Development and testing of innovative patient resources for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD): a descriptive study

BACKGROUND: Although heart disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality the majority of patients do not access existing rehabilitation programs and patient resources are not designed to facilitate patient choice and decision-making. The objective of this study was to develop and test a series of risk factor modules and corresponding patient information leaflets for secondary prevention of CHD. METHODS: In phase one, a series of risk factor modules and management options were developed following analysis of literature and interviews with health professionals. In phase two, module information leaflets were developed using published guidelines and interviews of people with CHD. In phase three, the leaflets were tested for quality (DISCERN), readability (Flesch) and suitability (SAM) and were compared to the existing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) information leaflet. Finally, the patients assessed the leaflets for content and relevance. RESULTS: Four key risk factors identified were cholesterol, blood pressure, smoking and physical inactivity. Choice management options were selected for each risk factor and included medical consultation, intensive health professional led program, home program and self direction. Patient information needs were then identified and leaflets were developed. DISCERN quality scores were high for cholesterol (62/80), blood pressure (59/80), smoking (62/80) and physical activity (62/80), all scoring 4/5 for overall rating. The mean Flesch readability score was 75, representing "fairly easy to read", all leaflets scored in the superior category for suitability and were reported to be easy to understand, useful and motivating by persons with CHD risk factors. The developed leaflets scored higher on each assessment than the existing CR leaflets. CONCLUSION: Using a progressive three phase approach, a series of risk factor modules and information leaflets were successfully developed and tested. The leaflets will contribute to shared-decision making and empowerment for persons with CHD

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Advancing the science behind human resources for health: highlights from the Health Policy and Systems Research Reader on Human Resources for Health

Health workers are central to people-centred health systems, resilient economies and sustainable development. Given the rising importance of the health workforce, changing human resource for health (HRH) policy and practice and recent health policy and systems research (HPSR) advances, it is critical to reassess and reinvigorate the science behind HRH as part of health systems strengthening and social development more broadly. Building on the recently published Health Policy and Systems Research Reader on Human Resources for Health (the Reader), this commentary reflects on the added value of HPSR underpinning HRH. HPSR does so by strengthening the multi-disciplinary base and rigour of HRH research by (1) valuing diverse research inferences and (2) deepening research enquiry and quality. It also anchors the relevance of HRH research for HRH policy and practice by (3) broadening conceptual boundaries and (4) strengthening policy engagement. Most importantly, HPSR enables us to transform HRH from being faceless numbers or units of health producers to the heart and soul of health systems and vital change agents in our communities and societies. Health workers’ identities and motivation, daily routines and negotiations, and training and working environments are at the centre of successes and failures of health interventions, health system functioning and broader social development. Further, in an increasingly complex globalised economy, the expansion of the health sector as an arena for employment and the liberalisation of labour markets has contributed to the unprecedented movement of health workers, many or most of whom are women, not only between public and private health sectors, but also across borders. Yet, these political, human development and labour market realities are often set aside or elided altogether. Health workers’ lives and livelihoods, their contributions and commitments, and their individual and collective agency are ignored. The science of HRH, offering new discoveries and deeper understanding of how universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals are dependent on millions of health workers globally, has the potential to overcome this outdated and ineffective orthodoxy