Overcoming the challenges of using automated technologies for public health evidence synthesis.

Many organisations struggle to keep pace with public health evidence due to the volume of published literature and length of time it takes to conduct literature reviews. New technologies that help automate parts of the evidence synthesis process can help conduct reviews more quickly and efficiently to better provide up-to-date evidence for public health decision making. To date, automated approaches have seldom been used in public health due to significant barriers to their adoption. In this Perspective, we reflect on the findings of a study exploring experiences of adopting automated technologies to conduct evidence reviews within the public health sector. The study, funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, consisted of a literature review and qualitative data collection from public health organisations and researchers in the field. We specifically focus on outlining the challenges associated with the adoption of automated approaches and potential solutions and actions that can be taken to mitigate these. We explore these in relation to actions that can be taken by tool developers (e.g. improving tool performance and transparency), public health organisations (e.g. developing staff skills, encouraging collaboration) and funding bodies/the wider research system (e.g. researchers, funding bodies, academic publishers and scholarly journals).

Assessing the Implementation of Digital Innovations in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Address Key Public Health Functions: Scoping Review of Academic and Nonacademic Literature.

BACKGROUND: Digital technologies have been central to efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, a range of literature has reported on developments regarding the implementation of new digital technologies for COVID-19-related surveillance, prevention, and control. OBJECTIVE: In this study, scoping reviews of academic and nonacademic literature were undertaken to obtain an overview of the evidence regarding digital innovations implemented to address key public health functions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to expand on the work of existing reviews by drawing on additional data sources (including nonacademic sources) by considering literature published over a longer time frame and analyzing data in terms of the number of unique digital innovations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the academic literature published between January 1, 2020, and September 15, 2020, supplemented by a further scoping review of selected nonacademic literature published between January 1, 2020, and October 13, 2020. Both reviews followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach. RESULTS: A total of 226 academic articles and 406 nonacademic articles were included. The included articles provided evidence of 561 (academic literature) and 497 (nonacademic literature) unique digital innovations. The most common implementation settings for digital innovations were the United States, China, India, and the United Kingdom. Technologies most commonly used by digital innovations were those belonging to the high-level technology group of integrated and ubiquitous fixed and mobile networks. The key public health functions most commonly addressed by digital innovations were communication and collaboration and surveillance and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Digital innovations implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have been wide ranging in terms of their implementation settings, the digital technologies used, and the public health functions addressed. However, evidence gathered through this study also points to a range of barriers that have affected the successful implementation of digital technologies for public health functions. It is also evident that many digital innovations implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are yet to be formally evaluated or assessed.

Point of Care Testing for Infectious Disease in Europe: A Scoping Review and Survey Study.

Background: Point of care testing (POCT) for infectious diseases is testing conducted near the patient. It allows clinicians to offer the most appropriate treatment more quickly. As POCT devices have increased in accuracy and become more cost-effective, their use has grown, but a systematic assessment of their use for clinical and public health management of infectious diseases in EU/EEA countries has not been previously undertaken. Methods: A scoping review of the literature on POCT in EU/ EEA countries as at November 2019, and a survey of key stakeholders. Results: 350 relevant articles were identified and 54 survey responses from 26 EU/EEA countries were analysed. POCT is available for a range of infectious diseases and in all countries responding to the survey (for at least one disease). POCT is commonly available for influenza, HIV/AIDS, Legionnaires' disease and malaria, where it is used in at least half of EU/EEA countries. While POCT has the potential to support many improvements to clinical care of infectious diseases (e.g., faster diagnosis, more appropriate use of antimicrobials), the results suggest POCT is infrequently used to support public health functions (e.g., disease surveillance and reporting). Conclusion: Although POCT is in use to some extent in all EU/EEA countries, the full benefits of POCT in wider public health functions have yet to be realised. Further research on barriers and facilitators to implementation is warranted.

PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.

Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health.

The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) is an international collaboration of public health institutes and universities which has been funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) since 2012. Main objective is to define a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in the field of public health, with particular focus on infectious disease prevention and control. As part of the peer review process, an international expert meeting was held on 13-14 June 2013 in Berlin. Participants were members of the PRECEPT team and selected experts from national public health institutes, World Health Organization (WHO), and academic institutions. The aim of the meeting was to discuss the draft framework and its application to two examples from infectious disease prevention and control. This article introduces the draft PRECEPT framework and reports on the meeting, its structure, most relevant discussions and major conclusions.

Evidence-based decision-making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention and control: matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools.

BACKGROUND: The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) was initiated and is being funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to define a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence and strength of recommendations in the field of public health, with emphasis on infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control. One of the first steps was to review existing quality appraisal tools (QATs) for individual research studies of various designs relevant to this area, using a question-based approach. METHODS: Through team discussions and expert consultations, we identified 20 relevant types of public health questions, which were grouped into six domains, i.e. characteristics of the pathogen, burden of disease, diagnosis, risk factors, intervention, and implementation of intervention. Previously published systematic reviews were used and supplemented by expert consultation to identify suitable QATs. Finally, a matrix was constructed for matching questions to study designs suitable to address them and respective QATs. Key features of each of the included QATs were then analyzed, in particular in respect to its intended use, types of questions and answers, presence/absence of a quality score, and if a validation was performed. RESULTS: In total we identified 21 QATs and 26 study designs, and matched them. Four QATs were suitable for experimental quantitative study designs, eleven for observational quantitative studies, two for qualitative studies, three for economic studies, one for diagnostic test accuracy studies, and one for animal studies. Included QATs consisted of six to 28 items. Six of the QATs had a summary quality score. Fourteen QATs had undergone at least one validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this methodological study can be used as an inventory of potentially relevant questions, appropriate study designs and QATs for researchers and authorities engaged with evidence-based decision-making in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.

Monitoring and assessing vaccine safety: a European perspective.

The success of vaccination programs is an uncontroversial reality--in Europe as well as worldwide. On the other hand, the perceived risk of adverse events in the general public is the most important threat for implementing successful vaccination programs in Europe. For this reason, monitoring and assessing vaccine safety is a priority for public health. Vaccine safety is assessed both before and after vaccine authorization. In postmarketing settings, different activities related to vaccine safety usually involve several different stakeholders. In 2005, a new EU agency, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, was established with the aim to strengthen Europe's defences against infectious diseases. Implementing stable links between different stakeholders and defining clear roles in the EU is paramount in order to provide optimal and transparent information on adverse reactions following immunization, with the final goal of increasing compliance to safe and effective vaccination programs.

The risk of malformation following assisted reproduction.

INTRODUCTION: Intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) is currently the most frequently used human reproductive technology in Germany. ICSI was introduced as routine, insurance-funded medical care in 2002 by the Federal Joint Committee. A re-evaluation of published literature on malformation rates in children born of ICSI pregnancies within a period of three years formed part of the committee's decision. The analysis investigated whether ICSI increases the risk of malformation in the offspring, compared to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and natural conception. METHODS: Systematic literature review. RESULTS: 929 studies were identified. Three meta-analyses, 15 studies investigating malformations, and 12 studies analyzing imprinting disorders were included. The risk of malformation was not significantly different in nine studies comparing ICSI versus IVF. Two meta-analyses and three of eight cohort studies and retrospective analysis showed significantly more severe malformations after assisted reproduction than after natural conception. The remaining five studies displayed no significant results. Current evidence does not show a higher risk of major malformations in the offspring resulting from the use of ICSI compared to IVF. However, there is evidence that both techniques increase the risk for major malformations considerably, compared to natural conception, and further research is needed. The validity of the results is low since the studies were heterogeneous and the cohorts used in the studies had limited comparability.

Screening on urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis.

INTRODUCTION: Around 92 million urogenital infections are caused yearly by Chlamydia trachomatis worldwide [1].The overall incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is increasing, as shown by the increases in the number of reported cases of syphilis and gonorrhea [2]. Chlamydia trachomatis infections are associated with various serious diseases in women, men and newborns, which could be, at least partially, avoided by means of early diagnosis and therapy. The Federal Joint Committee - responsible for decision-making concerning the benefit package of the German Social Health Insurance - has publicly announced the starting of deliberations on the issue of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: The leading question to be answered is whether screening for Chlamydia trachomatis should be included in the German benefit basket. The aim of this report is to provide a summary of the available evidence concerning the issue of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. METHODS: The summary of published scientific evidence, including HTA reports, systematic reviews, guidelines and primary research is represented. The synthesis follows the structure given by the criteria of Wilson and Jungner [3] for the introduction of screening in a population: relevance of the condition, availability of an adequate test, effectiveness of screening, acceptance of the programme, and economical issues. A literature search was conducted for each aspect of the synthesis and the evidence has been summarised in evidence tables. RESULTS: We identified five HTA reports from three European agencies [4], [5], [6], [7] and one from the USA [8]. In addition, we identified four guidelines from Northamerica[9], [10], [11], [12] and one from Europe [13]. A total of 56 primary research publications were included: relevance of the disease (n=26), availability of test (n=1), effectiveness of screening (n=11), acceptance of the programme (n=11), economical issues (n=7). DISCUSSION: The main limitation of this report is that we relied only on published results. Most of research has been conducted in countries other than Germany. The fulfilment of the criteria for introduction of screening depends on contextual factors. More data from Germany are needed in order to answer the main questions concerning acceptance, use of selection criteria to identify subgroups and economical aspects of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Germany. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for introduction of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis are partially fulfilled. The available evidence indicates that the success of a screening programme for Chlamydia trachomatis will depend on the implementation of strategies for uptake enhancement and probably on the participation of men as well. A pilot project should be conducted in order to assess cost-effectiveness, acceptance and feasibility of different screening strategies in Germany. On the light of the available evidence, the inclusion of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the benefit basket without embedding it in a multifaceted programme targeting primary prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and participation in screening cannot be recommende.