Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 15. Disseminating and implementing guidelines

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 15(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: In this review we address strategies for the implementation of recommendations in health care. METHODS: We examined overviews of systematic reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems prepared by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We also conducted searches using PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: What should WHO do to disseminate and facilitate the uptake of recommendations? • WHO should choose strategies to implement their guidelines from among those which have been evaluated positively in the published literature on implementation research • Because the evidence base is weak and modest to moderate effects, at best, can be anticipated, WHO should promote rigorous evaluations of implementation strategies. What should be done at headquarters, by regional offices and in countries? • Adaptation and implementation of WHO guidelines should be done locally, at the national or sub-national level. • WHO headquarters and regional offices should support the development and evaluation of implementation strategies by local authorities

Women's Free-text Comments on their Quality of Life: An Exploratory Analysis from the UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trials for Early Breast Cancer.

Aims Exploratory analysis of patients' unsolicited written comments in the first 2 years of the Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trial quality of life study highlighted a potential effect of non-treatment-related problems on the ratings and interpretation of patient self-reported questionnaires. At 5 years of follow-up all eligible subjects were invited to write comments to further explore these findings.Materials and methods Using inductive qualitative methods informed by the exploratory analysis, comments were allocated to relevant themes. Key patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinical and demographic factors were collated for patients who did and did not comment at 5 years and comparisons between the groups explored.Results Of 2208 women completing baseline PROMs, 482 proffered comments from 0 to 24 months, forming nine distinct themes, including chronic conditions, life events and psychosocial concerns. At 5 years, 1041/1727 (60.3%) women contributed comments, of whom 500 randomly selected participants formed the sample for analysis. Findings revealed comorbidity, impaired physical functioning and psychosocial problems as key themes, with prevalent adverse effects from local and systemic treatments. Eight new themes emerged at 5 years, including ageing, concerns about future cancer and positive aspects of care. Women commenting were better educated, slightly older and more likely to have had chemotherapy compared with non-commenters. They had significantly worse PROM scores for global health and key quality of life domains relevant to the difficulties they revealed.Conclusions Difficult personal circumstances and other health concerns affected many women's PROM ratings at 5 years of follow-up, in addition to ongoing cancer treatment effects. Greater attention to multiple sources of distress and adversity could facilitate personalised care and aid interpretation of PROMs

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 16. Evaluation

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the last of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on evaluating guidelines and recommendations, including their quality, whether they are likely to be up-to-date, and their implementation. We also considered the role of guideline developers in undertaking evaluations that are needed to inform recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Our answers to these questions were informed by a review of instruments for evaluating guidelines, several studies of the need for updating guidelines, discussions of the pros and cons of different research designs for evaluating the implementation of guidelines, and consideration of the use of uncertainties identified in systematic reviews to set research priorities. How should the quality of guidelines or recommendations be appraised? • WHO should put into place processes to ensure that both internal and external review of guidelines is undertaken routinely. • A checklist, such as the AGREE instrument, should be used. • The checklist should be adapted and tested to ensure that it is suitable to the broad range of recommendations that WHO produces, including public health and health policy recommendations, and that it includes questions about equity and other items that are particularly important for WHO guidelines. When should guidelines or recommendations be updated? • Processes should be put into place to ensure that guidelines are monitored routinely to determine if they are in need of updating. • People who are familiar with the topic, such as Cochrane review groups, should do focused, routine searches for new research that would require revision of the guideline. • Periodic review of guidelines by experts not involved in developing the guidelines should also be considered. • Consideration should be given to establishing guideline panels that are ongoing, to facilitate routine updating, with members serving fixed periods with a rotating membership. How should the impact of guidelines or recommendations be evaluated? • WHO headquarters and regional offices should support member states and those responsible for policy decisions and implementation to evaluate the impact of their decisions and actions by providing advice regarding impact assessment, practical support and coordination of efforts. • Before-after evaluations should be used cautiously and when there are important uncertainties regarding the effects of a policy or its implementation, randomised evaluations should be used when possible. What responsibility should WHO take for ensuring that important uncertainties are addressed by future research when the evidence needed to inform recommendations is lacking? • Guideline panels should routinely identify important uncertainties and research priorities. This source of potential priorities for research should be used systematically to inform priority-setting processes for global research

The ethics of psychopharmacological research in legal minors

Research in psychopharmacology for children and adolescents is fraught with ethical problems and tensions. This has practical consequences as it leads to a paucity of the research that is essential to support the treatment of this vulnerable group. In this article, we will discuss some of the ethical issues which are relevant to such research, and explore their implications for both research and standard care. We suggest that finding a way forward requires a willingness to acknowledge and discuss the inherent conflicts between the ethical principles involved. Furthermore, in order to facilitate more, ethically sound psychopharmacology research in children and adolescents, we suggest more ethical analysis, empirical ethics research and ethics input built into psychopharmacological research design

Observations of mixed-species bird flocks at Kichwa Tembo Camp, Kenya

Mixed-species foraging flocks were studied at Kichwa Tembo Camp on the edge of the Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya between July and September 2004. Observations were made on 29 mixed-species flocks, in which 24 species participated. African Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis, Black-backed Puffback Dryoscopus cubla, Grey-backed Camaroptera Camaroptera brachyura, Collared Sunbird Hedydipna collars and Cabanis's Greenbul Phyllastrephus cabanisi were the most common participants in mixed-species flocks, as well as among the most frequently encountered bird species overall. The Black-backed Puffback was identified as the nuclear species in flocks due to their abundance and frequency with which they were followed by other species. Mixed-species flocks represent another niche dimension in this diverse bird community, but few of these species could be described as flock specialists; most of the birds observed in mixed-species flocks in this study were opportunistic attendant species, including the African Pygmy-Kingfisher Ispidina picta, not previously described as joining mixed-species flocks

Obesity, the Endocannabinoid System, and Bias Arising from Pharmaceutical Sponsorship

Previous research has shown that academic physicians conflicted by funding from the pharmaceutical industry have corrupted evidence based medicine and helped enlarge the market for drugs. Physicians made pharmaceutical-friendly statements, engaged in disease mongering, and signed biased review articles ghost-authored by corporate employees. This paper tested the hypothesis that bias affects review articles regarding rimonabant, an anti-obesity drug that blocks the central cannabinoid receptor.A MEDLINE search was performed for rimonabant review articles, limited to articles authored by USA physicians who served as consultants for the company that manufactures rimonabant. Extracted articles were examined for industry-friendly bias, identified by three methods: analysis with a validated instrument for monitoring bias in continuing medical education (CME); analysis for bias defined as statements that ran contrary to external evidence; and a tally of misrepresentations about the endocannabinoid system. Eight review articles were identified, but only three disclosed authors' financial conflicts of interest, despite easily accessible information to the contrary. The Takhar CME bias instrument demonstrated statistically significant bias in all the review articles. Biased statements that were nearly identical reappeared in the articles, including disease mongering, exaggerating rimonabant's efficacy and safety, lack of criticisms regarding rimonabant clinical trials, and speculations about surrogate markers stated as facts. Distinctive and identical misrepresentations regarding the endocannabinoid system also reappeared in articles by different authors.The findings are characteristic of bias that arises from financial conflicts of interest, and suggestive of ghostwriting by a common author. Resolutions for this scenario are proposed

A Buoyancy-Based Screen of Drosophila Larvae for Fat-Storage Mutants Reveals a Role for Sir2 in Coupling Fat Storage to Nutrient Availability

Obesity has a strong genetic component, but few of the genes that predispose to obesity are known. Genetic screens in invertebrates have the potential to identify genes and pathways that regulate the levels of stored fat, many of which are likely to be conserved in humans. To facilitate such screens, we have developed a simple buoyancy-based screening method for identifying mutant Drosophila larvae with increased levels of stored fat. Using this approach, we have identified 66 genes that when mutated increase organismal fat levels. Among these was a sirtuin family member, Sir2. Sirtuins regulate the storage and metabolism of carbohydrates and lipids by deacetylating key regulatory proteins. However, since mammalian sirtuins function in many tissues in different ways, it has been difficult to define their role in energy homeostasis accurately under normal feeding conditions. We show that knockdown of Sir2 in the larval fat body results in increased fat levels. Moreover, using genetic mosaics, we demonstrate that Sir2 restricts fat accumulation in individual cells of the fat body in a cell-autonomous manner. Consistent with this function, changes in the expression of metabolic enzymes in Sir2 mutants point to a shift away from catabolism. Surprisingly, although Sir2 is typically upregulated under conditions of starvation, Sir2 mutant larvae survive better than wild type under conditions of amino-acid starvation as long as sugars are provided. Our findings point to a Sir2-mediated pathway that activates a catabolic response to amino-acid starvation irrespective of the sugar content of the diet