The 'global health' education framework: a conceptual guide for monitoring, evaluation and practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the past decades, the increasing importance of and rapid changes in the global health arena have provoked discussions on the implications for the education of health professionals. In the case of Germany, it remains yet unclear whether international or global aspects are sufficiently addressed within medical education. Evaluation challenges exist in Germany and elsewhere due to a lack of conceptual guides to develop, evaluate or assess education in this field.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To propose a framework conceptualising 'global health' education (GHE) in practice, to guide the evaluation and monitoring of educational interventions and reforms through a set of key indicators that characterise GHE.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Literature review; deduction.</p> <p>Results and Conclusion</p> <p>Currently, 'new' health challenges and educational needs as a result of the globalisation process are discussed and linked to the evolving term 'global health'. The lack of a common definition of this term complicates attempts to analyse global health in the field of education. The proposed GHE framework addresses these problems and presents a set of key characteristics of education in this field. The framework builds on the models of 'social determinants of health' and 'globalisation and health' and is oriented towards 'health for all' and 'health equity'. It provides an action-oriented construct for a bottom-up engagement with global health by the health workforce. Ten indicators are deduced for use in monitoring and evaluation.</p

Patenting of University and Non-University Public Research Organisations in Germany: Evidence from Patent Applications for Medical Research Results

BACKGROUND: Patents are one of the most important forms of intellectual property. They grant a time-limited exclusivity on the use of an invention allowing the recuperation of research costs. The use of patents is fiercely debated for medical innovation and especially controversial for publicly funded research, where the patent holder is an institution accountable to public interest. Despite this controversy, for the situation in Germany almost no empirical information exists. The purpose of this study is to examine the amount, types and trends of patent applications for health products submitted by German public research organisations. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search for patent documents using the publicly accessible database search interface of the German Patent and Trademark Office. We defined keywords and search criteria and developed search patterns for the database request. We retrieved documents with application date between 1988 and 2006 and processed the collected data stepwise to compile the most relevant documents in patent families for further analysis. We developed a rationale and present individual steps of a systematic method to request and process patent data from a publicly accessible database. We retrieved and processed 10194 patent documents. Out of these, we identified 1772 relevant patent families, applied for by 193 different universities and non-university public research organisations. 827 (47%) of these patent families contained granted patents. The number of patent applications submitted by universities and university-affiliated institutions more than tripled since the introduction of legal reforms in 2002, constituting almost half of all patent applications and accounting for most of the post-reform increase. Patenting of most non-university public research organisations remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: We search, process and analyse patent applications from publicly accessible databases. Internationally mounting evidence questions the viability of policies to increase commercial exploitation of publicly funded research results. To evaluate the outcome of research policies a transparent evidence base for public debate is needed in Germany

Effect of Deutetrabenazine on Chorea Among Patients With Huntington Disease A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Deutetrabenazine is a novel molecule containing deuterium, which attenuates CYP2D6 metabolism and increases active metabolite half-lives and may therefore lead to stable systemic exposure while preserving key pharmacological activity. Objective To evaluate efficacy and safety of deutetrabenazine treatment to control chorea associated with Huntington disease. Design, Setting, and Participants Ninety ambulatory adults diagnosed with manifest Huntington disease and a baseline total maximal chorea score of 8 or higher (range, 0-28; lower score indicates less chorea) were enrolled from August 2013 to August 2014 and randomized to receive deutetrabenazine (n = 45) or placebo (n = 45) in a double-blind fashion at 34 Huntington Study Group sites. Interventions Deutetrabenazine or placebo was titrated to optimal dose level over 8 weeks and maintained for 4 weeks, followed by a 1-week washout. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary end point was the total maximal chorea score change from baseline (the average of values from the screening and day-0 visits) to maintenance therapy (the average of values from the week 9 and 12 visits) obtained by in-person visits. This study was designed to detect a 2.7-unit treatment difference in scores. The secondary end points, assessed hierarchically, were the proportion of patients who achieved treatment success on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), the change in 36-Item Short Form– physical functioning subscale score (SF-36), and the change in the Berg Balance Test. Results Ninety patients with Huntington disease (mean age, 53.7 years; 40 women [44.4%]) were enrolled. In the deutetrabenazine group, the mean total maximal chorea scores improved from 12.1 (95% CI, 11.2-12.9) to 7.7 (95% CI, 6.5-8.9), whereas in the placebo group, scores improved from 13.2 (95% CI, 12.2-14.3) to 11.3 (95% CI, 10.0-12.5); the mean between-group difference was –2.5 units (95% CI, –3.7 to –1.3) (P < .001). Treatment success, as measured by the PGIC, occurred in 23 patients (51%) in the deutetrabenazine group vs 9 (20%) in the placebo group (P = .002). As measured by the CGIC, treatment success occurred in 19 patients (42%) in the deutetrabenazine group vs 6 (13%) in the placebo group (P = .002). In the deutetrabenazine group, the mean SF-36 physical functioning subscale scores decreased from 47.5 (95% CI, 44.3-50.8) to 47.4 (44.3-50.5), whereas in the placebo group, scores decreased from 43.2 (95% CI, 40.2-46.3) to 39.9 (95% CI, 36.2-43.6), for a treatment benefit of 4.3 (95% CI, 0.4 to 8.3) (P = .03). There was no difference between groups (mean difference of 1.0 unit; 95% CI, –0.3 to 2.3; P = .14), for improvement in the Berg Balance Test, which improved by 2.2 units (95% CI, 1.3-3.1) in the deutetrabenazine group and by 1.3 units (95% CI, 0.4-2.2) in the placebo group. Adverse event rates were similar for deutetrabenazine and placebo, including depression, anxiety, and akathisia. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with chorea associated with Huntington disease, the use of deutetrabenazine compared with placebo resulted in improved motor signs at 12 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the clinical importance of the effect size and to determine longer-term efficacy and safety

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Business not as usual: how multisectoral collaboration can promote transformative change for health and sustainable development.

• We present a model of enabling fac-tors for effective multisectoral collabo-ration for improvements in health and sustainable development. • Drive change: assess whether desired change is better off achieved by mul-tisectoral collaboration; drive forward collaboration by mobilising a critical mass of policy and public attention. • Define: frame the problem strategi-cally and holistically so that all sec-tors and stakeholders can see the benefits of collaboration and contri-bution to the public good• Design: create solutions relevant to context, building on existing mecha-nisms, and leverage the strengths of diverse sectors for collective impact. • Relate: ensure resources for multi-sectoral collaboration mechanisms, including for open communication and deliberation on evidence, norms, and innovation across all components of collaboration. • Realise: learn by doing, and adapt with regular feedback. Remain open to redefining and redesigning the collaboration to ensure relevance, effectiveness, and responsiveness to change. • Capture success: agree on success markers, using qualitative and quan-titative methods to monitor results regularly and comprehensively, and learn from both failures and successes to inform action and sustain gains