Overview on Patient Centricity in Cancer Care

Successful implementation of treatment in cancer care partially depends on how patients’ perspectives are taken into account, as preferences of health care professionals and patients may differ. Objectives of this exploratory research were I) to identify patient preferences and values (PPVs) in cancer care as indicated by patient organizations (POs), II) to determine how these PPVs are captured in cancer care guidelines and III) to review how guidelines take into account these PPVs. Based on a survey developed and completed by 19 POs, a literature review was conducted to analyse how patient perspectives are incorporated in oncology treatment guidelines. Based on survey results traditional health technology assessment value propositions of oncology care, such as extended life, treatment-free remission and pain reduction, were also highly rated by POs. However, the heterogeneity of cancer PPVs were clearly reflected in the survey results. PPVs in cancer care guidelines were mostly limited to those micro-level aspects that are strictly related to health care provision, such as side-effects and comorbidities. Patient experience, emotional support and convenience of care were relatively neglected fields in the reviewed guidelines. Patient engagement was rarely presented in the guideline development phase. POs believe that patients should be encouraged to take an active role in their own care due to the heterogeneity of cancer patients and PPVs. Even if patient-centricity is a leading paradigm in cancer policy, based on our research it is not yet standard practice to include patients or POs at all appropriate levels of decision-making processes that are related to their health and well-being. Patient engagement should be an integral part of cancer care decision-making. This complexity must be reflected throughout policy making, avoiding a population level ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution

European data sources for computing burden of (potential) vaccine-preventable diseases in ageing adults

Background: To guide decision-making on immunisation programmes for ageing adults in Europe, one of the aims of the Vaccines and InfecTious diseases in the Ageing popuLation (IMI2-VITAL) project is to assess the burden of disease (BoD) of (potentially) vaccine-preventable diseases ((P)VPD). We aimed to identify the available data sources to calculate the BoD of (P)VPD in participating VITAL countries and to pinpoint data gaps. Based on epidemiological criteria and vaccine availability, we prioritized (P) VPD caused by Extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC), norovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, Staphylococcus aureus, and pneumococcal pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a survey on available data (e.g. incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), sequelae, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), etc.) among national experts from European countries, and carried out five pathogen-specific literature reviews by searching MEDLINE for peer-reviewed publications published between 2009 and 2019. Results: Morbidity and mortality data were generally available for all five diseases, while summary BoD estimates were mostly lacking. Available data were not always stratified by age and risk group, which is especially important when calculating BoD for ageing adults. AMR data were available in several countries for S. aureus and ExPEC. Conclusion: This study provides an exhaustive overview of the available data sources and data gaps for the estimation of BoD of five (P) VPD in ageing adults in the EU/EAA, which is useful to guide pathogen-specific BoD studies and contribute to calculation of (P)VPDs BoD

European data sources for computing burden of (potential) vaccine-preventable diseases in ageing adults.

Contains fulltext : 233498.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

Overview on Patient Centricity in Cancer Care

Successful implementation of treatment in cancer care partially depends on how patients' perspectives are taken into account, as preferences of health care professionals and patients may differ. Objectives of this exploratory research were (I) to identify patient preferences and values (PPVs) in cancer care as indicated by patient organizations (POs), (II) to determine how these PPVs are captured in cancer care guidelines and (III) to review how guidelines take into account these PPVs. Based on a survey developed and completed by 19 POs, a literature review was conducted to analyse how patient perspectives are incorporated in oncology treatment guidelines. Based on survey results traditional health technology assessment value propositions of oncology care, such as extended life, treatment-free remission and pain reduction, were also highly rated by POs. However, the heterogeneity of cancer PPVs were clearly reflected in the survey results. PPVs in cancer care guidelines were mostly limited to those micro-level aspects that are strictly related to health care provision, such as side-effects and comorbidities. Patient experience, emotional support and convenience of care were relatively neglected fields in the reviewed guidelines. Patient engagement was rarely presented in the guideline development phase. POs believe that patients should be encouraged to take an active role in their own care due to the heterogeneity of cancer patients and PPVs. Even if patient-centricity is a leading paradigm in cancer policy, based on our research it is not yet standard practice to include patients or POs at all appropriate levels of decision-making processes that are related to their health and well-being. Patient engagement should be an integral part of cancer care decision-making. This complexity must be reflected throughout policy making, avoiding a population level “one-size-fits-all” solution