Representation of social determinants of health in German medical education: protocol of a content analysis study

Introduction: Action on the social determinants of health has been key for improving health and prolonging life in the past, and remains so today. Against this background, WHO's Commission on Social Determinants of Health has called for increased efforts to create health workforces trained in recognising, understanding and acting on the social determinants of health. However, little is known about the extent to which current medical education systems prepare graduates for this challenge. We, therefore, aim to analyse the extent to which the medical curriculum in Germany incorporates content on the social determinants of health. Methods and analysis: We will conduct a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of four key document groups which influence medical education in Germany: the national medical catalogue of learning objectives; examination content outlines provided by the German Institute for Medical and Pharmaceutical Examination Questions; the online textbook most widely used for final examination preparation and the full set of questions from two national medical licensing examinations. We will analyse these documents based on a coding system, which we derived deductively from the report of WHO's Commission on Social Determinants of Health as well as other key publications of WHO. We will report quantitative indicators, such as the percentage of text related to social determinants of health for each document type. Moreover, we will conduct a semiqualitative analysis of relevant content. Ethics and dissemination: This study is based on the analysis of existing documents which do not contain personal or otherwise sensitive information. Results from the study will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal

Cooperation between general practitioners, occupational health physicians, and rehabilitation physicians in Germany: what are barriers to cooperation and how can these be overcome? A qualitative study

Introduction: Rehabilitation measures for patients in the working age primarily aim at maintaining employability, restoring fitness for work and timely return to work. General practitioners (GPs), occupational health physicians (OPs), and rehabilitation physicians (RPs) fulfill different functions in the rehabilitation process, which need to be interlinked effectively to achieve a successful medical and occupational rehabilitation. In Germany, this cooperation at the interfaces is regarded as often working suboptimal. On this background, this qualitative study had two main aims: the first was to record the experiences and attitudes of OPs, RPs and GPs, as well as of rehabilitation patients, to indicate barriers to and obstacles in the cooperation and communication between medical professionals at the intersection of workplace and rehabilitation institutions. The second aim of the publication was to identify, present and discuss suggestions proposed by physicians and patients on how these barriers and obstacles can be overcome and thereby how communication and cooperation between the medical protagonists may be improved. A special focus of the study was a supposed exclusion of OPs from the rehabilitation process, as reported in the literature. Methods and analysis: As previous literature reviews have shown, insufficient data on the experiences and attitudes of the stakeholders are available. Therefore, an exploratory qualitative approach was chosen. In total, 8 Focus Group Discussions with occupational physicians, rehabilitation physicians, general practitioners and rehabilitation patients (2 Focus Groups with 4–10 interviewees per category) were conducted. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: A number of barriers to and obstacles in cooperation and communication were reported by the participants, including: (1) organizational (e.g. missing contact details, low reachability, schedule restrictions), (2) interpersonal (e.g. rehabilitants level of trust in OPs, low perceived need to cooperate with OPs, low motivation to cooperate), and (3) structural barriers (e.g. data privacy regulations, regulations concerning rehabilitation reports). In regards to these barriers, options for improvement were identified and characterized by the author in the following categories: (1) regulatory interventions (e.g. formalized role and obligatory input of occupational physicians), (2) financial interventions (e.g. financial incentives for physicians based on the quality of the application), (3) technological interventions (e.g. communication by E-Mail), (4) changes in organizational procedures (e.g. provision of workplace descriptions to RPs on a routine basis), (5) educational and informational interventions (e.g. joint educational programs, measures to improve the image of OPs), and (6) the promotion of cooperation (e.g. between OPs and GPs in regards to the application process). Ethics and dissemination: The research was undertaken with the approval of the ethics committee of the medical faculty and university hospital of Tübingen. The study participants’ gave their written consent prior to participating in the interviews. As set out in the study protocol, the results were published in international, peer-reviewed medical journals. Conclusion: The data on barriers as well as on options for improvements presented in this study are in line with studies and expert opinions from Germany and other countries in Western Europe. While some of the proposed solutions could be implemented by the participants themselves by changing behavior and practice in the everyday routine, a multi-level stakeholder approach might be necessary for implementing others. The evidence for the proposed suggestion is limited and mostly based on studies not conducted in the context of the German health care setting. Future quantitative research is needed to assess the relative weight of the findings and controlled interventional studies are necessary to assess feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed suggestions

WICID framework version 1.0: criteria and considerations to guide evidence-informed decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions targeting COVID-19

Introduction: Public health decision-making requires the balancing of numerous, often conflicting factors. However, participatory, evidence-informed decision-making processes to identify and weigh these factors are often not possible- especially, in the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While evidence-to-decision frameworks are not able or intended to replace stakeholder participation, they can serve as a tool to approach relevancy and comprehensiveness of the criteria considered. Objective: To develop a decision-making framework adapted to the challenges of decision-making on non-pharmacological interventions to contain the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods We employed the 'best fit' framework synthesis technique and used the WHO-INTEGRATE framework as a starting point. First, we adapted the framework through brainstorming exercises and application to case studies. Next, we conducted a content analysis of comprehensive strategy documents intended to guide policymakers on the phasing out of applied lockdown measures in Germany. Based on factors and criteria identified in this process, we developed the WICID (WHO-INTEGRATE COVID-19) framework version 1.0. Results: Twelve comprehensive strategy documents were analysed. The revised framework consists of 11+1 criteria, supported by 48 aspects, and embraces a complex systems perspective. The criteria cover implications for the health of individuals and populations due to and beyond COVID-19, infringement on liberties and fundamental human rights, acceptability and equity considerations, societal, environmental and economic implications, as well as implementation, resource and feasibility considerations. Discussion: The proposed framework will be expanded through a comprehensive document analysis focusing on key stakeholder groups across the society. The WICID framework can be a tool to support comprehensive evidence-informed decision-making processes

Quantifying changes in global health inequality: the Gini and Slope Inequality Indices applied to the Global Burden of Disease data, 1990-2017

Background The major shifts in the global burden of disease over the past decades are well documented, but how these shifts have affected global inequalities in health remains an underexplored topic. We applied comprehensive inequality measures to data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Methods Between-country relative inequality was measured by the population-weighted Gini Index, between-country absolute inequality was calculated using the population-weighted Slope Inequality Index (SII). Both were applied to country-level GBD data on age-standardised disability-adjusted life years. Findings Absolute global health inequality measured by the SII fell notably between 1990 (0.68) and 2017 (0.42), mainly driven by a decrease of disease burden due to communicable, maternal, neonatal and nutritional diseases (CMNN). By contrast, relative inequality remained essentially unchanged from 0.21 to 0.19 (1990-2017), with a peak of 0.23 (2000-2008). The main driver for the increase of relative inequality 1990-2008 was the HIV epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa. Relative inequality increased 1990-2017 within each of the three main cause groups: CMNNs; non-communicable diseases (NCDs); and injuries. Conclusions Despite considerable reductions in disease burden in 1990-2017 and absolute health inequality between countries, absolute and relative international health inequality remain high. The limited reduction of relative inequality has been largely due to shifts in disease burden from CMNNs and injuries to NCDs. If progress in the reduction of health inequalities is to be sustained beyond the global epidemiological transition, the fight against CMNNs and injuries must be joined by increased efforts for NCDs

Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making

Background Decision-making in public health and health policy is complex and requires careful deliberation of many and sometimes conflicting normative and technical criteria. Several approaches and tools, such as multi-criteria decision analysis, health technology assessments and evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks, have been proposed to guide decision-makers in selecting the criteria most relevant and appropriate for a transparent decision-making process. This study forms part of the development of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework, a framework rooted in global health norms and values as reflected in key documents of the World Health Organization and the United Nations system. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of criteria used in or proposed for real-world decision-making processes, including guideline development, health technology assessment, resource allocation and others. Methods We conducted an overview of systematic reviews through a combination of systematic literature searches and extensive reference searches. Systematic reviews reporting criteria used for real-world health decision-making by governmental or non-governmental organization on a supranational, national, or programme level were included and their quality assessed through a bespoke critical appraisal tool. The criteria reported in the reviews were extracted, de-duplicated and sorted into first-level (i.e. criteria), second-level (i.e. sub-criteria) and third-level (i.e. decision aspects) categories. First-level categories were developed a priori using a normative approach; second- and third-level categories were developed inductively. Results We included 36 systematic reviews providing criteria, of which one met all and another eleven met at least five of the items of our critical appraisal tool. The criteria were subsumed into 8 criteria, 45 sub-criteria and 200 decision aspects. The first-level of the category system comprised the following seven substantive criteria: \textquotedblHealth-related balance of benefits and harms\textquotedbl; \textquotedblHuman and individual rights\textquotedbl; \textquotedblAcceptability considerations\textquotedbl; \textquotedblSocietal considerations\textquotedbl; \textquotedblConsiderations of equity, equality and fairness\textquotedbl; \textquotedblCost and financial considerations\textquotedbl; and \textquotedblFeasibility and health system considerations\textquotedbl. In addition, we identified an eight criterion \textquotedblEvidence\textquotedbl. Conclusion This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive overview of criteria used or suggested for real-world health decision-making. It also discusses key challenges in the selection of the most appropriate criteria and in seeking to implement a fair decision-making process

Selection of the solvent and extraction conditions for maximum recovery of antioxidant phenolic compounds from coffee silverskin

The extraction of antioxidant phenolic compounds from coffee silverskin (CS) was studied. Firstly, the effect of different solvents (methanol, ethanol, acetone, and distilled water) on the production of antioxidant extracts was evaluated. All the extracts showed antioxidant activity (FRAP and DPPH assays), but those obtained with methanol and ethanol had significantly higher (p < 0.05) DPPH inhibition than the remaining ones. Due to the lower toxicity, ethanol was selected as extraction solvent, and further experiments were performed in order to define the solvent concentration, solvent/solid ratio, and time to maximize the extraction results. The best condition to produce an extract with high content of phenolic compounds (13 mg gallic acid equivalents/g CS) and antioxidant activity [DPPH = 18.24 μmol Trolox equivalents/g CS and FRAP = 0.83 mmol Fe(II)/g CS] was achieved when using 60 % ethanol in a ratio of 35 ml/g CS, during 30 min at 60–65 °C.This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The authors gratefully acknowledge Teresa Conde, student of Biological Engineering, for the help and interest in this work

Invasion is a community affair: clandestine followers in the bacterial community associated to green algae, Caulerpa racemosa, track the invasion source

Biological invasions rank amongst the most deleterious components of global change inducing alterations from genes to ecosystems. The genetic characteristics of introduced pools of individuals greatly influence the capacity of introduced species to establish and expand. The recently demonstrated heritability of microbial communities associated to individual genotypes of primary producers makes them a potentially essential element of the evolution and adaptability of their hosts. Here, we characterized the bacterial communities associated to native and non-native populations of the marine green macroalga Caulerpa racemosa through pyrosequencing, and explored their potential role on the strikingly invasive trajectory of their host in the Mediterranean. The similarity of endophytic bacterial communities from the native Australian range and several Mediterranean locations confirmed the origin of invasion and revealed distinct communities associated to a second Mediterranean variety of C. racemosa long reported in the Mediterranean. Comparative analysis of these two groups demonstrated the stability of the composition of bacterial communities through the successive steps of introduction and invasion and suggested the vertical transmission of some major bacterial OTUs. Indirect inferences on the taxonomic identity and associated metabolism of bacterial lineages showed a striking consistency with sediment upheaval conditions associated to the expansion of their invasive host and to the decline of native species. These results demonstrate that bacterial communities can be an effective tracer of the origin of invasion and support their potential role in their eukaryotic host’s adaptation to new environments. They put forward the critical need to consider the 'meta-organism' encompassing both the host and associated micro-organisms, to unravel the origins, causes and mechanisms underlying biological invasions

The WHOINTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective

publishedVersio