The inverse care law re-examined: a global perspective.

An inverse care law persists in almost all low-income and middle-income countries, whereby socially disadvantaged people receive less, and lower-quality, health care despite having greater need. By contrast, a disproportionate care law persists in high-income countries, whereby socially disadvantaged people receive more health care, but of worse quality and insufficient quantity to meet their additional needs. Both laws are caused not only by financial barriers and fragmented health insurance systems but also by social inequalities in care seeking and co-investment as well as the costs and benefits of health care. Investing in more integrated universal health coverage and stronger primary care, delivered in proportion to need, can improve population health and reduce health inequality. However, trade-offs sometimes exist between health policy objectives. Health-care technologies, policies, and resourcing should be subjected to distributional analysis of their equity impacts, to ensure the objective of reducing health inequalities is kept in sight.

Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce.

Approximately 13% of the total UK workforce is employed in the health and care sector. Despite substantial workforce planning efforts, the effectiveness of this planning has been criticised. Education, training, and workforce plans have typically considered each health-care profession in isolation and have not adequately responded to changing health and care needs. The results are persistent vacancies, poor morale, and low retention. Areas of particular concern highlighted in this Health Policy paper include primary care, mental health, nursing, clinical and non-clinical support, and social care. Responses to workforce shortfalls have included a high reliance on foreign and temporary staff, small-scale changes in skill mix, and enhanced recruitment drives. Impending challenges for the UK health and care workforce include growing multimorbidity, an increasing shortfall in the supply of unpaid carers, and the relative decline of the attractiveness of the National Health Service (NHS) as an employer internationally. We argue that to secure a sustainable and fit-for-purpose health and care workforce, integrated workforce approaches need to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and skill mix, as well as the trend towards multidisciplinary working. Enhancing career development opportunities, promoting staff wellbeing, and tackling discrimination in the NHS are all needed to improve recruitment, retention, and morale of staff. An urgent priority is to offer sufficient aftercare and support to staff who have been exposed to high-risk situations and traumatic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing calls to recognise and reward health and care staff, growth in pay must at least keep pace with projected rises in average earnings, which in turn will require linking future NHS funding allocations to rises in pay. Through illustrative projections, we show that, to sustain annual growth in the workforce at approximately 2·4%, increases in NHS expenditure of 4% annually in real terms will be required. Above all, a radical long-term strategic vision is needed to ensure that the future NHS workforce is fit for purpose.

Quality adjusted life years based on health and consumption: A summary wellbeing measure for cross-sectoral economic evaluation.

We introduce a summary wellbeing measure for economic evaluation of cross-sectoral public policies with impacts on health and living standards. We show how to calculate period-specific and lifetime wellbeing using quality-adjusted life years based on widely available data on health-related quality of life and consumption and normative assumptions about three parameters-minimal consumption, standard consumption, and the elasticity of the marginal value of consumption. We also illustrate how these three parameters can be tailored to the decision-making context and varied in sensitivity analysis to provide information about the implications of alternative value judgments. As well as providing a general measure for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis in terms of wellbeing, this approach also facilitates distributional analysis in terms of how many good years different population subgroups can expect to live under different policy scenarios.

Cured Today, Ill Tomorrow: A Method for Including Future Unrelated Medical Costs in Economic Evaluation in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: In many countries, future unrelated medical costs occurring during life-years gained are excluded from economic evaluation, and benefits of unrelated medical care are implicitly included, leading to life-extending interventions being disproportionately favored over quality of life-improving interventions. This article provides a standardized framework for the inclusion of future unrelated medical costs and demonstrates how this framework can be applied in England and Wales. METHODS: Data sources are combined to construct estimates of per-capita National Health Service spending by age, sex, and time to death, and a framework is developed for adjusting these estimates for costs of related diseases. Using survival curves from 3 empirical examples illustrates how our estimates for unrelated National Health Service spending can be used to include unrelated medical costs in cost-effectiveness analysis and the impact depending on age, life-years gained, and baseline costs of the target group. RESULTS: Our results show that including future unrelated medical costs is feasible and standardizable. Empirical examples show that this inclusion leads to an increase in the ICER of between 7% and 13%. CONCLUSIONS: This article contributes to the methodology debate over unrelated costs and how to systematically include them in economic evaluation. Results show that it is both important and possible to include future unrelated medical costs.

E-learning and health inequality aversion: A questionnaire experiment.

In principle, questionnaire data on public views about hypothetical trade-offs between improving total health and reducing health inequality can provide useful normative health inequality aversion parameter benchmarks for policymakers faced with real trade-offs of this kind. However, trade-off questions can be hard to understand, and one standard type of question finds that a high proportion of respondents-sometimes a majority-appear to give exclusive priority to reducing health inequality. We developed and tested two e-learning interventions designed to help respondents understand this question more completely. The interventions were a video animation, exposing respondents to rival points of view, and a spreadsheet-based questionnaire that provided feedback on implied trade-offs. We found large effects of both interventions in reducing the proportion of respondents giving exclusive priority to reducing health inequality, though the median responses still implied a high degree of health inequality aversion and-unlike the video-the spreadsheet-based intervention introduced a substantial new minority of non-egalitarian responses. E-learning may introduce as well as avoid biases but merits further research and may be useful in other questionnaire studies involving trade-offs between conflicting values.

Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns.

This articles serves as a guide to using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to address health equity concerns. We first introduce the "equity impact plane," a tool for considering trade-offs between improving total health-the objective underpinning conventional CEA-and equity objectives, such as reducing social inequality in health or prioritizing the severely ill. Improving total health may clash with reducing social inequality in health, for example, when effective delivery of services to disadvantaged communities requires additional costs. Who gains and who loses from a cost-increasing health program depends on differences among people in terms of health risks, uptake, quality, adherence, capacity to benefit, and-crucially-who bears the opportunity costs of diverting scarce resources from other uses. We describe two main ways of using CEA to address health equity concerns: 1) equity impact analysis, which quantifies the distribution of costs and effects by equity-relevant variables, such as socioeconomic status, location, ethnicity, sex, and severity of illness; and 2) equity trade-off analysis, which quantifies trade-offs between improving total health and other equity objectives. One way to analyze equity trade-offs is to count the cost of fairer but less cost-effective options in terms of health forgone. Another method is to explore how much concern for equity is required to choose fairer but less cost-effective options using equity weights or parameters. We hope this article will help the health technology assessment community navigate the practical options now available for conducting equity-informative CEA that gives policymakers a better understanding of equity impacts and trade-offs.

Eliciting the Level of Health Inequality Aversion in England.

Health inequality aversion parameters can be used to represent alternative value judgements about policy concern for reducing health inequality versus improving total health. In this study, we use data from an online survey of the general public in England (n = 244) to elicit health inequality aversion parameters for both Atkinson and Kolm social welfare functions. We find median inequality aversion parameters of 10.95 for Atkinson and 0.15 for Kolm. These values suggest substantial concern for health inequality among the English general public which, at current levels of quality adjusted life expectancy, implies weighting health gains to the poorest fifth of people in society six to seven times as highly as health gains to the richest fifth. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

On poverty, politics and psychology: the socioeconomic gradient of mental healthcare utilisation and outcomes.

Since 2008, the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme has disseminated evidence-based interventions for depression and anxiety problems. In order to maintain quality standards, government policy in England sets the expectation that 50% of treated patients should meet recovery criteria according to validated patient-reported outcome measures. Using national IAPT data, we found evidence suggesting that the prevalence of mental health problems is greater in poorer areas and that these areas had lower average recovery rates. After adjusting benchmarks for local index of multiple deprivation, we found significant differences between unadjusted (72.5%) and adjusted (43.1%) proportions of underperforming clinical commissioning group areas.

The Social Distribution of Health: Estimating Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy in England.

OBJECTIVE: To model the social distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) in England by combining survey data on health-related quality of life with administrative data on mortality. METHODS: Health Survey for England data sets for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were pooled (n = 35,062) and used to model health-related quality of life as a function of sex, age, and socioeconomic status (SES). Office for National Statistics mortality rates were used to construct life tables for age-sex-SES groups. These quality-of-life and length-of-life estimates were then combined to predict QALE as a function of these characteristics. Missing data were imputed, and Monte-Carlo simulation was used to estimate standard errors. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore alternative regression models and measures of SES. RESULTS: Socioeconomic inequality in QALE at birth was estimated at 11.87 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with a sex difference of 1 QALY. When the socioeconomic-sex subgroups are ranked by QALE, a differential of 10.97 QALYs is found between the most and least healthy quintile groups. This differential can be broken down into a life expectancy difference of 7.28 years and a quality-of-life adjustment of 3.69 years. CONCLUSIONS: The methods proposed in this article refine simple binary quality-adjustment measures such as the widely used disability-free life expectancy, providing a more accurate picture of overall health inequality in society than has hitherto been available. The predictions also lend themselves well to the task of evaluating the health inequality impact of interventions in the context of cost-effectiveness analysis.

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes--a methodological case study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

This paper presents an application of a new methodological framework for undertaking distributional cost-effectiveness analysis to combine the objectives of maximising health and minimising unfair variation in health when evaluating population health interventions. The National Health Service bowel cancer screening programme introduced in 2006 is expected to improve population health on average and to worsen population health inequalities associated with deprivation and ethnicity--a classic case of 'intervention-generated inequality'. We demonstrate the distributional cost-effectiveness analysis framework by examining two redesign options for the bowel cancer screening programme: (i) the introduction of an enhanced targeted reminder aimed at increasing screening uptake in deprived and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods and (ii) the introduction of a basic universal reminder aimed at increasing screening uptake across the whole population. Our analysis indicates that the universal reminder is the strategy that maximises population health, while the targeted reminder is the screening strategy that minimises unfair variation in health. The framework is used to demonstrate how these two objectives can be traded off against each other, and how alternative social value judgements influence the assessment of which strategy is best, including judgements about which dimensions of health variation are considered unfair and judgements about societal levels of inequality aversion.

Young, Muslim and poor: The persistent impacts of the pandemic on mental health in the UK.

Muslims in the UK experienced a much larger decline in mental health than the rest of the population during the pandemic and this decline persisted even as mental health in the rest of the population bounced back to pre-pandemic levels. We use panel data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to decompose the mental health gap between Muslims and non-Muslims into those attributable to differences between the characteristics of the two groups and find that these differences - particularly Muslims being younger and being substantially overrepresented at the bottom of the income distribution - explain a substantial proportion of this gap. However, over a third of the Muslim-non-Muslim mental health gap remains unexplained by these factors and is driven by the experiences of Muslims who are neither young nor poor suggesting that this may be a result of discrimination experienced by the community. We conclude that being Muslim, being young, and being poor all independently contributed to experiencing a mental health gap and to the persistence of this gap.

Cost-effectiveness of One Health interventions for rabies elimination: a systematic review.

The 'One Health' (OH) approach is the most promising idea in realising the global goal of eliminating canine-mediated human rabies by 2030. However, taking an OH approach to rabies elimination can mean many different things to different people. We conducted a systematic review scrutinizing economic evaluations (EEs) retrieved from MEDLINE OVID, Embase OVID, Global Health OVID, CINAHL EBSCO and ECONLIT EBSCO that used the OH approach with the intent of identifying cost-effective sets of interventions that can be combined to implement an optimal OH-based rabies elimination program and highlight key gaps in the knowledge base. Our review suggests that an optimal OH program to tackle rabies should incorporate mass dog vaccination and integrated bite case management in combination with efficient use of post-exposure prophylaxis along with a shift to a 1-week abbreviated intradermal rabies vaccine regimen in humans. We recommend that future EEs of OH interventions for rabies elimination should be performed alongside implementation research to ensure proposed interventions are feasible and adopt a wider societal perspective taking into account costs and outcomes across both the human health and animal welfare sectors. The systematic review has been registered with PROSPERO.

How does exposure to COVID-19 influence health and income inequality aversion?

We study individual aversion to health and income inequality in three European countries (the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy), its determinants and especially, the effects of exposure to three types of COVID-19 specific shocks affecting individuals' employment status, their income and health. Next, using evidence of representative samples of the population in the UK, we compare levels of health- and income-inequality aversion in the UK between the years 2016 and 2020. We document evidence of a significant increase in inequality aversion in both income and health domains. However, we show that inequality aversion is higher in the income domain than in the health domain. Furthermore, we find that inequality aversion in both domains increases in age and education and decreases in income and risk appetite. However, people directly exposed to major health shocks during the COVID-19 pandemic generally exhibited lower levels of aversion to both income and health inequality. Finally, we show that inequality aversion was significantly higher among those exposed to higher risk of COVID-19 mortality who experienced major health shocks during the pandemic. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00355-023-01460-8.

Clustering of adverse health and educational outcomes in adolescence following early childhood disadvantage: population-based retrospective UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Disadvantage in early childhood (ages 0-5 years) is associated with worse health and educational outcomes in adolescence. Evidence on the clustering of these adverse outcomes by household income is scarce in the generation of adolescents born since the turn of the millennium. We aimed to describe the association between household income in early childhood and physical health, psychological distress, smoking behaviour, obesity, and educational outcomes at age 17 years, including the patterning and clustering of these five outcomes by income quintiles. METHODS: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, we used data from the Millennium Cohort Study in which individuals born in the UK between Sept 1, 2000, and Jan 1, 2002, were followed up. We collected data on five adverse health and social outcomes in adolescents aged 17 years known to limit life chances: psychological distress, self-assessed ill health, smoking, obesity, and poor educational achievement. We compared how single and multiple outcomes were distributed across early childhood quintile groups of income, as an indicator of disadvantage, and modelled the potential effect of three income-shifting scenarios in early childhood for reducing adverse outcomes in adolescence. FINDINGS: We included 15 245 adolescents aged 17 years, 7788 (51·1%) of whom were male and 7457 (48·9%) of whom were female. Adolescents in the lowest income quintile group in childhood were 12·7 (95% CI 6·4-25·1) times more likely than those in the highest quintile group to have four or five adverse adolescent outcomes, with poor educational achievement (risk ratio [RR] 4·6, 95% CI 4·2-5·0) and smoking (3·6, 3·0-4·2), showing the largest single risk ratios. Shifting up to the second lowest, middle, and highest income groups would reduce multiple adolescent adversities by 4·9% (95% CI -23·8 to 33·6), 32·3% (-2·7 to 67·3), and 83·9% (47·2 to 120·7), respectively. Adjusting for parental education and single parent status moderately attenuated these estimates. INTERPRETATION: Early childhood disadvantage is more strongly correlated with multiple adolescent adversities than any of the five single adverse outcomes. However, shifting children from the lowest income quintile group to the next lowest group is ineffective. Tackling multiple adolescent adversities requires managing early childhood disadvantage across the social gradient, with income redistribution as a central element of coordinated cross-sectoral action. FUNDING: UK Prevention Research Partnership.

Sex differences among children, adolescents and young adults for mental health service use within inpatient and outpatient settings, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: The pandemic and public health response to contain the virus had impacts on many aspects of young people's lives including disruptions to daily routines, opportunities for social, academic, recreational engagement and early employment. Consequently, children, adolescents and young adults may have experienced mental health challenges that required use of mental health services. This study compared rates of use for inpatient and outpatient mental health services during the pandemic to pre-pandemic rates. DESIGN: Population-based repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: Publicly delivered mental healthcare in primary and secondary settings within the province of Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All children 6-12 years of age (n=2 043 977), adolescents 13-17 years (n=1 708 754) and young adults 18-24 years (n=2 286 544), living in Ontario and eligible for provincial health insurance between March 2016 and November 2021. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outpatient mental health visits to family physicians and psychiatrists for: mood and anxiety disorders, alcohol and substance abuse disorders, other non-psychotic mental health disorders and social problems. Inpatient mental health visits to emergency departments and hospitalisations for: substance-related and addictive disorders, anxiety disorders, assault-related injuries, deliberate self-harm and eating disorders. All outcomes were analysed by cohort and sex. RESULTS: During the pandemic, observed outpatient visit rates were higher among young adults by 19.01% (95% CI: 15.56% to 22.37%; 209 vs 175 per 1000) and adolescent women 24.17% (95% CI: 18.93% to 29.15%; 131 vs 105 per 1000) for mood and anxiety disorders and remained higher than expected. Female adolescents had higher than expected usage of inpatient care for deliberate self-harm, eating disorders and assault-related injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Study results raise concerns over prolonged high rates of mental health use during the pandemic, particularly in female adolescents and young women, and highlights the need to better monitor and identify mental health outcomes associated with COVID-19 containment measures and to develop policies to address these concerns.

Novel intervention to promote COVID-19 protective behaviours among Black and South Asian communities in the UK: protocol for a mixed-methods pilot evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Culturally appropriate interventions to promote COVID-19 health protective measures among Black and South Asian communities in the UK are needed. We aim to carry out a preliminary evaluation of an intervention to reduce risk of COVID-19 comprising a short film and electronic leaflet. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed methods study comprises (1) a focus group to understand how people from the relevant communities interpret and understand the intervention's messages, (2) a before-and-after questionnaire study examining the extent to which the intervention changes intentions and confidence to carry out COVID-19 protective behaviours and (3) a further qualitative study exploring the views of Black and South Asian people of the intervention and the experiences of health professionals offering the intervention. Participants will be recruited through general practices. Data collection will be carried out in the community. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received Health Research Authority approval in June 2021 (Research Ethics Committee Reference 21/LO/0452). All participants provided informed consent. As well as publishing the findings in peer-reviewed journals, we will disseminate the findings through the UK Health Security Agency, NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and ensure culturally appropriate messaging for participants and other members of the target groups.

Changes in life expectancy and house prices in London from 2002 to 2019: hyper-resolution spatiotemporal analysis of death registration and real estate data.

Background: London has outperformed smaller towns and rural areas in terms of life expectancy increase. Our aim was to investigate life expectancy change at very-small-area level, and its relationship with house prices and their change. Methods: We performed a hyper-resolution spatiotemporal analysis from 2002 to 2019 for 4835 London Lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs). We used population and death counts in a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate age- and sex-specific death rates for each LSOA, converted to life expectancy at birth using life table methods. We used data from the Land Registry via the real estate website Rightmove (www.rightmove.co.uk), with information on property size, type and land tenure in a hierarchical model to estimate house prices at LSOA level. We used linear regressions to summarise how much life expectancy changed in relation to the combination of house prices in 2002 and their change from 2002 to 2019. We calculated the correlation between change in price and change in sociodemographic characteristics of the resident population of LSOAs and population turnover. Findings: In 134 (2.8%) of London's LSOAs for women and 32 (0.7%) for men, life expectancy may have declined from 2002 to 2019, with a posterior probability of a decline >80% in 41 (0.8%, women) and 14 (0.3%, men) LSOAs. The life expectancy increase in other LSOAs ranged from <2 years in 537 (11.1%) LSOAs for women and 214 (4.4%) for men to >10 years in 220 (4.6%) for women and 211 (4.4%) for men. The 2.5th-97.5th-percentile life expectancy difference across LSOAs increased from 11.1 (10.7-11.5) years in 2002 to 19.1 (18.4-19.7) years for women in 2019, and from 11.6 (11.3-12.0) years to 17.2 (16.7-17.8) years for men. In the 20% (men) and 30% (women) of LSOAs where house prices had been lowest in 2002, mainly in east and outer west London, life expectancy increased only in proportion to the rise in house prices. In contrast, in the 30% (men) and 60% (women) most expensive LSOAs in 2002, life expectancy increased solely independently of price change. Except for the 20% of LSOAs that had been most expensive in 2002, LSOAs with larger house price increases experienced larger growth in their population, especially among people of working ages (30-69 years), had a larger share of households who had not lived there in 2002, and improved their rankings in education, poverty and employment. Interpretation: Large gains in area life expectancy in London occurred either where house prices were already high, or in areas where house prices grew the most. In the latter group, the increases in life expectancy may be driven, in part, by changing population demographics. Funding: Wellcome Trust; UKRI (MRC); Imperial College London; National Institutes of Health Research.

Meta-evaluation of a whole systems programme, ActEarly: A study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Living in an area with high levels of child poverty predisposes children to poorer mental and physical health. ActEarly is a 5-year research programme that comprises a large number of interventions (>20) with citizen science and co-production embedded. It aims to improve the health and well-being of children and families living in two areas of the UK with high levels of deprivation; Bradford in West Yorkshire, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This protocol outlines the meta-evaluation (an evaluation of evaluations) of the ActEarly programme from a systems perspective, where individual interventions are viewed as events in the wider policy system across the two geographical areas. It includes investigating the programme's impact on early life health and well-being outcomes, interdisciplinary prevention research collaboration and capacity building, and local and national decision making. METHODS: The ActEarly meta-evaluation will follow and adapt the five iterative stages of the 'Evaluation of Programmes in Complex Adaptive Systems' (ENCOMPASS) framework for evaluation of public health programmes in complex adaptive systems. Theory-based and mixed-methods approaches will be used to investigate the fidelity of the ActEarly research programme, and whether, why and how ActEarly contributes to changes in the policy system, and whether alternative explanations can be ruled out. Ripple effects and systems mapping will be used to explore the relationships between interventions and their outcomes, and the degree to which the ActEarly programme encouraged interdisciplinary and prevention research collaboration as intended. A computer simulation model ("LifeSim") will also be used to evaluate the scale of the potential long-term benefits of cross-sectoral action to tackle the financial, educational and health disadvantages faced by children in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Together, these approaches will be used to evaluate ActEarly's dynamic programme outputs at different system levels and measure the programme's system changes on early life health and well-being. DISCUSSION: This meta-evaluation protocol presents our plans for using and adapting the ENCOMPASS framework to evaluate the system-wide impact of the early life health and well-being programme, ActEarly. Due to the collaborative and non-linear nature of the work, we reserve the option to change and query some of our evaluation choices based on the feedback we receive from stakeholders to ensure that our evaluation remains relevant and fit for purpose.

WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE).

Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods Phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.