Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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

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.

Background Growing understanding of the influence of social determinants of health (SDH) on healthcare costs and outcomes for low income populations is leading State Medicaid agencies to consider incorporating SDH into their program design. This paper explores states’ current approaches to SDH. Methods A mixed-methods approach combined a web-based survey sent through the Medicaid Medical Director Network (MMDN) listserv and semi-structured interviews conducted at the MMDN Annual Meeting in November 2017. Results Seventeen MMDs responded to the survey and 14 participated in an interview. More than half reported current collection of SDH data and all had intentions for future collection. Most commonly reported SDH screening topics were housing instability and food insecurity. In-depth interviews underscored barriers to optimal SDH approaches. Conclusion These results demonstrate that Medicaid leaders recognize the importance of SDH in improving health, health equity, and healthcare costs for the Medicaid population but challenges for sustainable implementation remain.

The prioritization of clinical practice guideline (CPG) efforts is particularly challenging for rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorders given the large number of (ultra)rare conditions and limited resources. We aimed to establish criteria for the priority-setting of CPG topics within the European Reference Network (ERN) Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism, and Congenital Anomalies (ITHACA) based on stakeholder input. Sets of priority-setting criteria for etiology-specific CPGs and shared health topic CPGs (across etiologies) were generated using a 2-phase consensus process. The first phase consisted of initial criteria generation, internal feedback from the ERN ITHACA Executive Committee and Patient Advisory Board, and stakeholder input through an open survey. The second phase consisted of a 2-round modified Delphi and consensus meeting with an expert panel consisting of patient advocates, clinicians, and methodologists. The final sets of priority-setting criteria included absence of existing guidance, high burden for affected individuals and families, and specific health risks requiring adaptation from usual care. In addition, complexity and treatment availability were included for etiology-specific CPGs and common occurrence and societal burden were included for CPGs for shared health topics. Availability and interest of clinical experts and patient organizations were considered required to produce CPGs; shared health topics addressed through dedicated CPGs need to be universal across etiologies. Aligning with stakeholder perspectives in priority-setting is required to allocate scarce resources to the development of high-priority CPGs for rare conditions. Priority-setting criteria specific to the rare condition context were identified. CPG development was considered a particular priority important for complex conditions and/or health care and where care is nonstandard. Practice variation was not selected as a priority-setting criterion. [Display omitted] •We established priority-setting criteria for European rare condition guidelines.•Complexity and need to deviate from usual care indicated guideline priority.•Practice variation and feasibility of implementation were not selected.•Priority-setting is shaped by the context and goals of guideline development.

The COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to reimagine preparedness for and responses to future pandemics.