Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Gene Editing: How Can You Ask “Whether” If You Don't Know “How”?

Though questions about whether gene editing should be done at all have dominated ethical discussion, a literature about how it can be done ethically has been growing. Work on responsible translational pathways for human germline gene editing has been criticized for focusing on the wrong questions. But questions about responsible translational pathways – questions about how gene editing could be done ethically – are in an important sense prior to questions about whether it is desirable and permissible. Asking ‘whether’ questions about gene editing requires a model of what responsible clinical use of gene editing would look like

Fortification and Health: Challenges and Opportunities

Fortification is the process of adding nutrients or non-nutrient bioactive components to edible products (e.g., food, food constituents, or supplements). Fortification can be used to correct or prevent widespread nutrient intake shortfalls and associated deficiencies, to balance the total nutrient profile of a diet, to restore nutrients lost in processing, or to appeal to consumers looking to supplement their diet. Food fortification could be considered as a public health strategy to enhance nutrient intakes of a population. Over the past century, fortification has been effective at reducing the risk of nutrient deficiency diseases such as beriberi, goiter, pellagra, and rickets. However, the world today is very different from when fortification emerged in the 1920s. Although early fortification programs were designed to eliminate deficiency diseases, current fortification programs are based on low dietary intakes rather than a diagnosable condition. Moving forward, we must be diligent in our approach to achieving effective and responsible fortification practices and policies, including responsible marketing of fortified products. Fortification must be applied prudently, its effects monitored diligently, and the public informed effectively about its benefits through consumer education efforts. Clear lines of authority for establishing fortification guidelines should be developed and should take into account changing population demographics, changes in the food supply, and advances in technology. This article is a summary of a symposium presented at the ASN Scientific Sessions and Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology 2014 on current issues involving fortification focusing primarily on the United States and Canada and recommendations for the development of responsible fortification practices to ensure their safety and effectiveness

Next-generation ARIA care pathways for rhinitis and asthma: a model for multimorbid chronic diseases

Abstract Background In all societies, the burden and cost of allergic and chronic respiratory diseases are increasing rapidly. Most economies are struggling to deliver modern health care effectively. There is a need to support the transformation of the health care system into integrated care with organizational health literacy. Main body As an example for chronic disease care, MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK), a new project of the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative, and POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis, EIT Health), in collaboration with professional and patient organizations in the field of allergy and airway diseases, are proposing real-life ICPs centred around the patient with rhinitis, and using mHealth to monitor environmental exposure. Three aspects of care pathways are being developed: (i) Patient participation, health literacy and self-care through technology-assisted “patient activation”, (ii) Implementation of care pathways by pharmacists and (iii) Next-generation guidelines assessing the recommendations of GRADE guidelines in rhinitis and asthma using real-world evidence (RWE) obtained through mobile technology. The EU and global political agendas are of great importance in supporting the digital transformation of health and care, and MASK has been recognized by DG Santé as a Good Practice in the field of digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care. Conclusion In 20 years, ARIA has considerably evolved from the first multimorbidity guideline in respiratory diseases to the digital transformation of health and care with a strong political involvement