Food for thought? Potential conflicts of interest in academic experts advising government and charities on dietary policies

Abstract Background A conflict of interest (CoI) can occur between public duty and private interest, in which a public official’s private-capacity interest could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities. The most tangible and commonly considered CoI are financial. However, CoI can also arise due to other types of influence including interpersonal relationships, career progression, or ideology. CoI thus exist in academia, business, government and non-governmental organisations. However, public knowledge of CoI is currently limited due to a lack of information. The mechanisms of managing potential conflicts of interest also remain unclear due to a lack of guidelines. We therefore examined the independence of academic experts and how well potential CoI are identified and addressed in four government and non-governmental organisations in the UK responsible for the development of food policy. Methods Policy analysis. We developed an analytical framework to explore CoI in high-level UK food policy advice, using four case studies. Two government policy-making bodies: Department of Health ‘Obesity Review Group’ (ORG), ‘Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’ (SACN) and two charities: ‘Action on Sugar’ (AoS), & ‘Heart of Mersey’ (HoM). Information was obtained from publicly available sources and declarations. We developed a five point ordinal scale based upon the ideology of the Nolan Principles of Public Life. Group members were individually categorised on the ordinal ConScale from “0”, (complete independence from the food and drink industry) to “4”, (employed by the food and drink industry or a representative organisation). Results CoI involving various industries have long been evident in policy making, academia and clinical practice. Suggested approaches for managing CoI could be categorised as “deny”, “describe”, or “diminish”. Declared CoI were common in the ORG and SACN. 4 out of 28 ORG members were direct industry employees. In SACN 11 out of 17 members declared industry advisory roles or industry research funding. The two charities appeared to have equally strong academic expertise but fewer conflicts. No HoM members declared CoI. 5 out of 21 AoS members declared links with industry, mainly pharmaceutical companies. We were unable to obtain information on conflicts for some individuals. Conclusions Conflicts of interest are unavoidable but potentially manageable. Government organisations responsible for policy development and implementation must institutionalize an approach to identify (disclose) and manage (mitigate or eliminate) perceived and actual CoI to improve public confidence in government decision-making relevant to food policy

Sugar-sweetened beverages coverage in the British media: an analysis of public health advocacy versus pro-industry messaging

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of media-based public health advocacy versus pro-industry messaging regarding sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic analysis to identify and examine all articles regarding SSBs published in all mainstream British print newspapers and their online news websites from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014. We initially conducted a brief literature search to develop appropriate search terms and categorisations for grouping and analysing the articles. Articles were then coded according to the publishing newspaper, article type, topic, prominence and slant (pro-SSB or anti-SSB). A contextual analysis was undertaken to examine key messages in the articles. RESULTS: We identified 374 articles published during 2014. The majority of articles (81%) suggested that SSBs are unhealthy. Messaging from experts, campaign groups and health organisations was fairly consistent about the detrimental effects of SSB on health. However, relatively few articles assessed any approaches or solutions to potentially combat the problems associated with SSBs. Only one-quarter (24%) suggested any policy change. Meanwhile, articles concerning the food industry produced consistent messages emphasising consumer choice and individual responsibility for making choices regarding SSB consumption, and promoting and advertising their products. The food industry thus often managed to avoid association with the negative press that their products were receiving. CONCLUSIONS: SSBs were frequently published in mainstream British print newspapers and their online news websites during 2014. Public health media advocacy was prominent throughout, with a growing consensus that sugary drinks are bad for people's health. However, the challenge for public health will be to mobilise supportive public opinion to help implement effective regulatory policies. Only then will our population's excess consumption of SSBs come under control

A classification scheme for OpenSTEM Labs experiments

The OpenSTEM Labs deliver authentic practical experiences to the Open University’s distance learning students in STEM subjects using real time instrumentation, data and equipment for practical enquiries over the internet. We are undertaking an eSTEeM project to understand the breadth of activities, skills and educational outcomes developed in OpenSTEM Labs experiments. In this project, a classification scheme for remote and onscreen experiments is being developed and will be used to create a database of OpenSTEM Labs experiments. The database, once populated, will help us to understand the range of experiments in our labs and will help module teams to search for existing experiments that are relevant to their needs. Several researchers have developed classification schemes for remote and onscreen laboratories. Zutin et al. (2010) classify online laboratories in terms of laboratory type (remote/ virtual/ hybrid) and experiment type (observation/ fixed/ adaptive) and Orduna et al. (2016) classify of online laboratories in five models: remote laboratories, simulations, datasets, dataset-based simulators and hybrid dataset and reality labs. Remote and online laboratory experiments have also been classified in terms of their educational outcomes. Mead and Bennett (2011) developed a framework for assessing engineering outcomes building on Bloom’s taxonomy. Brinson (2015) classified learning outcomes from remote/ onscreen laboratories using the United States ABET defined technical outcomes for Engineering Accreditation; and Feisel & Rosa (2005) developed a set of 13 learning objectives that can be used to assess the effectiveness of laboratories in distance education. This paper will review previous classification schemes for remote and online laboratories from the literature and propose a new classification scheme for OpenSTEM Labs activities that includes attributes for both laboratory types and educational outcomes

Deep Lesion Graphs in the Wild: Relationship Learning and Organization of Significant Radiology Image Findings in a Diverse Large-scale Lesion Database

Radiologists in their daily work routinely find and annotate significant abnormalities on a large number of radiology images. Such abnormalities, or lesions, have collected over years and stored in hospitals' picture archiving and communication systems. However, they are basically unsorted and lack semantic annotations like type and location. In this paper, we aim to organize and explore them by learning a deep feature representation for each lesion. A large-scale and comprehensive dataset, DeepLesion, is introduced for this task. DeepLesion contains bounding boxes and size measurements of over 32K lesions. To model their similarity relationship, we leverage multiple supervision information including types, self-supervised location coordinates and sizes. They require little manual annotation effort but describe useful attributes of the lesions. Then, a triplet network is utilized to learn lesion embeddings with a sequential sampling strategy to depict their hierarchical similarity structure. Experiments show promising qualitative and quantitative results on lesion retrieval, clustering, and classification. The learned embeddings can be further employed to build a lesion graph for various clinically useful applications. We propose algorithms for intra-patient lesion matching and missing annotation mining. Experimental results validate their effectiveness.Comment: Accepted by CVPR2018. DeepLesion url adde

Future cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check cardiovascular disease prevention programme: Microsimulation modelling using data from Liverpool, UK

Background: Aiming to contribute to prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme has been implemented across England since 2009. The programme involves cardiovascular risk stratification—at 5-year intervals—of all adults between the ages of 40 and 74 years, excluding any with preexisting vascular conditions (including CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, among others), and offers treatment to those at high risk. However, the cost-effectiveness and equity of population CVD screening is contested. This study aimed to determine whether the NHS Health Check programme is cost-effective and equitable in a city with high levels of deprivation and CVD. Methods and findings: IMPACTNCD is a dynamic stochastic microsimulation policy model, calibrated to Liverpool demographics, risk factor exposure, and CVD epidemiology. Using local and national data, as well as drawing on health and social care disease costs and health-state utilities, we modelled 5 scenarios from 2017 to 2040: Scenario (A): continuing current implementation of NHS Health Check; Scenario (B): implementation ‘targeted’ toward areas in the most deprived quintile with increased coverage and uptake; Scenario (C): ‘optimal’ implementation assuming optimal coverage, uptake, treatment, and lifestyle change; Scenario (D): scenario A combined with structural population-wide interventions targeting unhealthy diet and smoking; Scenario (E): scenario B combined with the structural interventions as above. We compared all scenarios with a counterfactual of no-NHS Health Check. Compared with no-NHS Health Check, the model estimated cumulative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (discounted £/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) to be 11,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] −270,000 to 320,000) for scenario A, 1,500 (−91,000 to 100,000) for scenario B, −2,400 (−6,500 to 5,700) for scenario C, −5,100 (−7,400 to −3,200) for scenario D, and −5,000 (−7,400 to −3,100) for scenario E. Overall, scenario A is unlikely to become cost-effective or equitable, and scenario B is likely to become cost-effective by 2040 and equitable by 2039. Scenario C is likely to become cost-effective by 2030 and cost-saving by 2040. Scenarios D and E are likely to be cost-saving by 2021 and 2023, respectively, and equitable by 2025. The main limitation of the analysis is that we explicitly modelled CVD and diabetes mellitus only. Conclusions: According to our analysis of the situation in Liverpool, current NHS Health Check implementation appears neither equitable nor cost-effective. Optimal implementation is likely to be cost-saving but not equitable, while targeted implementation is likely to be both. Adding structural policies targeting cardiovascular risk factors could substantially improve equity and generate cost savings

Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to promote healthy eating make a potentially powerful contribution to the primary prevention of non communicable diseases. It is not known whether healthy eating interventions are equally effective among all sections of the population, nor whether they narrow or widen the health gap between rich and poor. We undertook a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating to identify whether impacts differ by socioeconomic position (SEP). METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted search strategy. Retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Healthier diets were defined as the reduced intake of salt, sugar, trans-fats, saturated fat, total fat, or total calories, or increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain. Studies were only included if quantitative results were presented by a measure of SEP. Extracted data were categorised with a modified version of the "4Ps" marketing mix, expanded to 6 "Ps": "Price, Place, Product, Prescriptive, Promotion, and Person". RESULTS: Our search identified 31,887 articles. Following screening, 36 studies were included: 18 "Price" interventions, 6 "Place" interventions, 1 "Product" intervention, zero "Prescriptive" interventions, 4 "Promotion" interventions, and 18 "Person" interventions. "Price" interventions were most effective in groups with lower SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All interventions that combined taxes and subsidies consistently decreased inequalities. Conversely, interventions categorised as "Person" had a greater impact with increasing SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All four dietary counselling interventions appear likely to widen inequalities. We did not find any "Prescriptive" interventions and only one "Product" intervention that presented differential results and had no impact by SEP. More "Place" interventions were identified and none of these interventions were judged as likely to widen inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions categorised by a "6 Ps" framework show differential effects on healthy eating outcomes by SEP. "Upstream" interventions categorised as "Price" appeared to decrease inequalities, and "downstream" "Person" interventions, especially dietary counselling seemed to increase inequalities. However the vast majority of studies identified did not explore differential effects by SEP. Interventions aimed at improving population health should be routinely evaluated for differential socioeconomic impact

Pneumonia in adults - Quality standard QS110

IntroductionThis quality standard covers adults (18 years and older) with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of community acquired pneumonia. For more information see the pneumonia topic overview.Why this quality standard is neededPneumonia is an infection of the lung tissue. When a person has pneumonia the air sacs in their lungs become filled with microorganisms, fluid and inflammatory cells and their lungs are not able to work properly. Diagnosis of pneumonia is based on symptoms and signs of an acute lower respiratory tract infection, and can be confirmed by a chest X-ray showing new shadowing that is not due to any other cause (such as pulmonary oedema or infarction). The NICE guideline on pneumonia classifies pneumonia depending on the source of the infection as community acquired or hospital-acquired, which need different management strategies. Every year between 0.5% and 1% of adults in the UK will have community-acquired pneumonia. It is diagnosed in 5–12% of adults who present to GPs with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection, and 22–42% of these are admitted to hospital, where the mortality rate is between 5% and 14%. Between 1.2% and 10% of adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia are managed in an intensive care unit, and for these patients the risk of dying is over 30%. More than half of pneumonia-related deaths occur in people older than 84 years.At any time, 1.5% of hospital patients in England have a hospital-acquired respiratory infection, more than half of which are hospital-acquired pneumonia and are not associated with intubation. Hospital-acquired pneumonia is estimated to increase a hospital stay by about 8 days and has a reported mortality rate ranging from 30–70%. There are variations in clinical management and outcomes across the UK

Correction:The Health Equity and Effectiveness of Policy Options to Reduce Dietary Salt Intake in England: Policy Forecast

There is information missing from funding section of this paper. The funding section should read: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR) through a grant (SPHR-LIL-PH1-MCD) to the LiLaC collaboration between the University of Liverpool and Lancaster University. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health