Stakeholder views on publication bias in health services research

Objectives: While the presence of publication bias in clinical research is well documented, little is known about its role in the reporting of health services research. This paper explores stakeholder perceptions and experiences with regard to the role of publication and related biases in quantitative research relating to the quality, accessibility and organization of health services. Methods: We present findings from semi-structured interviews with those responsible for the funding, publishing and/or conduct of quantitative health services research, primarily in the UK. Additional data collection includes interviews with health care decision makers as ‘end users’ of health services research, and a focus group with patient and service user representatives. The final sample comprised 24 interviews and eight focus group participants. Results: Many study participants felt unable to say with any degree of certainty whether publication bias represents a significant problem in quantitative health services research. Participants drew broad contrasts between externally funded and peer reviewed research on the one hand, and end user funded quality improvement projects on the other, with the latter perceived as more vulnerable to selective publication and author over-claiming. Multiple study objectives, and a general acceptance of ‘mess and noise’ in the data and its interpretation was seen to reduce the importance attached to replicable estimates of effect sizes in health services research. The relative absence of external scrutiny, either from manufacturers of interventions or health system decision makers, added to this general sense of ‘low stakes’ of health services research. As a result, while many participants advocated study pre-registration and using protocols to pre-identify outcomes, others saw this as an unwarranted imposition. Conclusions: This study finds that incentives towards publication and related bias are likely to be present, but not to the same degree as in clinical research. In health services research, these were seen as being offset by other forms of ‘novelty’ bias in the reporting and publishing of research findings

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research:A meta-epidemiological study

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed

Increased plasma mannose binding lectin levels are associated with bronchiolitis obliterans after lung transplantation

Background Long-term lung allograft survival is limited by bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). Mannose binding lectin (MBL) belongs to the innate immune system, participates in complement activation, and may predispose to graft rejection. We investigated mannose binding (MBL) during cold ischemia and in tissue samples from explanted lungs with BOS, and assessed MBL and complement proteins in plasma post-lung transplantation relative to BOS staging. Methods MBL was detected by immunohistochemistry lung tissue at the time of cold ischemia and in samples with BOS. MBL was assayed in the peripheral blood of 66 lung transplant patients transplanted between 1990–2007. Results MBL localized to vasculature and basement membrane during cold ischemia and BOS. Patients further out post-lung transplant > 5 years (n = 33), had significantly lower levels of MBL in the blood compared to lung transplant patients < 5 years with BOS Op-3 (n = 17), 1738 ± 250 ng/ml vs 3198 ± 370 ng/ml, p = 0.027, and similar levels to lung transplant patients < 5 years with BOS 0 (n = 16), 1738 ± 250 ng/ml vs 1808 ± 345 ng/ml. MBL levels in all BOS 0 (n = 30) vs. all BOS Op-3 (n = 36) were 1378 ± 275 ng/ml vs. 2578 ± 390 ng/ml, p = 0.001, respectively. C3 plasma levels in BOS 0 (n = 30) vs. BOS Op-3 (n = 36) were 101 ± 19.8 mg/ml vs. 114 ± 25.2 mg/ml, p = 0.024, respectively. Conclusions MBL localizes within the lung during graft ischemia and BOS, higher levels of plasma MBL are associated with BOS Op-3 and < 5 years post-transplant, and higher level of plasma complement protein C3 was associated with BOS Op-3 clinical status. MBL may serve as a biomarker for poorer outcome post-lung transplantation

Increased plasma mannose binding lectin levels are associated with bronchiolitis obliterans after lung transplantation

Abstract Background Long-term lung allograft survival is limited by bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). Mannose binding lectin (MBL) belongs to the innate immune system, participates in complement activation, and may predispose to graft rejection. We investigated mannose binding (MBL) during cold ischemia and in tissue samples from explanted lungs with BOS, and assessed MBL and complement proteins in plasma post-lung transplantation relative to BOS staging. Methods MBL was detected by immunohistochemistry lung tissue at the time of cold ischemia and in samples with BOS. MBL was assayed in the peripheral blood of 66 lung transplant patients transplanted between 1990–2007. Results MBL localized to vasculature and basement membrane during cold ischemia and BOS. Patients further out post-lung transplant > 5 years (n = 33), had significantly lower levels of MBL in the blood compared to lung transplant patients < 5 years with BOS Op-3 (n = 17), 1738 ± 250 ng/ml vs 3198 ± 370 ng/ml, p = 0.027, and similar levels to lung transplant patients < 5 years with BOS 0 (n = 16), 1738 ± 250 ng/ml vs 1808 ± 345 ng/ml. MBL levels in all BOS 0 (n = 30) vs. all BOS Op-3 (n = 36) were 1378 ± 275 ng/ml vs. 2578 ± 390 ng/ml, p = 0.001, respectively. C3 plasma levels in BOS 0 (n = 30) vs. BOS Op-3 (n = 36) were 101 ± 19.8 mg/ml vs. 114 ± 25.2 mg/ml, p = 0.024, respectively. Conclusions MBL localizes within the lung during graft ischemia and BOS, higher levels of plasma MBL are associated with BOS Op-3 and < 5 years post-transplant, and higher level of plasma complement protein C3 was associated with BOS Op-3 clinical status. MBL may serve as a biomarker for poorer outcome post-lung transplantation

PreImplantation Trial of Histopathology In renal Allografts (PITHIA): a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Most potential kidney transplant donors in the UK are aged over 60 years, yet increasing donor age is associated with poorer graft survival and function. Urgent preimplantation kidney biopsy can identify chronic injury, and may aid selection of better 'quality' kidneys from this group. However, the impact of biopsy on transplant numbers remains unproven. The PreImplantation Trial of Histopathology In renal Allografts (PITHIA) study will assess whether the introduction of a national, 24 hours, digital histopathology service increases the number, and improves outcomes, of kidneys transplanted in the UK from older deceased donors. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PITHIA is an open, multicentre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised study, involving all UK adult kidney transplant centres. At 4-monthly intervals, a group of 4-5 randomly selected clusters (transplant centres) will be given access to remote, urgent, digital histopathology (total intervention period, 24 months). The trial has two primary end points: it is powered for an 11% increase in the proportion of primary kidney offers from deceased donors aged over 60 years that are transplanted, and a 6 mL/min increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate of recipients at 12 months post-transplant. This would equate to an additional 120 kidney transplants performed in the UK annually. Trial outcome data will be collected centrally via the UK Transplant Registry held by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) and will be analysed using mixed effects models allowing for clustering within centres and adjusting for secular trends. An accompanying economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the service to the National Health Service. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been given favourable ethical opinion by the Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee and is approved by the Health Research Authority. We will present our findings at key transplant meetings, publish results within 4 years of the trial commencing and support volunteers at renal patient groups to disseminate the trial outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11708741; Pre-results.nih

Comparing the use of direct observation, standardized patients and exit interviews in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of methods of assessing quality of primary care.

Clinical records in primary healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are often lacking or of too poor quality to accurately assess what happens during the patient consultation. We examined the most common methods for assessing healthcare workers' clinical behaviour: direct observation, standardized patients and patient/healthcare worker exit interview. The comparative feasibility, acceptability, reliability, validity and practicalities of using these methods in this setting are unclear. We systematically review and synthesize the evidence to compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of each method. We include studies in LMICs where methods have been directly compared and systematic and narrative reviews of each method. We searched several electronic databases and focused on real-life (not educational) primary healthcare encounters. The most recent update to the search for direct comparison studies was November 2019. We updated the search for systematic and narrative reviews on the standardized patient method in March 2020 and expanded it to all methods. Search strategies combined indexed terms and keywords. We searched reference lists of eligible articles and sourced additional references from relevant review articles. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved through discussion. Data were iteratively coded according to pre-defined categories and synthesized. We included 12 direct comparison studies and eight systematic and narrative reviews. We found that no method was clearly superior to the others-each has pros and cons and may assess different aspects of quality of care provision by healthcare workers. All methods require careful preparation, though the exact domain of quality assessed and ethics and selection and training of personnel are nuanced and the methods were subject to different biases. The differential strengths suggest that individual methods should be used strategically based on the research question or in combination for comprehensive global assessments of quality

Comparing the use of direct observation, standardized patients and exit interviews in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of methods of assessing quality of primary care.

Clinical records in primary healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are often lacking or of too poor quality to accurately assess what happens during the patient consultation. We examined the most common methods for assessing healthcare workers' clinical behaviour: direct observation, standardized patients and patient/healthcare worker exit interview. The comparative feasibility, acceptability, reliability, validity and practicalities of using these methods in this setting are unclear. We systematically review and synthesize the evidence to compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of each method. We include studies in LMICs where methods have been directly compared and systematic and narrative reviews of each method. We searched several electronic databases and focused on real-life (not educational) primary healthcare encounters. The most recent update to the search for direct comparison studies was November 2019. We updated the search for systematic and narrative reviews on the standardized patient method in March 2020 and expanded it to all methods. Search strategies combined indexed terms and keywords. We searched reference lists of eligible articles and sourced additional references from relevant review articles. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved through discussion. Data were iteratively coded according to pre-defined categories and synthesized. We included 12 direct comparison studies and eight systematic and narrative reviews. We found that no method was clearly superior to the others-each has pros and cons and may assess different aspects of quality of care provision by healthcare workers. All methods require careful preparation, though the exact domain of quality assessed and ethics and selection and training of personnel are nuanced and the methods were subject to different biases. The differential strengths suggest that individual methods should be used strategically based on the research question or in combination for comprehensive global assessments of quality

SARS-COV-2 antibody responses to AZD1222 vaccination in West Africa

Real-world data on vaccine-elicited neutralising antibody responses for two-dose AZD1222 in African populations are limited. We assessed baseline SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and levels of protective neutralizing antibodies prior to vaccination rollout using binding antibodies analysis coupled with pseudotyped virus neutralisation assays in two cohorts from West Africa: Nigerian healthcare workers (n = 140) and a Ghanaian community cohort (n = 527) pre and post vaccination. We found 44 and 28% of pre-vaccination participants showed IgG anti-N positivity, increasing to 59 and 39% respectively with anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG-specific antibodies. Previous IgG anti-N positivity significantly increased post two-dose neutralizing antibody titres in both populations. Serological evidence of breakthrough infection was observed in 8/49 (16%). Neutralising antibodies were observed to wane in both populations, especially in anti-N negative participants with an observed waning rate of 20% highlighting the need for a combination of additional markers to characterise previous infection. We conclude that AZD1222 is immunogenic in two independent West African cohorts with high background seroprevalence and incidence of breakthrough infection in 2021. Waning titres post second dose indicates the need for booster dosing after AZD1222 in the African setting despite hybrid immunity from previous infection

A stakeholder co-design approach for developing a community pharmacy service to enhance screening and management of atrial fibrillation

The authors would like to thank all participants in this research for their valuable input into the co-design process.Background: Community pharmacies provide a suitable setting to promote self-screening programs aimed at enhancing the early detection of atrial fibrillation (AF). Developing and implementing novel community pharmacy services (CPSs) is a complex and acknowledged challenge, which requires comprehensive planning and the participation of relevant stakeholders. Co-design processes are participatory research approaches that can enhance the development, evaluation and implementation of health services. The aim of this study was to co-design a pharmacist-led CPS aimed at enhancing self-monitoring/screening of AF. Methods: A 3-step co-design process was conducted using qualitative methods: (1) interviews and focus group with potential service users (n = 8) to identify key needs and concerns; (2) focus group with a mixed group of stakeholders (n = 8) to generate a preliminary model of the service; and (3) focus group with community pharmacy owners and managers (n = 4) to explore the feasibility and appropriateness of the model. Data were analysed qualitatively to identify themes and intersections between themes. The JeMa2 model to conceptualize pharmacybased health programs was used to build a theoretical model of the service. Results: Stakeholders delineated: a clear target population (i.e., individuals ≥65 years old, with hypertension, with or without previous AF or stroke); the components of the service (i.e., patient education; self-monitoring at home; results evaluation, referral and follow-up); and a set of circumstances that may influence the implementation of the service (e.g., quality of the service, competency of the pharmacist, inter-professional relationships, etc.). A number of strategies were recommended to enable implementation (e.g.,. endorsement by leading cardiovascular organizations, appropriate communication methods and channels between the pharmacy and the general medical practice settings, etc.). Conclusion: A novel and preliminary model of a CPS aimed at enhancing the management of AF was generated from this participatory process. This model can be used to inform decision making processes aimed at adopting and piloting of the service. It is expected the co-designed service has been adapted to suit existing needs of patients and current care practices, which, in turn, may increase the feasibility and acceptance of the service when it is implemented into a real setting.This work was funded by Covidien Pty Ltd. (Medtronic Australasia Pty Ltd) [UTS Project code: PRO16–0688], which is the company that has the rights to distribute the device Microlife BP A200 AFIB in Australia. Also, funding for this research has been provided by a UTS Chancellor’s postdoctoral fellowship awarded to the first author of this article (ID number: 2013001605)