Risk-based surveillance for meat-borne parasites.

There is a plethora of meat-borne hazards - including parasites - for which there may be a need for surveillance. However, veterinary services worldwide need to decide how to use their scarce resources and prioritise among the perceived hazards. Moreover, to remain competitive, food business operators - irrespective of whether they are farmers or abattoir operators - are preoccupied with maintaining a profit and minimizing costs. Still, customers and trade partners expect that meat products placed on the market are safe to consume and should not bear any risks of causing disease. Risk-based surveillance systems may offer a solution to this challenge by applying risk analysis principles; first to set priorities, and secondly to allocate resources effectively and efficiently. The latter is done through a focus on the cost-effectiveness ratio in sampling and prioritisation. Risk-based surveillance was originally introduced into veterinary public health in 2006. Since then, experience has been gathered, and the methodology has been further developed. Guidelines and tools have been developed, which can be used to set up appropriate surveillance programmes. In this paper, the basic principles are described, and by use of a surveillance design tool called SURVTOOLS (https://survtools.org/), examples are given covering three meat-borne parasites for which risk-based surveillance is 1) either in place in the European Union (EU) (Trichinella spp.), 2) to be officially implemented in December 2019 (Taenia saginata) or 3) only carried out by one abattoir company in the EU as there is no official EU requirement (Toxoplasma gondii). Moreover, advantages, requirements and limitations of risk-based surveillance for meat-borne parasites are discussed.

Priorities, concerns, and regret among patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the era of deintensification, little data are available regarding patients' treatment preferences. The current study evaluated treatment-related priorities, concerns, and regret among patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). METHODS: A total of 150 patients with HNSCC ranked the importance of 10 nononcologic treatment goals relative to the oncologic goals of cure and survival. The level of concern regarding 11 issues and decision regret was recorded. Median rank was reported overall, and factors associated with odds of rank as a top 3 priority were modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the treatment effects analyzed, the odds of being a top 3 priority was especially high for cure (odds, 9.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 5.05-16.63), followed by survival and swallow (odds, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88-1.80] and odds, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.59-1.21], respectively). Prioritization of cure, survival, and swallow was similar based on human papillomavirus (HPV) tumor status. By increasing decade of age, older participants were found to be significantly less likely than younger individuals to prioritize survival (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00). Concerns regarding mortality (P = .04) and transmission of HPV to the patient's spouse (P = .03) were more frequent among participants with HPV-associated HNSCC. Regret increased with additional treatment modalities (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HNSCC overwhelming prioritize cure, followed by survival and swallow. The decreased prioritization of survival by older age supports further examination of treatment preference by age. The precedence of oncologic over nononcologic priorities among patients regardless of HPV tumor status supports the conservative adoption of deintensification regimens until the interplay between competing oncologic and nononcologic treatment goals is better understood.

The corneal transplant score: a simple corneal graft candidate calculator.

BACKGROUND: Shortage of corneas for transplantation has created long waiting lists in most countries. Transplant calculators are available for many organs. The purpose of this study is to describe a simple automatic scoring system for keratoplasty recipient candidates, based on several parameters that we consider most relevant for tissue allocation, and to compare the system's accuracy in predicting decisions made by a cornea specialist. METHODS: Twenty pairs of candidate data were randomly created on an electronic spreadsheet. A single priority score was computed from the data of each candidate. A cornea surgeon and the automated system then decided independently which candidate in each pair should have surgery if only a single cornea was available. RESULTS: The scoring system can calculate values between 0 (lowest priority) and 18 (highest priority) for each candidate. Average score value in our randomly created cohort was 6.35 ± 2.38 (mean ± SD), range 1.28 to 10.76. Average score difference between the candidates in each pair was 3.12 ± 2.10, range 0.08 to 8.45. The manual scoring process, although theoretical, was mentally and emotionally demanding for the surgeon. Agreement was achieved between the human decision and the calculated value in 19 of 20 pairs. Disagreement was reached in the pair with the lowest score difference (0.08). CONCLUSIONS: With worldwide donor cornea shortage, waiting for transplantation can be long. Manual sorting of priority for transplantation in a long waiting list is difficult, time-consuming and prone to error. The suggested system may help achieve a justified distribution of available tissue.

Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: A wide range of preventive, treatment, and care programs for HIV/AIDS are currently available and some of them have been implemented in Thailand. Policy makers are now facing challenges on how the scarce resources for HIV/AIDS control can be spent more wisely. Although effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information is useful for guiding policy decisions, empirical evidence indicates the importance of other criteria, such as equity and the characteristics of the target population, also play important roles in priority setting. This study aims to experiment with the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to prioritise interventions in HIV/AIDS control in Thailand. METHODS: We used MCDA to rank 40 HIV/AIDS interventions on the basis of the priority setting criteria put forward by three groups of stakeholders including policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDs (PLWHA), and village health volunteers (VHVs). MCDA incorporated an explicit component of deliberation to let stakeholders reflect on the rank ordering, and adapt where necessary. RESULTS: Upon deliberation, policy makers expressed a preference for programs that target high risk groups such as men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and female sex workers. The VHVs preferred interventions that target the youth or the general population, and gave lower priority to programs that target high risk groups. PLWHA gave all interventions the same priority. The rank order correlation between the priorities as expressed before and after deliberation was 37% among the policy makers and 46% among the VHVs. CONCLUSION: This study documented the feasibility of MCDA to prioritize HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and has shown the usefulness of a deliberative process as an integrated component of MCDA. MCDA holds potential to contribute to a more transparent and accountable priority setting process, and further application of this approach in the prioritisation of health interventions is warranted.

Identifying research priorities for health care priority setting: a collaborative effort between managers and researchers.

BACKGROUND: To date there has been relatively little published about how research priorities are set, and even less about methods by which decision-makers can be engaged in defining a relevant and appropriate research agenda. We report on a recent effort in British Columbia to have researchers and decision-makers jointly establish an agenda for future research into questions of resource allocation. METHODS: The researchers enlisted decision-maker partners from each of British Columbia's six health authorities. Three forums were held, at which researchers and decision-makers from various levels in the health authorities considered possible research areas related to three key focus areas: (1) generation and use of decision criteria and measurement of 'benefit' against such criteria; (2) identification of so-called 'disinvestment' opportunities; and (3) evaluation of the effectiveness of priority setting procedures. Detailed notes were taken from each forum and synthesized into a set of qualitative themes. RESULTS: Forum participants suggested that future research into healthcare priority setting would benefit from studies that were longitudinal, comparative, and/or interdisciplinary. As well, participants identified two broad theme areas in which specific research projects were deemed desirable. First, future research might usefully consider how formal priority setting and resource allocation projects are situated within a larger organizational and political context. Second, additional research efforts should be devoted to better understanding and improving the actual implementation of priority setting frameworks, particularly with respect to issues of change management and the resolution of impediments to action on recommendations for resource allocation. CONCLUSION: We were able to validate the importance of initial areas posed to the group and observed emergence of additional concerns and directions of critical importance to these decision-makers at this time. It is likely that the results are broadly applicable to other healthcare contexts. The implementation of this research agenda in British Columbia will depend upon the ability of the researchers and decision-makers to develop particular projects that fit within the constraints of existing funding opportunities. The process of engagement itself had benefits in terms of connecting decision-makers with their peers and sparking increased interest in the use and refinement of priority setting frameworks.

Prioritization of rehabilitation Domains for establishing spinal cord injury high performance indicators using a modification of the Hanlon method: SCI-High Project.

Objectives: To prioritize Domains of SCI Rehabilitation Care (SCI-Care) based on clinical importance and feasibility to inform the development of indicators of quality SCI-Care for adults with SCI/D in Canada. Methods: A 17-member external advisory committee, comprised of key stakeholders, ranked 15/37 Domains of rehabilitation previously flagged by the E-scan project team for gaps between knowledge generation and clinical implementation. Priority scores (D) were calculated using the Hanlon formula: D=[A+(2×B)]×C , where A is prevalence, B is seriousness, and C is the effectiveness of available interventions. A modified "EAARS" (Economic, Acceptability, Accessibility, Resources, and Simplicity) criterion was used to rank feasibility on a scale of 0-4 (4 is high). The product of these two scores determined the initial Domain ranking. Following the consensus process, further changes were made to the Domain rankings. Results: Despite a low feasibility score, Sexual Health was ranked as high priority; and, the Community Participation and Employment Domains were merged. The 11 final prioritized Domains in alphabetic order were: Cardiometabolic Health; Community Participation and Employment; Emotional Well-Being; Reaching, Grasping, and Manipulation; Self-Management; Sexual Health; Tissue Integrity; Urinary Tract Infection; Urohealth; Walking, and Wheeled Mobility. Conclusions: The modified Hanlon method was used to facilitate prioritization of 11 of 37 Domains to advance the quality of SCI-care by 2020. In future, the Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Care High Performance Indicators (SCI-High) Project Team will develop structure, process and outcome indicators for each prioritized Domain.

Aligning ambulance dispatch priority to patient acuity: A methodology.

OBJECTIVE: In Victoria, Australia, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) demand has increased almost 5% per annum over the past 5 years. This may adversely affect response times to time-critical patients. Additionally, >55% of cases have received Code 1 (lights/sirens) responses. Primary telephone triage occurs using the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS); however, MPDS is reported to be highly sensitive, with common over-triage. The present study describes the methodology applied to better align the response allocated to MPDS determinant codes with patient acuity. METHODS: Data between October 2013 and August 2014 were extracted from the Ambulance Victoria data warehouse. The decision to allocate MPDS determinant codes to a lower response priority and/or secondary triage was based on epidemiological profiling and, in some cases, expert panel review. RESULTS: The review identified 105 MPDS codes receiving a Code 1 response as suitable for a Code 2 (urgent) response, and 221 Code 1 or 2 codes as suitable for secondary triage. Data analysis estimated a reduction in Code 1 responses by 28%, and an increase in the secondary triage caseload by 120%. Modelling also predicted a 2.6 percentage point improvement in the proportion of Code 1 cases attended within 15 min. CONCLUSION: Analysis of a large EMS dataset supported changes to the EMS response priority for a number of MPDS determinant codes. Such changes should improve the alignment between EMS response and patient acuity, and improve response times to time-critical patients. Other EMS with electronic data could consider testing this methodology.

Poverty in America: how public health practice can make a difference.

Health inequities linked to poverty remain entrenched in certain subgroups in the United States, despite public health efforts to the contrary. My experiences in working with the poor in Nepal and Pakistan informed my later approach to addressing health and poverty in the Appalachians of eastern Tennessee. Three aspects of this approach include enhancing community power through participation in local decisionmaking about health, educating students within the actual context of poverty, and increasing local opportunity by employing people from the communities of concern to serve as a means to reach those communities. Empowerment, education, and opportunity can serve as ways to ameliorate poverty and may serve to modulate the persistent underlying conditions that create and sustain poverty.

The association of dispatch prioritization and patient acuity.

INTRODUCTION: EMS systems use call prioritization to distinguish between high and low acuity patients, better use resources, and set system response times. Previous research focused on patient condition; however, recent research has reviewed patient acuity as an important maker for system response. Our objective was to analyze any trend between priority dispatch determinant codes and using a red lights and siren (RLS) transport from the scene. METHODS: Retrospective cohort observational study of 9-1-1 calls received in CY 2003. Chi-square analysis for trend and odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated to evaluate the differences in proportions of patients being transported RLS from the scene according to determinant level, p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was significant heterogeneity among the determinant cohorts (chi-square = 204.477, p < 0.001, 5 df). Further analysis showed absolute and proportional increases in RLS transport from the scene with increasing determinant level. The three lowest determinant levels were low risk (OR 0.13, 0.49, and 0.58), and the two highest determinant levels had significant risk for RLS transport (OR 1.63, 32.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients had increasing likelihood of being transported by RLS from the scene with increasing determinant level. Calls with the two highest determinant levels were at significant risk of being transported RLS from the scene.

Do different stakeholder groups share mental health research priorities? A four-arm Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable investment in research priority setting within diverse fields of healthcare, little is known about the extent to which different stakeholder groups share research priorities. Conflicting priorities may jeopardize stakeholder engagement in research. OBJECTIVE: To identify the research priorities of different stakeholder groups within mental health care and examine the extent and nature of agreement between them. DESIGN: Using a Delphi technique, we conducted parallel consultation processes within four different stakeholder groups. Each group process consisted of three rounds. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was carried out within a mental health and learning disabilities trust in southern England. Participants were recruited from the following groups: mental health service users (34), informal carers (26), mental health practitioners (35) and service managers (23). FINDINGS: There were striking differences between the four groups in respect of their ability and willingness to make priority decisions. These differences notwithstanding, there was considerable overlap in respect of their research interests. All groups identified and attached high importance to issues relating to the promotion of independence, self-esteem and recovery. The quality of in-patient care, the place of psychological therapies and the relationship between physical and mental health also emerged across the board. CONCLUSIONS: The confluence of four different stakeholder groups around a number of clear themes is highly encouraging, providing a framework within which to construct a research agenda and suggesting that mental health research can be built on solid partnerships.

Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Involving members of the public in setting priorities for health research in becoming increasingly common practice. One method used in public involvement exercises is the citizens' jury. OBJECTIVE: This article examines some challenges and benefits of citizens' juries, including issues relating to process, public engagement and outcome. DESIGN: In Bristol, UK, a citizens' jury was held with the aim of identifying local priorities for research into health and social care. This jury is used as an example through which key issues in public involvement and jury processes are explored. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Bristol Citizens' Jury comprised 20 members of the public ('jurors'), an oversight panel and a steering group. The jurors met at 11 consecutive sessions during 2006 over a period of 16 weeks, which culminated in a written report. All the sessions were audio-recorded, five sessions were observed and video-recorded, and 16 jurors completed written feedback forms at the end of the jury process. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: In this article we discuss degree and timing of public involvement in the process of health research; the role of context; representation of communities; processes of deliberation and knowledge production; and how constraints of time and cost may affect public involvement. It was clear that jurors who took part in the Bristol Citizens' Jury were engaged and committed. This engagement may be related to jurors' belief in their ability to shape future research alongside concern about the relevance of the issues under discussion. Opposing emotions of tension and harmony are a crucial part of the deliberation process.

Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of using a citizens' jury to elicit public values on health technologies and to develop criteria for setting priorities for health technology assessment (HTA). METHODS: Sixteen individuals were selected from 1600 randomly sampled residents of the Capital Health Region in Alberta, Canada. They participated in a 2 (1/2) day jury which comprised presentations by 'expert witnesses', who represented innovators, patients, health-care policy-makers and clinicians, as well as a series of small and large group priority-setting exercises based on actual examples of technologies that had recently been considered for assessment by local and national HTA bodies. The session was audio-taped, and transcripts were independently reviewed by two researchers using content analytical techniques in order to ensure that no important concepts expressed by individual jurors were missed during group development of the final list of priority-setting criteria. Jurors evaluated the process by completing self-administered, semi-structured questionnaires at the end of the session. Responses were analysed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: The jury identified 13 criteria, which they subsequently ranked in order of importance. The top two criteria included 'potential to benefit a number of people' and 'extends life with quality'. Based on feedback from questionnaires, jurors valued the opportunity to become engaged in such a process, and expressed interest in participating in future juries. CONCLUSIONS: Citizens' juries offer a feasible approach to involving the public in priority-setting for HTA. Furthermore, technologies that may benefit a number of people and improve quality of life appear to be of greatest importance to the public.

Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of standard methods for determining the clinical priority of patients referred by general practitioners (GPs) for specialist outpatient consultations. We introduced a system of progressive involvement by general practitioners and specialists with 80 diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate this new method of prioritization of patients suffering from significant gastroenterological disorders needing rapid access to diagnostic procedures. METHODS: The study included 438 outpatients who were referred for and underwent a gastroscopy or colonoscopy. GPs used a ranking of waiting times for different levels of clinical priority, called 'homogeneous waiting groups'. Specialists also assigned a priority level for each patient as well as evaluating the appropriateness of the referral and the presence of significant endoscopic disorders. Agreement between GPs' and specialists' priority assessments was evaluated by the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Most referrals (74.4%) were deemed low priority by GPs, with no maximum waiting time assigned. The level of agreement between GPs and specialists as regards patients' priorities was poor or moderate: for gastroscopy the kappa was 0.31 (weighted kappa 0.47) and for colonoscopy 0.44 (weighted kappa 0.46). There was an association between the proportion of significant disorders identified with endoscopy and the priority assigned to the referral (chi2 = 18.9, 1 df, p < 0.001). The overall proportion of referrals deemed inappropriate by specialists was 22.1%. CONCLUSIONS: There is value in liaison between GPs and specialists for achieving timely referrals and avoiding delayed diagnosis though higher levels of agreement need to be achieved.

The moral importance of selecting people randomly.

This article discusses some ethical principles for distributing pandemic influenza vaccine and other indivisible goods. I argue that a number of principles for distributing pandemic influenza vaccine recently adopted by several national governments are morally unacceptable because they put too much emphasis on utilitarian considerations, such as the ability of the individual to contribute to society. Instead, it would be better to distribute vaccine by setting up a lottery. The argument for this view is based on a purely consequentialist account of morality; i.e. an action is right if and only if its outcome is optimal. However, unlike utilitarians I do not believe that alternatives should be ranked strictly according to the amount of happiness or preference satisfaction they bring about. Even a mere chance to get some vaccine matters morally, even if it is never realized.

Priority dilemmas in psoriasis care and visions of a future care in a group of administrators, politicians and professionals in northern Sweden.

During the 1990s priority discussions were actualized in Sweden due to increased demands on health care and limited resources. In the county of Västerbotten in northern Sweden, with large rural areas, the decision makers faced special challenges due to distances and cost. Despite discussions striving for fairness in priorities, decision makers are still dealing with limited resources and difficult priority decisions regarding different diseases and treatments. In this study we aimed at describing views on priorities in public psoriasis care and visions of a future care among politicians, administrators and professionals in the county of Västerbottten in northern Sweden. Qualitative research interviews were performed with 23 key-persons. The findings revealed priority dilemmas about issues on organization, accessibility and ethics. Visions of a future care appeared as ambitions of a more effective care with good accessibility, continued research, information and a holistic approach in priorities. We conclude that dilemmas revealed in this study were a reflection of a gap between intentions and practice. In efforts to reduce these dilemmas we suggest methods with fairness in economic planning and priority setting, with concrete, official statements about the dominating views on which the priorities are based, and public information about these statements.

Allocating HIV prevention resources: a tool for state and local decision making.

The CDC provides funding for HIV prevention activities and state and local decision-makers must allocate these funds. The implementation of a resource allocation tool designed to facilitate this process that incorporates concepts of efficiency and equity as well as CDC mandates on the use of community planning groups is demonstrated, showing how information obtained from the resource allocation tool can be used to guide the policy analysis. The demonstration uses a simplified example based on data from Florida. The tool quantifies the inherent trade-offs associated with efficiency and equity and allows decision-makers to explore different ways of achieving equity. Given the underlying epidemiological model, results are not necessarily linear so common proportionality assumptions do not hold. However, a sense of equity can be provided by implementing various metrics allowing the policy maker flexibility in their decision process. By quantifying the impact of policy choices in terms of efficiency, cost, and distribution, the resource allocation tool makes the decision process more transparent and permits more informed choices.

Decision makers' perceptions of health technology decision making and priority setting at the institutional level.

This study describes health care decision makers' perceptions about decision making processes for the introduction, diffusion and prioritisation of new health technologies at the regional and institutional level. The aim of the study was to aid the design of a new process of technology assessment and decision making for the Northern Sydney and Central Coast Area Health Service (NSCCAHS). Twelve in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior health service managers, nurse managers and senior medical clinicians in the NSCCAHS. Interviewees described prioritisation and decision-making processes as "ad hoc". Safety and effectiveness were considered the most important criteria in decision making but budgetary consideration often drove decisions about the uptake and diffusion of new technologies. Current dissatisfaction with decision-making processes creates opportunities for reform, including the introduction of consistent local technology assessments.

Prioritizing health technologies in a Primary Care Trust.

BACKGROUND: In the English National Health Service (NHS), Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning health-care services on behalf of their populations. As resources are finite, decisions are required as to which services best fulfil population needs. Evidence on effectiveness varies in quality and availability. Nevertheless, decisions still have to be made. METHODS: We report the development and pilot application of a multi-criteria prioritization mechanism in an English PCT, capable of accommodating a wide variety of evidence to rank six service developments. RESULTS: The mechanism proved valuable in assisting prioritization decisions and feedback was positive. Two community-based interventions were expected to save money in the long term and were ranked at the top of the list. Based on weighted benefit score and cost, two preventive programmes were ranked third and fourth. Finally, two National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-approved interventions were ranked fifth and sixth. Sensitivity analysis revealed overlap in benefit scores for some of the interventions, representing diversity of opinion among the scoring panel. CONCLUSION: The method appears to be a practical approach to prioritization for commissioners of health care, but the pilot also revealed interesting divergences in relative priority between nationally mandated service developments and local health-care priorities.

Combining evidence and values in priority setting: testing the balance sheet method in a low-income country.

BACKGROUND: Procedures for priority setting need to incorporate both scientific evidence and public values. The aim of this study was to test out a model for priority setting which incorporates both scientific evidence and public values, and to explore use of evidence by a selection of stakeholders and to study reasons for the relative ranking of health care interventions in a setting of extreme resource scarcity. METHODS: Systematic search for and assessment of relevant evidence for priority setting in a low-income country. Development of a balance sheet according to Eddy's explicit method. Eight group interviews (n-85), using a modified nominal group technique for eliciting individual and group rankings of a given set of health interventions. RESULTS: The study procedure made it possible to compare the groups' ranking before and after all the evidence was provided to participants. A rank deviation is significant if the rank order of the same intervention differed by two or more points on the ordinal scale. A comparison between the initial rank and the final rank (before deliberation) showed a rank deviation of 67%. The difference between the initial rank and the final rank after discussion and voting gave a rank deviation of 78%. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based and deliberative decision-making does change priorities significantly in an experimental setting. Our use of the balance sheet method was meant as a demonstration project, but could if properly developed be feasible for health planners, experts and health workers, although more work is needed before it can be used for laypersons.