Public health research systems in the European union

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Strengthening health research is an important objective for international health organisations, but there has been less attention to support for health research in Europe. We describe the public-health (population and organisational level) research systems in the 27 European Union countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a typology for describing health research structures based on funding streams and strategies. We drew data from internet sources and asked country informants to review these for consistency and completeness. The structures were described as organograms and narratives in country profiles for each of the 27 EU member states. National public-health research structures included public and independent funding organisations, 'mixed' institutions (which receive funds, and both use and allocate them) and provider institutions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most health research is funded through ministries of science or science councils (and sometimes foundations), while parliaments and regions may also contribute. National institutes of public health are usually funded by ministries of health. Many national research organisations both determine research programmes and undertake health research, but there is a move towards public-health sciences within the universities, and a transition from internal grants to competitive funding. Of 27 national research strategies, 17 referred to health and 11 to public health themes. Although all countries had strategies for public health itself, we found little coherence in public-health research programmes. The European Commission has country contact points for both EU research and health programmes, but they do not coordinate with national health-research programmes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Public-health research is broadly distributed across programmes in EU countries. Better understanding of research structures, programmes and results would improve recognition for public health in Europe, and contribute to practice. EU ministries of health should give greater attention to national public-health research strategies and programmes, and the European Union and the World Health Organisation can provide coordination and support.</p

A study of urgent and emergency referrals from NHS Direct within England

Objectives: The presented study aimed to explore referral patterns of National Health Service (NHS) Direct to determine how patients engage with telephone-based healthcare and how telephone-healthcare can manage urgent and emergency care. Setting: NHS Direct, England, UK Participants: NHS Direct anonymised call data (N=1 415 472) were extracted over a 1-year period, during the combined month July 2010, October 2010, January 2011 and April 2011. Urgent and emergency calls (N=269 558; 19.0%) were analysed by call factors and patient characteristics alongside symptom classification. Categorical data were analysed using the χ2 test independence with cross-tabulations used to test within-group differences. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Urgent and emergency referrals to 999; accident emergency or to see a general practitioner which are expressed as call rate per 100 persons annum. Outcomes related to symptom variations patient characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity and deprivation) alongside differences by patient characteristics of call factors (date and time of day). Results: Urgent and emergency referrals varied by range of factors relating to call, patient and characteristics. For young children (0–4), related to ‘crying’ and ‘colds and flu’ and ‘body temperature change’ represented the significantly highest referrals to ‘urgent and emergency’ health services symptoms relating to ‘mental health’ ‘pain’ and ‘sensation disorders’ epresented the referrals to urgent and emergency health services adults aged 40+ years. Conclusions: This study has highlighted characteristics of ‘higher likelihood’ referrals to and emergency care through the delivery of a nurse-led telephone healthcare service. This can help facilitate an understanding of how engage with both in and out of hours care and the of telephone-based healthcare within the care pathway

The impact generated by public and charity-funded research in the UK: A systematic literature review

Objective: To identify, synthesize and critically assess the empirical evidence of the impact generated by public and charity funded health research in the United Kingdom. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of the empirical evidence published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and 2017. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and their findings were analysed using the Payback Framework into five main categories: knowledge, benefits to future research and research use, benefits from informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits and broader economic benefits. We assessed the studies for risk of selection, reporting and funding bias. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies (10 out of 13) assessed impact at multiple domains including the main 5 key themes of the Payback Framework. All of them showed a positive impact of funded research on outcomes. Of those studies, one presented low risk of bias (8%), 6 studies were classified as presenting moderate risk of bias (46%) and 6 studies presented high risk of bias (46%). Conclusions: Empirical evidence on the impact of public and charity funded research is still limited and subject to funding and selection bias. More work is needed to establish the causal effects of funded research on academic outcomes, policy, practice and the broader economy

Existence of benefit finding and posttraumatic growth in people treated for head and neck cancer: A systematic review

Background. The impact of head and neck cancer (HNC) in long-term survivors differs widely among individuals, and a significant number of them suffer from the negative effects of disease, whereas others report significant positive effect. This systematic review investigated the evidence the implications of treatment for HNC and subsequent development of Benefit Finding (BF) or Posttraumatic Growth (PTG). Purpose. To understand how differing medical, psychological and social characteristics of HNC may lead to BF/PTG and ubsequently inform post-treatment interventions to encourage positive outcomes.Method. In February 2012, five databases including Pubmed, and Psych Info, were searched, for peer-reviewed English language publications. Search strings included key words pertaining to HNC, BF, and PTG. One thousand three hundred and sixty three publications were identified, reviewed, and reduced following Cochrane guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria specified by a group of maxillofacial consul- tants and psychologists. Publications were then quality assessed using the CASP Cohort Critical Appraisal tool.Findings. Five manuscripts met the search and selection criteria, and were sourced for review. All studies were identified as being level IIb evidence which is a medium level of quality. The majority of studies investigated benefit finding (80%) and were split between recruiting participant via cancer clinics and postal survey. They focused on the medical, psychological and social characteristics of the patient following completion of treatment for HNC.Conclusion. Demographic factors across the papers showed similar patterns of relationships across BF and PTG; that higher education/qualification and cohabitation/marriage are associated with increased BF/PTG. Similarly, overlap with disease characteristics and psychosocial factors where hope and optimism were both positively correlated with increased reported BF/PTG

Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind Alliance Pressure Ulcer Priority Setting Partnership

Background: Studies identifying a mismatch between the priorities of academics and clinicians and those of people with direct experience of a health condition pose a challenge to the assumption that professional researchers can represent the interests of patients and the public in setting priorities for health research. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of treatment. There is no formal evaluation yet to examine the different approaches used by individual PSPs and the impact these methods have on the quality of the partnership and subsequent outputs. There is no gold standard method for health research topic identification and priority setting and reporting on public involvement in this area is predominantly descriptive rather than evaluative. Methods and Findings: The JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP) was developed and worked between 2009 and 2013 to identify and prioritise the top 10 ‘uncertainties’, or ‘unanswered questions’, about the effects of pressure ulcer interventions. JLAPUP identified a mismatch between the nature and quality of RCTs in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and the kind of research evidence desired by patients or service users, carers and health professionals. Results and methods have been reported fully elsewhere. The consultative and deliberative methods used to establish health research priorities in PSPs are fundamentally interpretive. PSPs are therefore an arena in which ‘hard’ evidence-informed ideals meet ‘soft’ participatory practices. This article provides an account of the challenges faced in one particular PSP. We explain the rationale for the approaches taken, difficulties faced and the limitations at each stage, because these aspects are particularly under-reported. The JLAPUP case is used to identify possible areas for evaluation and reporting across PSPs. Conclusion: Engaging people with very different health and life experiences in the complexities of health science based discussions of uncertainty is challenging. This is particularly the case when engaging groups routinely excluded from participating in health research, for example, older people with multiple comorbidities. The JLA principles of transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research require paying close critical attention to PSP methodology, including full evaluation and reporting of PSP processes and outcomes. Assessing the impact of PSPs is contingent on the decision making processes of commissioners and funders

Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent developments aiming to standardise and streamline processes of gaining the necessary approvals to carry out research in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), have resulted in lengthy and costly delays. The national UK governmental Department of Health’s Research Governance Framework (RGF) for Health and Social Care requires that appropriate checks be conducted before research involving human participants, their organs, tissues or data can commence in the NHS. As a result, medical research has been subjected to increased regulation and governance, with the requirement for approvals from numerous regulatory and monitoring bodies. In addition, the processes and outcomes of the attribution of costs in NHS research have caused additional difficulties for researchers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through three trial case studies, the difficulties encountered during the set-up and recruitment phases of these trials, related to gaining the necessary ethical and governance approvals and applying for NHS costs to undertake and deliver the research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Empirical evidence about delays and difficulties related to regulation and governance of medical research was gathered during the period 2009–2010 from three UK randomised controlled trials with sites in England, Wales and Scotland (1. SAFER 2- an emergency care based trial of a protocol for paramedics to refer patients directly to community based falls services; 2. COnStRUCT- a trial of two drugs for acute ulcerative colitis; and 3. Family Links - a trial of a public health intervention, a 10 week community based parenting programme). Findings and recommendations were reported in response to a call for evidence from The Academy of Medical Sciences regarding difficulties encountered in conducting medical research arising from R&D governance and regulation, to inform national policy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Difficulties and delays in navigating and gaining the appropriate approvals and NHS costs required to undertake the research were encountered in all three trials, at various points in the bureaucratic processes of ethical and research and information governance approvals. Conduct of each of the three trials was delayed by at least 12 months, with costs increasing by 30 – 40%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Whilst the three trials encountered a variety of challenges, there were common issues. The processes for gaining approvals were overly complex and differed between sites and UK countries; guidance about processes was unclear; and information regarding how to define and claim NHS costs for undertaking the research was inconsistent. The competitive advantage of a publicly funded, open access health system for undertaking health services research and clinical trials within the UK has been outweighed in recent years by stifling bureaucratic structures and processes for governance of research. The recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences are welcomed, and the effects of their implementation are awaited with interest.</p> <p>Trial Registration numbers</p> <p>SAFER 2: ISRCTN 60481756; COnStRUCT: ISRCTN22663589; Family Links: ISRCTN 13929732</p

Who needs what from a national health research system: Lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks. We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it. Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades - especially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed. Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science. We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund

The consequences of delaying insulin initiation in UK type 2 diabetes patients failing oral hyperglycaemic agents: a modelling study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent data have shown that type 2 diabetes patients in the UK delay initiating insulin on average for over 11 years after first being prescribed an oral medication. Using a published computer simulation model of diabetes we used UK-specific data to estimate the clinical consequences of immediately initiating insulin versus delaying initiation for periods in line with published estimates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the base case scenario simulated patients, with characteristics based on published UK data, were modelled as either initiating insulin immediately or delaying for 8 years. Clinical outcomes in terms of both life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy and also diabetes-related complications (cumulative incidence and time to onset) were projected over a 35 year time horizon. Treatment effects associated with insulin use were taken from published studies and sensitivity analyses were performed around time to initiation of insulin, insulin efficacies and hypoglycaemia utilities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For patients immediately initiating insulin there were increases in (undiscounted) life expectancy of 0.61 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.34 quality-adjusted life years versus delaying initiation for 8 years. There were also substantial reductions in cumulative incidence and time to onset of all diabetes-related complications with immediate versus delayed insulin initiation. Sensitivity analyses showed that a reduced delay in insulin initiation or change in insulin efficacy still demonstrated clinical benefits for immediate versus delayed initiation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>UK type 2 diabetes patients are at increased risk of a large number of diabetes-related complications due to an unnecessary delay in insulin initiation. Despite clear guidelines recommending tight glycaemic control this failure to begin insulin therapy promptly is likely to result in needlessly reduced life expectancy and compromised quality of life.</p