Explore the vast range of titles available.

To determine the extent to which the community-directed approach used in onchocerciasis control in Africa could effectively and efficiently provide integrated delivery of other health interventions. A three-year experimental study was undertaken in 35 health districts from 2005 to 2007 in seven research sites in Cameroon, Nigeria and Uganda. Four trial districts and one comparison district were randomly selected in each site. All districts had established ivermectin treatment programmes, and in the trial districts four other established interventions - vitamin A supplementation, use of insecticide-treated nets, home management of malaria and short-course, directly-observed treatment for tuberculosis patients - were progressively incorporated into a community-directed intervention (CDI) process. At the end of each of the three study years, we performed quantitative evaluations of intervention coverage and provider costs, as well as qualitative assessments of the CDI process. With the CDI strategy, significantly higher coverage was achieved than with other delivery approaches for all interventions except for short-course, directly-observed treatment. The coverage of malaria interventions more than doubled. The district-level costs of delivering all five interventions were lower in the CDI districts, but no cost difference was found at the first-line health facility level. Process evaluation showed that: (i) participatory processes were important; (ii) recurrent problems with the supply of intervention materials were a major constraint to implementation; (iii) the communities and community implementers were deeply committed to the CDI process; (iv) community implementers were more motivated by intangible incentives than by external financial incentives. The CDI strategy, which builds upon the core principles of primary health care, is an effective and efficient model for integrated delivery of appropriate health interventions at the community level in Africa.

Despite the publication of high-profile reports and promising activities in several countries, progress in mental health service development has been slow in most low-income and middle-income countries. We reviewed barriers to mental health service development through a qualitative survey of international mental health experts and leaders. Barriers include the prevailing public-health priority agenda and its effect on funding; the complexity of and resistance to decentralisation of mental health services; challenges to implementation of mental health care in primary-care settings; the low numbers and few types of workers who are trained and supervised in mental health care; and the frequent scarcity of public-health perspectives in mental health leadership. Many of the barriers to progress in improvement of mental health services can be overcome by generation of political will for the organisation of accessible and humane mental health care. Advocates for people with mental disorders will need to clarify and collaborate on their messages. Resistance to decentralisation of resources must be overcome, especially in many mental health professionals and hospital workers. Mental health investments in primary care are important but are unlikely to be sustained unless they are preceded or accompanied by the development of community mental health services, to allow for training, supervision, and continuous support for primary care workers. Mobilisation and recognition of non-formal resources in the community must be stepped up. Community members without formal professional training and people who have mental disorders and their family members, need to partake in advocacy and service delivery. Population-wide progress in access to humane mental health care will depend on substantially more attention to politics, leadership, planning, advocacy, and participation.

This book was commissioned by the Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade and Human Rights as part of the work undertaken by the Priority Public Health Conditions Knowledge Network of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health, in collaboration with 16 of the major public health programs of WHO: alcohol-related disorders, cardiovascular diseases, child health, diabetes, food safety, HIV/AIDS, maternal health, malaria, mental health, neglected tropical diseases, nutrition, oral health, sexual and reproductive health, tobacco and health, tuberculosis, and violence and injuries. In addition to this, through collaboration with the Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, and the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, 13 case studies were commissioned to examine the implementation challenges in addressing social determinants of health in low-and middle-income settings. The Priority Public Health Conditions Knowledge Network has analyzed the impact of social determinants on specific health conditions, identified possible entry-points, and explored possible interventions to improve health equity by addressing social determinants of health.

Background Patients are increasingly seen as active partners in healthcare. While patient involvement in individual clinical decisions has been extensively studied, no trial has assessed how patients can effectively be involved in collective healthcare decisions affecting the population. The goal of this study was to test the impact of involving patients in setting healthcare improvement priorities for chronic care at the community level. Methods Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial. Local communities were randomized in intervention (priority setting with patient involvement) and control sites (no patient involvement). Setting: Communities in a canadian region were required to set priorities for improving chronic disease management in primary care, from a list of 37 validated quality indicators. Intervention: Patients were consulted in writing, before participating in face-to-face deliberation with professionals. Control: Professionals established priorities among themselves, without patient involvement. Participants: A total of 172 individuals from six communities participated in the study, including 83 chronic disease patients, and 89 health professionals. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the level of agreement between patients’ and professionals’ priorities. Secondary outcomes included professionals’ intention to use the selected quality indicators, and the costs of patient involvement. Results Priorities established with patients were more aligned with core generic components of the Medical Home and Chronic Care Model, including: access to primary care, self-care support, patient participation in clinical decisions, and partnership with community organizations (p < 0.01). Priorities established by professionals alone placed more emphasis on the technical quality of single disease management. The involvement intervention fostered mutual influence between patients and professionals, which resulted in a 41% increase in agreement on common priorities (95%CI: +12% to +58%, p < 0.01). Professionals’ intention to use the selected quality indicators was similar in intervention and control sites. Patient involvement increased the costs of the prioritization process by 17%, and required 10% more time to reach consensus on common priorities. Conclusions Patient involvement can change priorities driving healthcare improvement at the population level. Future research should test the generalizability of these findings to other contexts, and assess its impact on patient care. Trial registration The Netherlands National Trial Register #NTR2496 .

The objective of the study is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritize clinical guideline (CG) questions for updating, the UpPriority tool. The development of this tool consisted of the following: (1) establishment of the working group, (2) generation of the initial version, (3) optimization of the tool (including an initial feasibility test, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, second feasibility test, external review, and pilot test), and (4) approval of the final version. A total of 87 participants including methodologists, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders contributed to the development of the UpPriority tool. The tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care. The UpPriority tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item (using a 7-point Likert scale), for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results. The UpPriority tool could be useful for standardizing prioritization processes when updating CGs and for fostering more efficient use of resources in the CG field. •Clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance and updating to maintain their trustworthiness.•CG developers may benefit from a prioritization tool to determine which clinical questions within a CG could benefit most from being updated.•The UpPriority tool is a pragmatic tool to prioritize CG questions for updating.•The UpPriority tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care.•The tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results.

Public health professionals need to become more politically astute to achieve their goals

Health research on climate change has increased substantially in recognition of the impact of climate change on human health. This research raises new ethical questions for health research priority-setting, including how to prioritize research on climate change and health versus other types of health research unrelated to climate change, and how to prioritize among different health research projects focused on climate change. In this paper, we focus on the latter. We consider whether the ethical criteria for health research priority-setting recently proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) should be used by funders when allocating resources among health research projects focused on climate change. The WHO criteria were developed in response to imbalances around who controls and sets health research agendas and who benefits from them. The four criteria for ethical research priority-setting are optimizing social value, following fair procedures, respecting special obligations and assessing risks. We first show that these criteria are relevant to priority-setting for research on climate change and health because evidence suggests that the above-mentioned imbalances may exist when allocating resources to climate change and health research. We next assess whether the four criteria can help reduce imbalances in who controls and who benefits from resource allocation to such research. Our analyses indicate that the WHO criteria can help if further specifications are included for research on climate change and health. We provide recommendations for how to further specify the criteria.

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.

•Updating strategies can be optimized with prioritization processes that help identify CGs, CG sections, CQs, or recommendations in the greatest need for updating.•We recently developed the UpPriority tool, a pragmatic tool for prioritizing CG questions for updating. The tool was based on a published methodological systematic review and a multistep process involving relevant stakeholders.•We applied the UpPriority tool to a set of CGs using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers’ experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement.•The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. We aim to 1) use the UpPriority tool to identify which clinical questions (CQs) within the clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs. We systematically assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System CG program. We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers’ experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement. We included four CGs with a total of 107 CQs on the following topics: chronic heart failure (10 CQs), inherited retinal dystrophies (39 CQs), menopause (20 CQs), and open-angle glaucoma (38 CQs). We included a total of 30 participants, most of them clinicians that were members of the original CG development groups. CQs were classified in three groups: 1) high priority (CQs prioritized for updating [16/107; 15.0%]), 2) medium priority (CQs that could be prioritized for updating [47/107; 43.9%]), and low priority (CQs that were not prioritized for updating [44/107; 41.1%]). The mean time each appraiser needed to assess the CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). Agreement among the appraisers varied among the CGs. Appraisers considered that the tool was useful. We suggest some areas for consideration when using the tool including: 1) identification of key appraisers, 2) customization of training materials, 3) establishment of priority thresholds, and 4) provision of methodological support. The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. Recruitment and training of topic experts are the main challenges when using the tool.

Objectives. We sought a better understanding of how nonprofit hospitals are fulfilling the community health needs assessment (CHNA) provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to conduct CHNAs and develop CHNA and implementation strategies reports. Methods. Through an Internet search of an estimated 179 nonprofit hospitals in Texas conducted between December 1, 2013, and January 5, 2014, we identified and reviewed 95 CHNA and implementation strategies reports. We evaluated and scored reports with specific criteria. We analyzed hospital-related and other report characteristics to understand relationships with report quality. Results. There was wide-ranging diversity in CHNA approaches and report quality. Consultant-led CHNA processes and collaboration with local health departments were associated with higher-quality reports. Conclusions. At the time of this study, the Internal Revenue Service had not yet issued the final regulations for the CHNA requirement. This provides an opportunity to strengthen the CHNA guidance for the final regulations, clarify the purpose of the assessment and planning process and reports, and better align assessment and planning activities through a public health framework.