22 research outputs found

    Analysing livestock network data for infectious diseases control:an argument for routine data collection in emerging economies

    Get PDF
    Livestock movements are an important mechanism of infectious disease transmission. Where these are well recorded, network analysis tools have been used to successfully identify system properties, highlight vulnerabilities to transmission, and inform targeted surveillance and control. Here we highlight the main uses of network properties in understanding livestock disease epidemiology and discuss statistical approaches to infer network characteristics from biased or fragmented datasets. We use a ‘hurdle model’ approach that predicts (i) the probability of movement and (ii) the number of livestock moved to generate synthetic ‘complete’ networks of movements between administrative wards, exploiting routinely collected government movement permit data from northern Tanzania. We demonstrate that this model captures a significant amount of the observed variation. Combining the cattle movement network with a spatial between-ward contact layer, we create a multiplex, over which we simulated the spread of ‘fast’ (R0 = 3) and ‘slow’ (R0 = 1.5) pathogens, and assess the effects of random versus targeted disease control interventions (vaccination and movement ban). The targeted interventions substantially outperform those randomly implemented for both fast and slow pathogens. Our findings provide motivation to encourage routine collection and centralization of movement data to construct representative networks. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Modelling infectious disease outbreaks in humans, animals and plants: epidemic forecasting and control’. This theme issue is linked with the earlier issue ‘Modelling infectious disease outbreaks in humans, animals and plants: approaches and important themes’

    So many filters, so little time : the development of a search filter appraisal checklist

    Get PDF
    Objectives: The authors developed a tool to assess the quality of search filters designed to retrieve records for studies with specific research designs (e.g., diagnostic studies). Methods: The UK InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG), a group of experienced health care information specialists, reviewed the literature to evaluate existing search filter appraisal tools and determined that existing tools were inadequate for their needs. The group held consensus meetings to develop a new filter appraisal tool consisting of a search filter appraisal checklist and a structured abstract. ISSG members tested the final checklist using three published search filters. Results: The detailed ISSG Search Filter Appraisal Checklist captures relevance criteria and methods used to develop and test search filters. The checklist includes categorical and descriptive responses and is accompanied by a structured abstract that provides a summary of key quality features of a filter. Discussion: The checklist is a comprehensive appraisal tool that can assist health sciences librarians and others in choosing search filters. The checklist reports filter design methods and search performance measures, such as sensitivity and precision. The checklist can also aid filter developers by indicating information on core methods that should be reported to help assess filter suitability. The generalizability of the checklist for non-methods filters remains to be explored.The work of InterTASC members, including the ISSG, is funded through the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programm

    Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods

    Get PDF
    Background: In the UK and internationally there is widespread acceptance of the value of economic evaluations to inform decisions about health care  interventions. The general methods of economic evaluation of health care interventions are now well established. By contrast, approaches to social care economic evaluation are substantially less well developed. There is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about which methods to apply, and diversity in methodological practices. This makes it hard for decision makers to interpret the findings of different studies and make comparisons of value for money between different interventions evaluated using different methods. Despite previous attempts to co-ordinate methods in this area by providing guidelines (NICE, 2013, NICE, 2014), there remains considerable methodological uncertainty. NICE commissioned this scoping review to support developing a long-term strategy for how to consider social care economics in guidelines. Aims: The project aims to inform NICE on the methods available and the methods in development for use in undertaking economic evaluation of social care interventions. A further aim of the scoping review is to assess how well these methods address current methodological priorities for NICE in social care economic evaluation, and to identify gaps that the work will not address. On this basis, another aim is to provide recommendations to NICE on work required to address identified gaps in the future. Methods: A systematic review of the published literature and a survey of experts were undertaken to identify key methods used to undertake recent economic evaluations of social care interventions. Each study was assessed in terms of the key requirements for economic evaluation. Data were extracted on: the perspective of the analysis, the interventions compared, the evidence used on costs and effects, opportunity cost, uncertainty, and equity. Expert advisors commented on the findings of the review and this informed the results that were drawn from the studies. Recommendations were made to improve the conduct and reporting of studies, and areas of further research were identified. Results: Thirty social care economic evaluations were identified for review. Findings were reported on key requirements for economic evaluation comprising: the perspective of relevance to the decision maker, an evaluation comparing all relevant alternative interventions, use of all available evidence on costs and effects of relevance to the decision, analysis of whether the benefits of an intervention were greater than the forgone benefits of displaced interventions, assessment of the uncertainty associated with the decision, and exploration of the equity implications of the decision. Conclusions: Methods guidance for the economic evaluation of social care interventions needs to reflect what is feasible given the available evidence and what is appropriate for social care. A more developed evidence base is required in order to undertake economic evaluation of social care interventions. This should include undertaking primary studies where the evidence is not sufficient. Studies based on decision models and secondary evidence should be used where there is sufficient evidence available to do so. Investment in applied economic evaluations of social care interventions will support more informed recommendations and also develop research capacity in social care. Further methodological research is required to improve the way economic evaluations are undertaken in this field. This includes: agreement on the objectives of social care and the appropriate outcome measures development of cost-effectiveness threshold in social care given the agreed outcome measures how to account for costs and benefits falling on different sectors accounting for informal care equity-informative economic evaluations of social care interventions better scoping of economic evaluations application of evidence synthesis, decision modelling and expert elicitation application of value of information methods. NICE should consider these priorities in their discussions with the MRC Methodology Research Programme, to establish whether it can commission research on some or all of these areas

    Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research : An international consensus development study

    Get PDF
    STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

    Meeting the review family : exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements

    Get PDF
    Background and objectives The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the ‘traditional’ systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. Methods A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into ‘families’ based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. Results Forty‐eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. Conclusions Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects

    Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

    Get PDF
    STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

    Women going places : women and transport in a competitive environment

    No full text
    The place of women in transport planning and development has been marginal if not invisible. This has resulted in a lack of recognition of their needs and of the distributional impacts that current transport policy and directions have on women. It has also led to limited attention being paid to women and women's experiences in their use of both cars and public transport: their travel patterns and mobility issues remain largely unexplored. In addition, the current policy environment of privatisation and competition in the transport arena contributes to the exacerbation of women's disadvantaged status, and does little to encourage gender sensitivity in transport policies and practice. The thesis explores these issues with particular reference to the travel experiences of fifteen different w o m e n living in various parts of Melbourne and Victoria. It also uses material collected from a number of transport policy makers and service providers to ascertain the dimensions of the new competitive environment

    The past, the present and the future : children's services in Melbourne's western region

    No full text
    The history of children's services development in the west of Melbourne is one of ongoing challenges and constant change. It is a history which emphasises the pivotal role of women - both paid and unpaid - in establishing services at the local level, in grasping opportunities where they were perceived to exist and in striving to influence public policy at a state and federal level. This history also highlights the significance of regional organisations and processes and the primary role of local government in responding to community needs. As part of the Crow Collection's project on children's services in the western region, funded by the Reichstein Foundation, this paper presents an overview of factors influencing the development of children's services in the west of Melbourne. It also identifies areas of challenge for the future. The paper primarily focuses on developments in the field of children's services since the 1970s. By this time it had become clear that the family could no longer be viewed as a private unit, isolated from societal concern. Changes in family structure, member roles and attitudes; increased paid workforce participation by women; ethnic diversity and altering attitudes to disability, indicated that public policy initiatives were required which supported family units in their responsibilities relating to children

    Complex regional pain syndrome: An international survey of clinical practice

    Get PDF
    Background: Published guidelines promote best practice in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) treatment and management; however, these recommendations are not always applied in clinical practice. Understanding existing care internationally will help inform future patient and health professional service delivery, education initiatives and content of clinical guidelines. Methods: An e-survey was conducted in order to gain an insight into routine CRPS clinical practice. Health professionals and academics, from the field of CRPS, were recruited from an international population. Quantitative and qualitative data were elicited. Data were mapped onto a framework to identify macro-regional factors. Results: Of the 260 survey respondents, 96% (n=241) provided clinical care for people with CRPS, with academics not involved in patient care also responding. Half of respondents expressed difficulty in recognizing the symptoms of CRPS but treatment aims corresponded with published guidelines. However, a lack of resources and fragmented care were reported as barriers to early intervention. Service constraints were most frequently reported by European respondents. Five themes emerged from the qualitative data: the benefit of interdisciplinary working; the importance of symptom management; need for early diagnosis and intervention; establishing a collaborative partnership with patients; the value of education for patients and health professionals.Conclusions: Our data suggest that more work is required to raise awareness of the Budapest CRPS diagnostic criteria so as to promote early diagnosis and intervention. Future work to optimize clinical effectiveness should consider enhancing interdisciplinary service delivery that encourages a collaborative patient/clinician partnership; includes excellent patient education; and addresses modifiable patient-related factors.Significance: Health professionals expressed some level of difficulty recognizing the signs and symptoms of CRPS despite the majority of health professionals having had clinical experience exceeding 6years in the field of CRPS. More work is required to raise awareness amongst clinicians of the Budapest CRPS diagnostic criteria so as to promote early diagnosis and intervention Health professionals' treatment aims reflected the current clinical guidelines however, a lack of resources and fragmented care were frequently cited as barriers to achieving these
    corecore