Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND : International development assistance for health (DAH) quadrupled between 1990 and 2012, from US$ 5.6 billion to US$ 28.1 billion. This generates an increasing need for transparent and replicable tools that could be used to set investment priorities, monitor the distribution of funding in real time, and evaluate the impact of those investments. METHODS: In this paper we present a methodology that addresses these three challenges. We call this approach PLANET, which stands for planning, monitoring and evaluation tool. Fundamentally, PLANET is based on crowdsourcing approach to obtaining information relevant to deployment of large-scale programs. Information is contributed in real time by a diverse group of participants involved in the program delivery. FINDINGS: PLANET relies on real-time information from three levels of participants in large-scale programs: funders, managers and recipients. At each level, information is solicited to assess five key risks that are most relevant to each level of operations. The risks at the level of funders involve systematic neglect of certain areas, focus on donor's interests over that of program recipients, ineffective co-ordination between donors, questionable mechanisms of delivery and excessive loss of funding to "middle men". At the level of managers, the risks are corruption, lack of capacity and/or competence, lack of information and /or communication, undue avoidance of governmental structures / preference to non-governmental organizations and exclusion of local expertise. At the level of primary recipients, the risks are corruption, parallel operations / "verticalization", misalignment with local priorities and lack of community involvement, issues with ethics, equity and/or acceptability, and low likelihood of sustainability beyond the end of the program's implementation. INTERPRETATION: PLANET is intended as an additional tool available to policy-makers to prioritize, monitor and evaluate large-scale development programs. In this, it should complement tools such as LiST (for health care/interventions), EQUIST (for health care/interventions) and CHNRI (for health research), which also rely on information from local experts and on local context to set priorities in a transparent, user-friendly, replicable, quantifiable and specific, algorithmic-like manner. ; Published version

BACKGROUND : International development assistance for health (DAH) quadrupled between 1990 and 2012, from US$ 5.6 billion to US$ 28.1 billion. This generates an increasing need for transparent and replicable tools that could be used to set investment priorities, monitor the distribution of funding in real time, and evaluate the impact of those investments. METHODS: In this paper we present a methodology that addresses these three challenges. We call this approach PLANET, which stands for planning, monitoring and evaluation tool. Fundamentally, PLANET is based on crowdsourcing approach to obtaining information relevant to deployment of large-scale programs. Information is contributed in real time by a diverse group of participants involved in the program delivery. FINDINGS: PLANET relies on real-time information from three levels of participants in large-scale programs: funders, managers and recipients. At each level, information is solicited to assess five key risks that are most relevant to each level of operations. The risks at the level of funders involve systematic neglect of certain areas, focus on donor's interests over that of program recipients, ineffective co-ordination between donors, questionable mechanisms of delivery and excessive loss of funding to "middle men". At the level of managers, the risks are corruption, lack of capacity and/or competence, lack of information and /or communication, undue avoidance of governmental structures / preference to non-governmental organizations and exclusion of local expertise. At the level of primary recipients, the risks are corruption, parallel operations / "verticalization", misalignment with local priorities and lack of community involvement, issues with ethics, equity and/or acceptability, and low likelihood of sustainability beyond the end of the program's implementation. INTERPRETATION: PLANET is intended as an additional tool available to policy-makers to prioritize, monitor and evaluate large-scale development programs. In this, it should complement tools such as LiST (for health care/interventions), EQUIST (for health care/interventions) and CHNRI (for health research), which also rely on information from local experts and on local context to set priorities in a transparent, user-friendly, replicable, quantifiable and specific, algorithmic-like manner. ; Published version

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) involves important decision making about future medical needs. The high-volume and disparate nature of ACP research makes it difficult to grasp the evidence and derive clear policy lessons for policymakers and clinicians. Aim: The aim of this study was to synthesize ACP research evidence and identify relevant contextual elements, program features, implementation principles, and impacted outcomes to inform policy and practice. Design: An overview of systematic reviews using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions was performed. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews) tool. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, Global Health, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for ACP-related research from inception of each database to April 2017. Searches were supplemented with gray literature and manual searches. Eighty systematic reviews, covering over 1660 original articles, were included in the analysis. Results: Legislations, institutional policies, and cultural factors influence ACP development. Positive perceptions toward ACP do not necessarily translate into more end-of-life conversations. Many factors related to patients' and providers' attitudes, and perceptions toward life and mortality influence ACP implementation, decision making, and completion. Limited, low-quality evidence points to several ACP benefits, such as improved end-of-life communication, documentation of care preferences, dying in preferred place, and health care savings. Recurring features that make ACP programs effective include repeated and interactive discussion sessions, decision aids, and interventions targeting multiple stakeholders. Conclusions: Preliminary evidence highlights several elements that influence the ACP process and provides a variety of features that could support successful, effective, and sustainable ACP implementation. However, this evidence is compartmentalized and limited. Further studies evaluating ACP as a unified program and assessing the impact of ACP for different populations, settings, and contexts are needed to develop programs that are able to unleash ACP's full potential. ; MOH (Min. of Health, S'pore) ; Published version

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) involves important decision making about future medical needs. The high-volume and disparate nature of ACP research makes it difficult to grasp the evidence and derive clear policy lessons for policymakers and clinicians. Aim: The aim of this study was to synthesize ACP research evidence and identify relevant contextual elements, program features, implementation principles, and impacted outcomes to inform policy and practice. Design: An overview of systematic reviews using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions was performed. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews) tool. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, Global Health, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for ACP-related research from inception of each database to April 2017. Searches were supplemented with gray literature and manual searches. Eighty systematic reviews, covering over 1660 original articles, were included in the analysis. Results: Legislations, institutional policies, and cultural factors influence ACP development. Positive perceptions toward ACP do not necessarily translate into more end-of-life conversations. Many factors related to patients' and providers' attitudes, and perceptions toward life and mortality influence ACP implementation, decision making, and completion. Limited, low-quality evidence points to several ACP benefits, such as improved end-of-life communication, documentation of care preferences, dying in preferred place, and health care savings. Recurring features that make ACP programs effective include repeated and interactive discussion sessions, decision aids, and interventions targeting multiple stakeholders. Conclusions: Preliminary evidence highlights several elements that influence the ACP process and provides a variety of features that could support successful, effective, and sustainable ACP implementation. However, this evidence is compartmentalized and limited. Further studies evaluating ACP as a unified program and assessing the impact of ACP for different populations, settings, and contexts are needed to develop programs that are able to unleash ACP's full potential. ; MOH (Min. of Health, S'pore) ; Published version

Background: Virtual patients are interactive digital simulations of clinical scenarios for the purpose of health professions education. There is no current collated evidence on the effectiveness of this form of education. Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual patients compared with traditional education, blended with traditional education, compared with other types of digital education, and design variants of virtual patients in health professions education. The outcomes of interest were knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. Methods: We performed a systematic review on the effectiveness of virtual patient simulations in pre- and postregistration health professions education following Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 databases from the year 1990 up to September 2018. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized trials. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and then compared the information in pairs. We contacted study authors for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. Results: A total of 51 trials involving 4696 participants met our inclusion criteria. Furthermore, 25 studies compared virtual patients with traditional education, 11 studies investigated virtual patients as blended learning, 5 studies compared virtual patients with different forms of digital education, and 10 studies compared different design variants. The pooled analysis of studies comparing the effect of virtual patients to traditional education showed similar results for knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.39, I-2=74%, n=927) and favored virtual patients for skills (SMD=0.90, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, I-2=88%, n=897). Studies measuring attitudes and satisfaction predominantly used surveys with item-by-item comparison. Trials comparing virtual patients with different forms of digital education and design variants were not numerous enough to give clear recommendations. Several methodological limitations in the included studies and heterogeneity contributed to a generally low quality of evidence. Conclusions: Low to modest and mixed evidence suggests that when compared with traditional education, virtual patients can more effectively improve skills, and at least as effectively improve knowledge. The skills that improved were clinical reasoning, procedural skills, and a mix of procedural and team skills. We found evidence of effectiveness in both high-income and low-and middle-income countries, demonstrating the global applicability of virtual patients. Further research should explore the utility of different design variants of virtual patients.

Background: Several local attempts to introduce integrated care in the English National Health Service have been tried, with limited success. The Northwest London Integrated Care Pilot attempts to improve the quality of care of the elderly and people with diabetes by providing a novel integration process across primary, secondary and social care organisations. It involves predictive risk modelling, care planning, multidisciplinary management of complex cases and an information technology tool to support information sharing. This paper sets out the evaluation approach adopted to measure its effect.Study design: We present a mixed methods evaluation methodology. It includes a quantitative approach measuring changes in service utilization, costs, clinical outcomes and quality of care using routine primary and secondary data sources. It also contains a qualitative component, involving observations, interviews and focus groups with patients and professionals, to understand participant experiences and to understand the pilot within the national policy context.Theory and discussion: This study considers the complexity of evaluating a large, multi-organisational intervention in a changing healthcare economy. We locate the evaluation within the theory of evaluation of complex interventions. We present the specific challenges faced by evaluating an intervention of this sort, and the responses made to mitigate against them.Conclusions: We hope this broad, dynamic and responsive evaluation will allow us to clarify the contribution of the pilot, and provide a potential model for evaluation of other similar interventions. Because of the priority given to the integrated agenda by governments internationally, the need to develop and improve strong evaluation methodologies remains strikingly important

Background: Several local attempts to introduce integrated care in the English National Health Service have been tried, with limited success. The Northwest London Integrated Care Pilot attempts to improve the quality of care of the elderly and people with diabetes by providing a novel integration process across primary, secondary and social care organisations. It involves predictive risk modelling, care planning, multidisciplinary management of complex cases and an information technology tool to support information sharing. This paper sets out the evaluation approach adopted to measure its effect. Study design: We present a mixed methods evaluation methodology. It includes a quantitative approach measuring changes in service utilization, costs, clinical outcomes and quality of care using routine primary and secondary data sources. It also contains a qualitative component, involving observations, interviews and focus groups with patients and professionals, to understand participant experiences and to understand the pilot within the national policy context. Theory and discussion: This study considers the complexity of evaluating a large, multi-organisational intervention in a changing healthcare economy. We locate the evaluation within the theory of evaluation of complex interventions. We present the specific challenges faced by evaluating an intervention of this sort, and the responses made to mitigate against them. Conclusions: We hope this broad, dynamic and responsive evaluation will allow us to clarify the contribution of the pilot, and provide a potential model for evaluation of other similar interventions. Because of the priority given to the integrated agenda by governments internationally, the need to develop and improve strong evaluation methodologies remains strikingly important. ; The evaluation of the NWL ICP is funded by the Imperial College Healthcare Charity.

Background: China is increasingly facing the challenge of control of the growing burden of non-communicable diseases. We assessed the epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia in China between 1990, and 2010, to improve estimates of the burden of disease, analyse time trends, and inform health policy decisions relevant to China's rapidly ageing population. Methods: In our systematic review we searched for reports of Alzheimer's disease or dementia in China, published in Chinese and English between 1990 and 2010. We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and PubMed databases. Two investigators independently assessed case definitions of Alzheimer's disease and dementia: we excluded studies that did not use internationally accepted case definitions. We also excluded reviews and viewpoints, studies with no numerical estimates, and studies not done in mainland China. We used Poisson regression and UN demographic data to estimate the prevalence (in nine age groups), incidence, and standardised mortality ratio of dementia and its subtypes in China in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Findings: Our search returned 12 642 reports, of which 89 met the inclusion criteria (75 assessed prevalence, 13 incidence, and nine mortality). In total, the included studies had 340 247 participants, in which 6357 cases of Alzheimer's disease were recorded. 254 367 people were assessed for other forms of dementia, of whom 3543 had vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, or Lewy body dementia. In 1990 the prevalence of all forms of dementia was 1·8% (95% CI 0·0-44·4) at 65-69 years, and 42·1% (0·0-88·9) at age 95-99 years. In 2010 prevalence was 2·6% (0·0-28·2) at age 65-69 years and 60·5% (39·7-81·3) at age 95-99 years. The number of people with dementia in China was 3·68 million (95% CI 2·22-5·14) in 1990, 5·62 million (4·42-6·82) in 2000, and 9·19 million (5·92-12·48) in 2010. In the same period, the number of people with Alzheimer's disease was 1·93 million (1·15- 2·71) in 1990, 3·71 million (2·84-4·58) people in 2000, and 5·69 million (3·85-7·53) in 2010. The incidence of dementia was 9·87 cases per 1000 person-years, that of Alzheimer's disease was 6·25 cases per 1000 person-years, that of vascular dementia was 2·42 cases per 1000 person-years, and that of other rare forms of dementia was 0·46 cases per 1000 person-years. We retrieved mortality data for 1032 people with dementia and 20 157 healthy controls, who were followed up for 3-7 years. The median standardised mortality ratio was 1·94:1 (IQR 1·74-2·45). Interpretation: Our analysis suggests that previous estimates of dementia burden, based on smaller datasets, might have underestimated the burden of dementia in China. The burden of dementia seems to be increasing faster than is generally assumed by the international health community. Rapid and effective government responses are needed to tackle dementia in low-income and middle-income countries. Funding: Nossal Institute of Global Health (University of Melbourne, Australia), the National 12th Five-Year Major Projects of China, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia-China Exchange Fellowship, Importation and Development of High-Calibre Talents Project of Beijing Municipal Institutions, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

WOS: 000393031600001 ; PubMed ID: 27939304 ; Background: The potential for global collaborations to better inform public health policy regarding major non-hypercholesterolaemia (FH), a common genetic disorder associated with premature cardiovascular disease, is yet to be reliably ascertained using similar approaches. The European Atherosclerosis Society FH Studies Collaboration (EAS FHSC) is a new initiative of international stakeholders which will help establish a global FH registry to generate large-scale, robust data on the burden of FH worldwide. Methods: The EAS FHSC will maximise the potential exploitation of currently available and future FH data (retrospective and prospective) by bringing together regional/national/international data sources with access to individuals with a clinical and/or genetic diagnosis of heterozygous or homozygous FH. A novel bespoke electronic platform and FH Data Warehouse will be developed to allow secure data sharing, validation, cleaning, pooling, harmonisation and analysis irrespective of the source or format. Standard statistical procedures will allow us to investigate cross-sectional associations, patterns of real-world practice, trends over time, and analyse risk and outcomes (e.g. cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause death), accounting for potential confounders and subgroup effects. Conclusions: The EAS FHSC represents an excellent opportunity to integrate individual efforts across the world to tackle the global burden of FH. The information garnered from the registry will help reduce gaps in knowledge, inform best practices, assist in clinical trials design, support clinical guidelines and policies development, and ultimately improve the care of FH patients. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. ; Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning Change [16157823]; AmgenAmgen; MSD; Sanofi-AventisSanofi-Aventis; Latvian State Research Programme BIOMEDICINE; Czech RepublicCzech Republic Government [MZ CR AZV 15-28277A, 16-29084A] ; The present project has received support from a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change 2014 (No: 16157823) and from investigator initiated unrestricted research grants to the European Atherosclerosis Society from Amgen, MSD, and Sanofi-Aventis. The project in Latvia was supported by the Latvian State Research Programme BIOMEDICINE. The project in Czech Republic was partly supported by grants MZ CR AZV 15-28277A and 16-29084A.

WOS: 000445908000037 ; PubMed ID: 30270054 ; Background and aims: Management of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) may vary across different settings due to factors related to population characteristics, practice, resources and/or policies. We conducted a survey among the worldwide network of EAS FHSC Lead Investigators to provide an overview of FH status in different countries. Methods: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management. Results: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in similar to 2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in similar to 60% countries, although access is limited. Conclusions: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed. ; Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning Change 2014 [16157823]; AmgenAmgen; MSD; Sanofi-AventisSanofi-Aventis ; The EAS FHSC project has received support from a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change 2014 (No: 16157823) and from investigator-initiated unrestricted research grants to the European Atherosclerosis Society from Amgen, MSD, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Background and aims: Management of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) may vary across different settings due to factors related to population characteristics, practice, resources and/or policies. We conducted a survey among the worldwide network of EAS FHSC Lead Investigators to provide an overview of FH status in different countries. Methods: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management. Results: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in similar to 2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in similar to 60% countries, although access is limited. Conclusions: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed.