An aid to the development of Botswana's resources

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

An aid to the development of Botswana's resources

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

An aid to the development of Botswana's resources

There are no author-identified significant results in this report

‘Should a mammographic screening programme carry the warning: Screening can damage your health!’?

The balanced presentation afforded by convening a Citizens' Jury when considering a major question such as the introduction of a breast screening programme is advocated. This method would enable account to be taken of all the costs, both human and financial, to all those affected, both participating and organizing, as well as the benefits. Provision of such a democratic opportunity enables consideration to be given to a broad range of factors, by selection of an appropriate range of witnesses, with the advantage of involving the lay public in this decision-making process. Attendance by health correspondents, medical journalists and other media representatives enables publicization of a democracy in action whilst helping to inform the wider debate. Such an exercise could inform whether the NHS BSP should continue in its current form. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

A translational framework for public health research

<p><b>Background</b></p> <p>The paradigm of translational medicine that underpins frameworks such as the Cooksey report on the funding of health research does not adequately reflect the complex reality of the public health environment. We therefore outline a translational framework for public health research.</p> <p><b>Discussion</b></p> <p>Our framework redefines the objective of translation from that of institutionalising effective interventions to that of improving population health by influencing both individual and collective determinants of health. It incorporates epidemiological perspectives with those of the social sciences, recognising that many types of research may contribute to the shaping of policy, practice and future research. It also identifies a pivotal role for evidence synthesis and the importance of non-linear and intersectoral interfaces with the public realm.</p> <p><b>Summary</b></p> <p>We propose a research agenda to advance the field and argue that resources for 'applied' or 'translational' public health research should be deployed across the framework, not reserved for 'dissemination' or 'implementation'.</p&gt

Low risk of cervical cancer during a long period after negative screening in the Netherlands

A condition for effective cervical cancer screening is a low incidence of cervical cancer after negative screening compared to that in the absence of screening. This relative risk was studied for the period 1994-1997 in the Netherlands and compared with previous studies. All cases of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed from 1994 to 1997 in the Netherlands were related to woman-years at risk, stratified by age, number of preceding negative screenings and time since the preceding negative screening. These incidence rates were compared with that before screening started in the Netherlands. The relative risk increases from 0.13 in the first year after screening to 0.24 after more than 6 years after screening for women with one previous negative screening. These figures reduce to 0.06 and 0.18, respectively, for women with two or more previous screenings. However, these estimates are less favourable when account is taken of the likely decrease in risk for cervical cancer in the period studied. Our data show a low relative risk of cervical cancer for several years following the last negative Pap smear. However, the denominator of the relative risk, that is, the incidence without screening, may have been overestimated. This applies also to the IARC multicountry study, and may have caused too optimistic expectations about the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening

Developing the specifications of an Open Angle Glaucoma screening intervention in the United Kingdom : a Delphi approach

PMID: 23216983 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC3563574 Free PMC Article Acknowledgements We thank all the glaucoma specialists who took part in the Delphi process. We thank the Glaucoma screening Platform Study advisory panel including R Bativala, D Crabb, D Garway-Heath, M Griffiths, R Hitchings; S McPherson, A Tuulonen, A Viswanathan, H Waterman, R Wormald, D Wright for their guidance and contribution to the Delphi process and Luke Vale and Rodolfo Hernandez for their advice on development of the Delphi questionnaires. This paper was developed from the first phase of a project funded by the MRC (project reference G0701759) Developing the intervention & outcome components of a proposed randomized controlled trial of screening for open angle glaucoma. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The use of whole genome sequencing in the investigation of a nosocomial influenza virus outbreak

Traditional epidemiological investigation of nosocomial transmission of influenza involves the identification of patients who have the same influenza virus type and who have overlapped in time and place. This method may miss-identify transmission where it has not occurred or miss transmission when it has. We applied influenza virus whole genome sequencing (WGS) to an outbreak of influenza A in a haematology/oncology ward and identified two separate introductions; one which resulted in 5 additional infections and 79 bed-days lost. Results from WGS are becoming rapidly available and may supplement traditional infection control procedures in the investigation and management of nosocomial outbreaks

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain:public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND: Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50–80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks. RESULTS: Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation. CONCLUSION: Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An ‘expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making