Indicators to assess the functionality of clubfoot clinics in low-resource settings: a Delphi consensus approach and pilot study.

Background: This study aims to determine the indicators for assessing the functionality of clubfoot clinics in a low-resource setting. Methods: The Delphi method was employed with experienced clubfoot practitioners in Africa to rate the importance of indicators of a good clubfoot clinic. The consistency among the participants was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient. Indicators that achieved strong agreement (mean≥9 [SD <1.5]) were included in the final consensus definition. Based on the final consensus definition, a set of questions was developed to form the Functionality Assessment Clubfoot Clinic Tool (FACT). The FACT was used between February and July 2017 to assess the functionality of clinics in the Zimbabwe clubfoot programme. Results: A set of 10 indicators that includes components of five of the six building blocks of a health system-leadership, human resources, essential medical equipment, health information systems and service delivery-was produced. The most common needs identified in Zimbabwe clubfoot clinics were a standard treatment protocol, a process for surgical referrals and a process to monitor dropout of patients. Conclusions: Practitioners had good consistency in rating indicators. The consensus definition includes components of the World Health Organization building blocks of health systems. Useful information was obtained on how to improve the services in the Zimbabwe clubfoot programme

The role of open standards in catalysing knowledge transfer to deliver climate adaptive care

As climate change threatens to destroy health gains, digital health provides infrastructure that is well-placed to offer patient-centred health insights. These insights are important to advance research to explore the intersection of climate and health. We present a proposal to leverage open data standards to more seamlessly collect, exchange, and use a combination of environmental and health data to assess climate-health risks to improve patient and population outcomes.</p

Quality indicators as a tool in improving the introduction of new medicines

Quality indicators are increasingly used as a tool to achieve safe and quality clinical care, cost-effective therapy, for professional learning, remuneration, accreditation and financial incentives. A substantial number focus on drug therapy but few address the introduction of new medicines even though this is a burning issue. The objective was to describe the issues and challenges in designing and implementing a transparent indicator framework and evaluation protocol for the introduction of new medicines and to provide guidance on how to apply quality indicators in the managed entry of new medicines. Quality indicators need to be developed early to assess whether new medicines are introduced appropriately. A number of key factors need to be addressed when developing, applying and evaluating indicators including dimensions of quality, suggested testing protocols, potential data sources, key implementation factors such as intended and unintended consequences, budget impact and cost-effectiveness, assuring the involvement of the medical professions, patients and the public, and reliable and easy-to-use computerized tools for data collection and management. Transparent approaches include the need for any quality indicators developed to handle conflict of interests to enhance their validity and acceptance. The suggested framework and indicator testing protocol may be useful in assessing the applicability of indicators for new medicines and may be adapted to healthcare settings worldwide. The suggestions build on existing literature to create a field testing methodology that can be used to produce country-specific quality indicators for new medicines as well as a cross international approach to facilitate access to new medicines

Managing the environmental impact of research

The environmental impact of research increasingly needs to be taken into account in design and execution. This makes good financial sense. However, it is especially in the research world as one of the key reasons for doing health research is to improve our knowledge to improve health. Specifically, doing research in a more sustainable way allows us to generate more knowledge with the same resource. Research not only needs to be done increasingly sustainably, but the content of the research needs to direct how we promote health and deliver healthcare in more sustainable ways

The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come

The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change was established to provide an independent, global monitoring system dedicated to tracking the health dimensions of the impacts of, and the response to, climate change. The Lancet Countdown tracks 41 indicators across five domains: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; finance and economics; and public and political engagement. This report is the product of a collaboration of 27 leading academic institutions, the UN, and intergovernmental agencies from every continent. The report draws on world-class expertise from climate scientists, ecologists, mathematicians, geographers, engineers, energy, food, livestock, and transport experts, economists, social and political scientists, public health professionals, and. doctors. The Lancet Countdown’s work builds on decades of research in this field, and was first proposed in the 2015 Lancet Commission on health and climate change,1 which documented the human impacts of climate change and provided ten global recommendations to respond to this public health emergency and secure the public health benefits available (panel 1)

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation

Introduction The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of global goals for fair and sustainable health at every level: from planetary biosphere to local community. The aim is to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity, now and in the future. Sources of data The UN has established web-sites to inform the implementation of the SDGs and an Inter-Agency and Expert Group on an Indicator Framework. We have searched for independent commentaries and analysis. Areas of agreement The goals represent a framework that is scientifically robust, and widely intuitive intended to build upon the progress established by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). There is a need for system wide strategic planning to integrate the economic, social and environmental dimensions into policy and actions. Areas of controversy Many countries have yet to understand the difference between the MDGs and the SDGs, particularly their universality, the huge potential of new data methods to help with their implementation, and the systems thinking that is needed to deliver the vision. The danger is that individual goals may be prioritized without an understanding of the potential positive interactions between goals. Growing points There is an increasing understanding that sustainable development needs a paradigm shift in our understanding of the interaction between the real economy and quality of life. There would be many social, environmental and economic benefits in changing our current model. Areas timely for developing research We need to develop systems wide understanding of what supports a healthy environment and the art and science of making change

The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change.

Published onlineReviewJournal ArticleThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change is an international, multidisciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions and practitioners across the world. It follows on from the work of the 2015 Lancet Commission, which concluded that the response to climate change could be "the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century". The Lancet Countdown aims to track the health impacts of climate hazards; health resilience and adaptation; health co-benefits of climate change mitigation; economics and finance; and political and broader engagement. These focus areas form the five thematic working groups of the Lancet Countdown and represent different aspects of the complex association between health and climate change. These thematic groups will provide indicators for a global overview of health and climate change; national case studies highlighting countries leading the way or going against the trend; and engagement with a range of stakeholders. The Lancet Countdown ultimately aims to report annually on a series of indicators across these five working groups. This paper outlines the potential indicators and indicator domains to be tracked by the collaboration, with suggestions on the methodologies and datasets available to achieve this end. The proposed indicator domains require further refinement, and mark the beginning of an ongoing consultation process-from November, 2016 to early 2017-to develop these domains, identify key areas not currently covered, and change indicators where necessary. This collaboration will actively seek to engage with existing monitoring processes, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and WHO's climate and health country profiles. The indicators will also evolve over time through ongoing collaboration with experts and a range of stakeholders, and be dependent on the emergence of new evidence and knowledge. During the course of its work, the Lancet Countdown will adopt a collaborative and iterative process, which aims to complement existing initiatives, welcome engagement with new partners, and be open to developing new research projects on health and climate change.The Lancet Countdown would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for its financial and technical support—without which, this research collaboration would not be possible. While carrying out its work, the Lancet Countdown received invaluable technical advice and input from a number of individuals, including Ari Bernstein (Harvard University), Victoria Bignet (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Sarah Chaytor (University College London), Niheer Dasandi (University of Birmingham), Victor Galaz (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Janie Maxwell (University of Melbourne), Slava Mikhaylov (University College London), Neil Morisetti (University College London), Steve Pye (University College London), George Smeeton (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), Olivia Stevenson (University College London), Rebecca Taylor (University College London), and Koko Warner (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). Administrative and communications support was provided by Richard Black (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), Pete Chalkley (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit), Tom Fern (European Climate Foundation), Jack Fisher (Lancet Countdown), and Sarah Hurtes (European Climate Foundation). Researchers at Tsinghua University (YB, PG, YL, BX, JY, YY, and CY) wish to express their gratitude to the Cyrus Tang Foundation for financial support

The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment

Background: Health-care services are necessary for sustaining and improving human wellbeing, yet they have an environmental footprint that contributes to environment-related threats to human health. Previous studies have quantified the carbon emissions resulting from health care at a global level. We aimed to provide a global assessment of the wide-ranging environmental impacts of this sector. Methods: In this multiregional input-output analysis, we evaluated the contribution of health-care sectors in driving environmental damage that in turn puts human health at risk. Using a global supply-chain database containing detailed information on health-care sectors, we quantified the direct and indirect supply-chain environmental damage driven by the demand for health care. We focused on seven environmental stressors with known adverse feedback cycles: greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, air pollutants (nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide), malaria risk, reactive nitrogen in water, and scarce water use. Findings: Health care causes global environmental impacts that, depending on which indicator is considered, range between 1% and 5% of total global impacts, and are more than 5% for some national impacts. Interpretation: Enhancing health-care expenditure to mitigate negative health effects of environmental damage is often promoted by health-care practitioners. However, global supply chains that feed into the enhanced activity of health-care sectors in turn initiate adverse feedback cycles by increasing the environmental impact of health care, thus counteracting the mission of health care. Funding: Australian Research Council, National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licens