Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: ‘expertise or experience’, ‘ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group’, ‘inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)’, ‘communication skills’, ‘commitment and time capacity’, ‘financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest’, ‘training support and funding needs’. Additionally, three factors are desirable: ‘influence’, ‘research relevant values’, ‘previous stakeholder engagement’. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w

Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim guidelines for reporting health equity in observational studies

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes

Impulsiveness, postprandial blood glucose and glucoregulation affect measures of behavioral flexibility

Behavioral flexibility (BF) performance is influenced by both psychological and physiological factors. Recent evidence suggests that impulsivity and blood glucose can affect executive function, of which BF is a subdomain. Here, we hypothesized that impulsivity, fasting blood glucose (FBG), glucose changes (i.e. glucoregulation) from postprandial blood glucose (PBG) following the intake of a 15g glucose beverage could account for variability in BF performance. The Stroop Color-Word Test and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) were used as measures of BF, and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) to quantify participants’ impulsivity. In Study 1, neither impulsivity nor FBG could predict performance on the Stroop or the WCST. In Study 2, we tested whether blood glucose levels following the intake of a sugary drink, and absolute changes in glucose levels following the intake of the glucose beverage could better predict BF. Results showed that impulsivity and the difference in blood glucose between time 1 (postprandial) and time 2, but not blood glucose levels at time 2 per se could account for variation in performance on the WCST but not on the Stroop task. More specifically, lower impulsivity scores on the BIS-11, and smaller differences in blood glucose levels from time 1 to time 2 predicted a decrease in the number of total and perseverative errors on the WCST. Our results show that measures of impulsivity and glucoregulation can be used to predict BF. Importantly our data extend the work on glucose and cognition to a clinically relevant domain of cognition

Increased Fitness of Rice Plants to Abiotic Stress Via Habitat Adapted Symbiosis: A Strategy for Mitigating Impacts of Climate Change

Climate change and catastrophic events have contributed to rice shortages in several regions due to decreased water availability and soil salinization. Although not adapted to salt or drought stress, two commercial rice varieties achieved tolerance to these stresses by colonizing them with Class 2 fungal endophytes isolated from plants growing across moisture and salinity gradients

Development of an amplicon-based sequencing approach in response to the global emergence of mpox

The 2022 multicountry mpox outbreak concurrent with the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic further highlighted the need for genomic surveillance and rapid pathogen whole-genome sequencing. While metagenomic sequencing approaches have been used to sequence many of the early mpox infections, these methods are resource intensive and require samples with high viral DNA concentrations. Given the atypical clinical presentation of cases associated with the outbreak and uncertainty regarding viral load across both the course of infection and anatomical body sites, there was an urgent need for a more sensitive and broadly applicable sequencing approach. Highly multiplexed amplicon-based sequencing (PrimalSeq) was initially developed for sequencing of Zika virus, and later adapted as the main sequencing approach for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we used PrimalScheme to develop a primer scheme for human monkeypox virus that can be used with many sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines implemented in public health laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sequenced clinical specimens that tested presumptively positive for human monkeypox virus with amplicon-based and metagenomic sequencing approaches. We found notably higher genome coverage across the virus genome, with minimal amplicon drop-outs, in using the amplicon-based sequencing approach, particularly in higher PCR cycle threshold (Ct) (lower DNA titer) samples. Further testing demonstrated that Ct value correlated with the number of sequencing reads and influenced the percent genome coverage. To maximize genome coverage when resources are limited, we recommend selecting samples with a PCR Ct below 31 Ct and generating 1 million sequencing reads per sample. To support national and international public health genomic surveillance efforts, we sent out primer pool aliquots to 10 laboratories across the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, and Portugal. These public health laboratories successfully implemented the human monkeypox virus primer scheme in various amplicon sequencing workflows and with different sample types across a range of Ct values. Thus, we show that amplicon-based sequencing can provide a rapidly deployable, cost-effective, and flexible approach to pathogen whole-genome sequencing in response to newly emerging pathogens. Importantly, through the implementation of our primer scheme into existing SARS-CoV-2 workflows and across a range of sample types and sequencing platforms, we further demonstrate the potential of this approach for rapid outbreak response.This publication was made possible by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR001863 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded to CBFV. INSA was partially funded by the HERA project (Grant/ 2021/PHF/23776) supported by the European Commission through the European Centre for Disease Control (to VB).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: a methodological review

Background Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0–95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline

Getting Help from 2-1-1: A Statewide Study of Referral Outcomes

The Channel Gardens (or promenade), view at street level; Principal architect was Raymond Hood, working with and leading three architectural firms, [ Reinhard & Hormeister; Corbett, Harrison, & MacMurray (1929-1935); Godley & Fouilhoux ], on a team that included a young Wallace Harrison. The firms were known as The Associated Architects. Rockefeller Center was acclaimed as a pioneering concept of commercial, multilevel, superblock planning; its Art Deco skyscrapers, including the RCA Building, are grouped around a sunken plaza. Many are embellished with landscaped terraces. Harrison and Abramovitz were later responsible for the more mundane towers (1959-1974) on the Sixth Avenue side of the complex. Source: Grove Art Online; http://www.groveart.com/ (accessed 1/9/2008