and eastern Europe. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4—a one-third reduction, relative to 2015 levels, in the probability of dying between 30 years and 70 years of age from cancers, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes by 2030—will be achieved in 35 countries (19%) for women, and 30 (16%) for men, if these countries maintain or surpass their 2010–2016 rate of decline in NCD mortality. Most of these are high-income countries with already-low NCD mortality, and countries in central and eastern Europe. An additional 50 (27%) countries for women and 35 (19%) for men are projected to achieve such a reduction in the subsequent decade, and thus, with slight acceleration of decline, could meet the 2030 target. 86 (46%) countries for women and 97 (52%) for men need implementation of policies that substantially increase the rates of decline. Mortality from the four NCDs included in SDG target 3.4 has stagnated or increased since 2010 among women in 15 (8%) countries and men in 24 (13%) countries. NCDs and age groups other than those included in the SDG target 3.4 are responsible for a higher risk of death in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Substantial reduction of NCD mortality requires policies that considerably reduce tobacco and alcohol use and blood pressure, and equitable access to efficacious and high-quality preventive and curative care for acute and chronic NCDs.

Most countries have made little progress in achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 3.4, which calls for a reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by a third from 2015 to 2030. In this Health Policy paper, we synthesise the evidence related to interventions that can reduce premature mortality from the major NCDs over the next decade and that are feasible to implement in countries at all levels of income. Our recommendations are intended as generic guidance to help 123 low-income and middle-income countries meet SDG target 3.4; country-level applications require additional analyses and consideration of the local implementation and utilisation context. Protecting current investments and scaling up these interventions is especially crucial in the context of COVID-19-related health system disruptions. We show how cost-effectiveness data and other information can be used to define locally tailored packages of interventions to accelerate rates of decline in NCD mortality. Under realistic implementation constraints, most countries could achieve (or almost achieve) the NCD target using a combination of these interventions; the greatest gains would be for cardiovascular disease mortality. Implementing the most efficient package of interventions in each world region would require, on average, an additional US$18 billion annually over 2023–30; this investment could avert 39 million deaths and generate an average net economic benefit of $2·7 trillion, or $390 per capita. Although specific clinical intervention pathways would vary across countries and regions, policies to reduce behavioural risks, such as tobacco smoking, harmful use of alcohol, and excess sodium intake, would be relevant in nearly every country, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the health gains of any locally tailored NCD package. By 2030, ministries of health would need to contribute about 20% of their budgets to high-priority NCD interventions. Our report concludes with a discussion of financing and health system implementation considerations and reflections on the NCD agenda beyond the SDG target 3.4 and beyond the SDG period.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is policy research that aims to inform priority setting and resource allocation. HTA is increasingly recognized as a useful policy tool in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is a substantial need for evidence to guide Universal Health Coverage policies, such as benefit coverage, quality improvement interventions and quality standards, all of which aim at improving the efficiency and equity of the healthcare system. The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Thailand, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), UK, are national HTA organizations providing technical support to governments in LMICs to build up their priority setting capacity. This paper draws lessons from their capacity building programs in India, Colombia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Such experiences suggest that it is not only technical capacity, for example analytical techniques for conducting economic evaluation, but also management, coordination and communication capacity that support the generation and use of HTA evidence in the respective settings. The learned lessons may help guide the development of HTA capacity in other LMICs.

To propose a tool to assist trialists in making design decisions that are consistent with their trial's stated purpose. Randomized trials have been broadly categorized as either having a pragmatic or explanatory attitude. Pragmatic trials seek to answer the question, “Does this intervention work under usual conditions?,” whereas explanatory trials are focused on the question, “Can this intervention work under ideal conditions?” Design decisions make a trial more (or less) pragmatic or explanatory, but no tool currently exists to help researchers make the best decisions possible in accordance with their trial's primary goal. During the course of two international meetings, participants with experience in clinical care, research commissioning, health care financing, trial methodology, and reporting defined and refined aspects of trial design that distinguish pragmatic attitudes from explanatory. We have developed a tool (called PRECIS) with 10 key domains and which identifies criteria to help researchers determine how pragmatic or explanatory their trial is. The assessment is summarized graphically. We believe that PRECIS is a useful first step toward a tool that can help trialists to ensure that their design decisions are consistent with the stated purpose of the trial.

Evidence-informed frameworks for cost-effective cancer prevention and management are essential for delivering equitable outcomes and tackling the growing burden of cancer in all resource settings. Evidence can help address the demand side pressures (ie, pressures exerted by people who need care) faced by economies with high, middle, and low incomes, particularly in the context of transitioning towards (or sustaining) universal health-care coverage. Strong systems, as opposed to technology-based solutions, can drive the development and implementation of evidence-informed frameworks for prevention and management of cancer in an equitable and affordable way. For this to succeed, different stakeholders—including national governments, global donors, the commercial sector, and service delivery institutions—must work together to address the growing burden of cancer across economies of low, middle, and high income.

Background Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Methods This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Discussion We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.