Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

Background: Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. Methods: The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis. Results: A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Conclusion: Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change

Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue

Background: There is currently no mechanism in place outside of government to provide rapid syntheses of the best available research evidence about problems, options and/or implementation considerations related to a specific health system challenge that Canadian health system decision-makers need to address in a timely manner. A ‘rapid-response’ program could address this gap by providing access to optimally packaged, relevant and high-quality research evidence over short periods of time (i.e. days or weeks). Methods: We prepared an issue brief that describes the best available research evidence related to the problem, three broad features of a program that addresses the problem and implementation considerations. We identified systematic reviews by searching for organization-targeted implementation strategies in Health Systems Evidence (www.healthsystemsevidence.org) and drew on an existing analytical framework for how knowledge-brokering organizations can organize themselves to operationalize the program features. The issue brief was then used to inform a half-day stakeholder dialogue about whether and how to develop a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada. We thematically synthesized the deliberations. Results: We found very few relevant systematic reviews but used frameworks and examples from existing programs to 1) outline key considerations for organizing a rapid-response program,, 2) determine what can be done in timelines ranging from 3 to 10 and 30 business days, and 3) define success and measure it. The 11 dialogue participants from across Canada largely agreed with the content presented in the brief, but noted two key challenges to consider: securing stable, long-term funding and finding a way to effectively and equitably manage the expected demand. Recommendations and suggestions for next steps from dialogue participants included taking an ‘organic’ approach to developing a pan-Canadian network and including jurisdictional scans as a type of product to deliver through the program (rather than only syntheses of research evidence). Conclusions: Dialogue participants clearly signalled that there is an appetite for a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada. To ‘organically’ build such a program, we are currently engaging in efforts to build partnerships and secure funding to support the creation of a pan-Canadian network for conducting rapid syntheses for health system decision-makers in Canada. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0009-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes

A common thread weaving through the current public participation debate is the need for new approaches that emphasize two-way interaction between decision makers and the public as well as deliberation among participants. Increasingly complex decision making processes require a more informed citizenry that has weighed the evidence on the issue, discussed and debated potential decision options and arrived at a mutually agreed upon decision or at least one by which all parties can abide. We explore the recent fascination with deliberative methods for public involvement first by examining their origins within democratic theory, and then by focusing on the experiences with deliberative methods within the health sector. In doing so, we answer the following questions "What are deliberative methods and why have they become so popular? What are their potential contributions to the health sector?" We use this critical review of the literature as the basis for developing general principles that can be used to guide the design and evaluation of public involvement processes for the health-care sector in particular.Public participation Health-care decision making

"It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies

There have been calls in recent years for greater public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA). Yet the concept of public involvement is poorly articulated and little attention has been paid to the context of HTA agencies. This article investigates how public involvement is conceptualized in the HTA agency environment. Using qualitative concept analysis methods, we reviewed the HTA literature and the websites of HTA agencies and conducted semi-structured interviews with informants in Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Our analysis reveals that HTA agencies' role as bridges or boundary organizations situated at the frontier of research and policymaking causes the agencies to struggle with the idea of public involvement. The HTA community is concerned with conceptualizing public involvement in such a way as to meet scientific and methodological standards without neglecting its responsibilities to healthcare policymakers. We offer a conceptual tool for analyzing the nature of public involvement across agencies, characterizing different domains, levels of involvement, and types of publics.Canada UK Denmark Public involvement Health technology assessment

Community-based interventions for enhancing access to or consumption of fruit and vegetables (or both) among five to 18-year olds

To examine the effects of community-based interventions designed to increase fruit and vegetable access, consumption or both among five to 18-year olds

French national epidemiology of bacterial superinfections in ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients infected with COVID-19: the COVAP study

International audienceAbstract Background Description and comparison of bacterial characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) between critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19-positive, COVID + ; and non-COVID-19, COVID-. Methods Retrospective, observational, multicenter study that focused on French patients during the first wave of the pandemic (March–April 2020). Results 935 patients with identification of at least one bacteriologically proven VAP were included (including 802 COVID +). Among Gram-positive bacteria, S. aureus accounted for more than two-thirds of the bacteria involved, followed by Streptococcaceae and enterococci without difference between clinical groups regarding antibiotic resistance. Among Gram-negative bacteria, Klebsiella spp. was the most frequently observed bacterial genus in both groups, with K. oxytoca overrepresented in the COVID- group (14.3% vs . 5.3%; p < 0.05). Cotrimoxazole-resistant bacteria were over-observed in the COVID + group (18.5% vs . 6.1%; p <0.05), and after stratification for K. pneumoniae (39.6% vs . 0%; p <0.05). In contrast, overrepresentation of aminoglycoside-resistant strains was observed in the COVID- group (20% vs . 13.9%; p < 0.01). Pseudomonas sp. was more frequently isolated from COVID + VAPs (23.9% vs . 16.7%; p <0.01) but in COVID- showed more carbapenem resistance (11.1% vs . 0.8%; p <0.05) and greater resistance to at least two aminoglycosides (11.8% vs . 1.4%; p < 0.05) and to quinolones (53.6% vs . 7.0%; p <0.05). These patients were more frequently infected with multidrug-resistant bacteria than COVID + (40.1% vs . 13.8%; p < 0.01). Conclusions The present study demonstrated that the bacterial epidemiology and antibiotic resistance of VAP in COVID + is different from that of COVID- patients. These features call for further study to tailor antibiotic therapies in VAP patients