Priority setting: Development of the South Australian Aboriginal Chronic Disease Consortium RoadMap for Action.

ISSUES ADDRESSED: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Aboriginal) people in South Australia are overburdened by cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. The South Australian Aboriginal Chronic Disease Consortium (Consortium) was established in June 2017 as a collaborative partnership to lead the implementation of three state-wide chronic disease plans using a strategic approach to identifying key priority areas for action. METHODS: In 2017-2018, the Consortium Coordinating Centre facilitated a priority setting process, which involved extensive consultation, including a prioritisation survey and stakeholder workshops. The Consortium's Aboriginal Community Reference Group was instrumental in leading the identification of priorities for action. RESULTS: The Consortium RoadMap for Action identified seven across-plan priorities and six condition-specific priorities. It acknowledged that: strengthening social and emotional well-being is central to improving health outcomes; prevention and early detection, acute management and ongoing management are all components of the continuum of care; and improving access to services, strengthening the workforce, and monitoring and evaluation are required across the continuum of care. CONCLUSION: Widespread implementation failure in the past across the health system and health services implementation and research translation highlights the value of the Consortium approach and its commitment to implementing the state-wide chronic disease plans in a collaborative manner. The Consortium relies on and fosters cross-sectoral alignment, with all key players including all public, private and Aboriginal Community Controlled health services, to progress its priorities and aspirations to improve health outcomes for Aboriginal people using evidence-based strategies. SO WHAT?: Rigorous and transparent priority setting processes that bring together research, clinical practice, health services operations, policy and community perspectives can foster intersectoral collaboration and partnership and support the implementation of shared priorities.

Institutional design and moral conflict in health care priority-setting.

Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements-in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively-that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three implications for institutional design in developed democracies: (1) indeterminacy at the level of moral psychology can increase the probability of indeterminacy at the level of institutional design; (2) situational constraints in effect require priority-setting policy-makers to adopt normative-moral pluralism; and (3) the U.S. health care system may be in an anti-priority-setting equilibrium.

Developing an obesity research agenda with British Pakistani women living in deprived areas with involvement from multisectoral stakeholders: Research priority setting with a seldom heard group.

INTRODUCTION: British Pakistani women have exceptionally high rates of obesity and yet are seldom heard in a research priority setting concerning weight management. The objectives of this study were (i) to ascertain what multisectoral professionals perceive to be the most pressing unmet obesity needs or topic areas that need more research in relation to Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford and (ii) to determine the top 10 obesity health priorities for this group to develop an obesity research agenda. METHODS: A two-step process was adopted using the following: (i) a survey of a wide range of multisectoral professional stakeholders (n = 159) and (ii) a ranking exercise involving Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford (n = 32) to select and prioritize their top 10 obesity health concerns and unmet needs from a list of 31 statements identified in the survey and previous research. Survey data were analysed using inductive content analysis and themes were identified. Themes were translated into statements to be ranked by Pakistani women. The ranking exercise was conducted by telephone either via voice or video call. Data were analysed using a reverse scoring system. RESULTS: Survey responses were grouped into statements reflecting the following three categories: education needs; healthy behaviour barriers and mental well-being. The highest rankings were given by Pakistani women to statements on mental health and the need for education. The top 10 prioritized statements were developed with members of the public into an obesity research agenda that reflected the target population. CONCLUSION: Actively engaging British Pakistani women in setting research priorities provided a unique opportunity to understand the key areas they think are important for future research. The culminating research agenda can be used by researchers to advance the field of obesity research in Pakistani communities, thus producing research outputs that are relevant to and have impact in this population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants in the ranking exercise collected data. Public contributors were involved in developing the prioritized statements into a research agenda.

Prioritizing IVF treatment in the post-COVID 19 era: a predictive modelling study based on UK national data.

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Designing for Scale and taking scale to account: lessons from a community score card project in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Planning for the implementation of community scorecards (CSC) is an important, though seldom documented process. Makerere University School of Public Health (MakSPH) and Future Health Systems Consortium set out to develop and test a sustainable and scalable CSC model. This paper documents the process of planning and adapting the design of the CSC, incorporating key domains of the scalable model such as embeddedness, legitimacy, feasibility and ownership, challenges encountered in this process and how they were mitigated. METHODS: The CSC intervention comprised of five rounds of scoring in five sub counties and one town council of Kibuku district. Data was drawn from ten focus group discussions, seven key informant interviews with local and sub national leaders, and one reflection meeting with the project team from MakSPH. More data was abstracted from notes of six quarterly stakeholder meetings and six quarterly project meetings. Data was analyzed using a thematic approach, drawing constructs outlined in the project's theory of change. RESULTS: Embeddedness, legitimacy and ownership were promoted through aligning the model with existing processes and systems as well as the meaningful and strategic involvement of stakeholders and leaders at local and sub national level. The challenges encountered included limited technical capacity of stakeholders facilitating the CSC, poor functionality of existing community engagement platforms, and difficulty in promoting community participation without financial incentives. However, these challenges were mitigated through adjustments to the intervention design based on the feedback received. CONCLUSION: Governments seeking to scale up CSCs and to take scale to account should keenly adapt existing models to the local implementation context with strategic and meaningful involvement of key legitimate local and sub national leaders in decision making during the design and implementation process. However, they should watch out for elite capture and develop mitigating strategies. Social accountability practitioners should document their planning and adaptive design efforts to share good practices and lessons learned. Enhancing local capacity to implement CSCs should be ensured through use of existing local structures and provision of technical support by external or local partners familiar with the skill until the local partners are competent.

Thoracic Surgery during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): The Experience of a Level 1 Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel coronavirus primarily affecting the respiratory system, was initially diagnosed in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Identified as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the World Health Organization, the virus rapidly became a global pandemic. The effects on health care worldwide were unprecedented as countries adapted services to treat masses of critically ill patients.The aim of this study is to analyze the effect that the COVID-19 pandemic had on thoracic surgery at a major trauma center during peak prevalence. METHODS: Prospective unit data were collected for all patients who underwent thoracic surgery during March 2020 until May 2020 inclusive. Retrospective data were collected from an earlier comparable time period as a comparison. RESULTS: In the aforementioned time frame, 117 thoracic surgical operations were performed under the care of four thoracic surgeons. Six operations were performed on three patients who were being treated for SARS-CoV-2. One operation was performed on a patient who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2. There were no deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 in any patient undergoing thoracic surgery. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that during the first surge of SARS-CoV-2, it was possible to adapt a thoracic oncology and trauma service without increase in mortality due to COVID-19. This was only possible due to a significant reduction in trauma referrals, cessation of benign and elective work, and the more stringent reprioritization of cancer surgery. This information is vital to learn from our experience and prepare for the predicted second surge and any similar future pandemics we might face.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Primary health care, the Declaration of Astana and COVID-19.

Four decades after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, its vision of health for all and strategy of primary health care are still an inspiration to many people. In this article we evaluate the current status of primary health care in the era of the Declaration of Astana, the sustainable development goals, universal health coverage and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We consider how best to guide greater application of the primary health care strategy, reflecting on tensions that remain between the political vision of primary health care and its implementation in countries. We also consider what is required to support countries to realize the aspirations of primary health care, arguing that national needs and action must dominate over global preoccupations. Changing contexts and realities need to be accommodated. A clear distinction is needed between primary health care as an inspirational vision and set of values for health development, and primary health care as policy and implementation space. To achieve this vision, political action is required. Stakeholders beyond the health sector will often need to lead, which is challenging because the concept of primary health care is poorly understood by other sectors. Efforts on primary health care as policy and implementation space might focus explicitly on primary care and the frontline of service delivery with clear links and support to complementary work on social determinants and building healthy societies. Such efforts can be partial but important implementation solutions to contribute to the much bigger political vision of primary health care.

Quarante ans après la Déclaration d'Alma-Ata, sa vision en matière de santé universelle et sa stratégie de soins de santé primaires demeurent une inspiration pour de nombreuses personnes. Dans cet article, nous évaluons l'état actuel des soins de santé primaires à l'ère de la Déclaration d'Astana, des objectifs de développement durable, de la couverture maladie universelle et de la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Nous tentons de déterminer quel est le meilleur moyen de favoriser une application plus vaste de la stratégie de soins de santé primaires, en tenant compte des tensions qui subsistent entre la vision politique des soins de santé primaires et leur mise en œuvre dans les différents pays. Nous identifions également les éléments qui aident les pays à concrétiser les aspirations liées aux soins de santé primaires, et affirmons que les besoins et actions à l'échelle nationale doivent primer sur les préoccupations internationales. L'évolution des contextes et des réalités doit être prise en considération. Il est impératif d'opérer une nette distinction entre les soins de santé primaires comme source d'inspiration et ensemble de valeurs guidant le développement sanitaire d'une part, et comme espace politique et de mise en œuvre de l'autre. Pour y parvenir, des actes politiques sont indispensables. Des intervenants n'appartenant pas au secteur de la santé devront souvent prendre l'initiative, ce qui représente un défi car le concept des soins de santé primaires suscite l'incompréhension dans les autres secteurs. Les efforts en matière d'espace politique et de mise en œuvre pourraient se concentrer explicitement sur les soins de santé primaires et la première ligne des prestations de service, avec des liens clairement établis et un soutien aux travaux complémentaires consacrés aux déterminants sociaux et à la création d'une société saine. De tels efforts peuvent offrir des solutions partielles mais essentielles à l'élaboration d'une vision politique bien plus large des soins de santé primaires.

Cuatro décadas después de la Declaración de Almá Atá, su visión de la salud para todos y su estrategia de atención primaria de salud siguen siendo una inspiración para muchas personas. En este artículo se evalúa el estado actual de la atención primaria de salud en la era de la Declaración de Astaná, los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible, la cobertura sanitaria universal y la pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus de 2019. Se analiza la mejor manera de orientar una mayor aplicación de la estrategia de atención primaria de salud al estudiar las tensiones que subsisten entre la visión política de la atención primaria de salud y su aplicación en los países. También se analiza lo que se requiere para ayudar a los países a materializar las aspiraciones de la atención primaria de salud al argumentar que las necesidades y las medidas nacionales deben prevalecer sobre las preocupaciones mundiales. Se deben tener en cuenta los contextos y las realidades cambiantes. Hay que establecer una clara diferencia entre la atención primaria de salud como visión inspiradora y conjunto de valores para el desarrollo de la salud, y la atención primaria de salud como entorno normativo y de aplicación. Por consiguiente, se requiere la adopción de medidas políticas para hacer realidad esta visión. Con frecuencia, las partes interesadas que no pertenecen al sector sanitario tendrán que tomar la iniciativa, lo que supone un reto porque el concepto de atención primaria de salud no se comprende bien en otros sectores. Los esfuerzos relacionados con la atención primaria como entorno normativo y de aplicación se podrían centrar de manera explícita en la atención primaria y en la prestación de servicios de primera línea a través de vínculos claros y el apoyo a la labor complementaria sobre los determinantes sociales y la construcción de sociedades sanas. Esos esfuerzos pueden ser soluciones parciales pero importantes de aplicación para contribuir a la visión política mucho más amplia de la atención primaria de salud.

Tracking health sector priority setting processes and outcomes for human resources for health, five-years after political devolution: a county-level case study in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Health sector priority setting in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) entails balancing between a high demand and low supply of scarce resources. Human Resources for Health (HRH) consume the largest allocation of health sector resources in LMICs. Health sector decentralization continues to be promoted for its perceived ability to improve efficiency, relevance and participation in health sector priority setting. Following the 2013 devolution in Kenya, both health service delivery and human resource management were decentralized to county level. Little is known about priority setting practices and outcomes of HRH within decentralized health systems in LMICs. Our study sought to examine if and how the Kenyan devolution has improved health sector priority setting practices and outcomes for HRH. METHODS: We used a mixed methods case study design to examine health sector priority setting practices and outcomes at county level in Kenya. We used three sources of data. First, we reviewed all relevant national and county level policy and guidelines documents relating to HRH management. We then accessed and reviewed county records of HRH recruitment and distribution between 2013 and 2018. We finally conducted eight key informant interviews with various stakeholder involved in HRH priority setting within our study county. RESULTS: We found that HRH numbers in the county increased by almost two-fold since devolution. The county had two forms of HRH recruitment: one led by the County Public Services Board as outlined by policy and guidelines and a parallel, politically-driven recruitment done directly by the County Department of Health. Though there were clear guidelines on HRH recruitment, there were no similar guidelines on allocation and distribution of HRH. Since devolution, the county has preferentially staffed higher level hospitals over primary care facilities. Additionally, there has been local county level innovations to address some HRH management challenges, including recruiting doctors and other highly specialized staff on fixed term contract as opposed to permanent basis; and implementation of local incentives to attract and retain HRH to remote areas within the county. CONCLUSION: Devolution has significantly increased county level decision-space for HRH priority setting in Kenya. However, HRH management and accountability challenges still exist at the county level. There is need for interventions to strengthen county level HRH management capacity and accountability mechanisms beyond additional resources allocation. This will boost the realization of the country's efforts for promoting service delivery equity as a key goal - both for the devolution and the country's quest towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC).

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.

Rethinking patient involvement in healthcare priority setting.

With healthcare systems under pressure from scarcity of resources and ever-increasing demand for services, difficult priority setting choices need to be made. At the same time, increased attention to patient involvement in a wide range of settings has given rise to the idea that those who are eventually affected by priority setting decisions should have a say in those decisions. In this paper, we investigate arguments for the inclusion of patient representatives in priority setting bodies at the policy level. We find that the standard justifications for patient representation, such as to achieve patient-relevant decisions, empowerment of patients, securing legitimacy of decisions, and the analogy with democracy, all fall short of supporting patient representation in this context. We conclude by briefly outlining an alternative proposal for patient participation that involves patient consultants.

Prioritizing critical-care resources in response to COVID-19: lessons from the development of Thailand's Triage protocol.

As COVID-19 ravages the world, many countries are faced with the grim reality of not having enough critical-care resources to go around. Knowing what could be in store, the Thai Ministry of Public Health called for the creation of an explicit protocol to determine how these resources are to be rationed in the situation of demand exceeding supply. This paper shares the experience of developing triage criteria and a mechanism for prioritizing intensive care unit resources in a middle-income country with the potential to be applied to other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faced with a similar (if not more of a) challenge when responding to the global pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, this locally developed guideline would be among the first of its kind from an LMIC setting. In summary, the experience from the Thai protocol development highlights three important lessons. First, stakeholder consultation and public engagement are crucial steps to ensure the protocol reflects the priorities of society and to maintain public trust in the health system. Second, all bodies and actions proposed in the protocol must not conflict with existing laws to ensure smooth implementation and adherence by professionals. Last, all components of the protocol must be compatible with the local context including medical culture, physician-patient relationship, and religious and societal norms.

Introducing health technology assessment in Tanzania.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a cost-effective resource allocation tool in healthcare decision-making processes; however, its use is limited in low-income settings where countries fall short on both absorptive and technical capacity. This paper describes the journey of the introduction of HTA into decision-making processes through a case study revising the National Essential Medicines List (NEMLIT) in Tanzania. It draws lessons on establishing and strengthening transparent priority-setting processes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: The concept of HTA was introduced in Tanzania through revision of the NEMLIT by identifying a process for using HTA criteria and evidence-informed decision making. Training was given on using economic evidence for decision making, which was then put into practice for medicine selection for the NEMLIT. During the revision process, capacity-building workshops were held with reinforcing messages on HTA. RESULTS: Between the period 2014 and 2018, HTA was introduced in Tanzania with a formal HTA committee being established and inaugurated followed by the successful completion and adoption of HTA into the NEMLIT revision process by the end of 2017. Consequently, the country is in the process of institutionalizing HTA for decision making and priority setting. CONCLUSION: While the introduction of HTA process is country-specific, key lessons emerge that can provide an example to stakeholders in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) wishing to introduce priority-setting processes into health decision making.

Prioritising health research in KwaZulu-Natal: has the research conducted met the research needs?

BACKGROUND: The KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Health Act of 2009 mandates the Provincial Health Research and Ethics Committee to develop health research priorities for the province. During 2013, the KZN Department of Health embarked on a research prioritisation process for the province. Priority research questions were generated by an inclusive process, in which a variety of stakeholders in health research in the province were engaged. The aim of this study was to determine whether research conducted at public health facilities in KZN between 01 January 2014 and 31 March 2017 met the research priorities of the province developed through the provincial research prioritisation process of 2013. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to categorise priority research questions generated in the priority-setting process and the titles of research projects conducted after that process into themes. Quantitative analysis was used to determine the correlation between themes of the priority questions, and those of the research projects conducted after the prioritisation exercise. Statistical Package for Social Science version 25 was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: In 72% of thematic areas, there were disproportionately more priority questions than there were research projects conducted. There is thus a large disjuncture between the priorities developed through the provincial research prioritisation process of 2013 and the research projects conducted after that process in terms of major research areas. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring that research conducted responds to priority questions raised is important because it ensures that research responds to locally important issues and to the concerns of local actors. Local health managers, communities and researchers should work together to ensure that the research conducted in their areas respond to the research priorities of those areas. Health Research Committees and local ethics committees can play important roles in facilitating the responsiveness to research priorities.

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

BACKGROUND: Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening. MAIN TEXT: The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery.

BACKGROUND: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. RESULTS: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

NICE and Fair? Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999-2018.

The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is responsible for conducting health technology assessment (HTA) on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS). In seeking to justify its recommendations to the NHS about which technologies to fund, NICE claims to adopt two complementary ethical frameworks, one procedural-accountability for reasonableness (AfR)-and one substantive-an 'ethics of opportunity costs' (EOC) that rests primarily on the notion of allocative efficiency. This study is the first to empirically examine normative changes to NICE's approach and to analyse whether these enhance or diminish the fairness of its decision-making, as judged against these frameworks. It finds that increasing formalisation of NICE's approach and a weakening of the burden of proof laid on technologies undergoing HTA have together undermined its commitment to EOC. This implies a loss of allocative efficiency and a shift in the balance of how the interests of different NHS users are served, in favour of those who benefit directly from NICE's recommendations. These changes also weaken NICE's commitment to AfR by diminishing the publicity of its decision-making and by encouraging the adoption of rationales that cannot easily be shown to meet the relevance condition. This signals a need for either substantial reform of NICE's approach, or more accurate communication of the ethical reasoning on which it is based. The study also highlights the need for further empirical work to explore the impact of these policy changes on NICE's practice of HTA and to better understand how and why they have come about.

Healthcare Resource Allocation and Priority-setting. A European Challenge.

The right to health, as a right to healthcare, represents the most expensive social right in Europe, significantly affecting the total budget of the Member States, both in universal and insurance healthcare systems. No healthcare system provides unlimited healthcare resources to all its users. The resources available for healthcare are limited compared with demand, and all healthcare systems, regardless of their financing and organisation, employ mechanisms to prioritise finite healthcare resources. The progressive increase in healthcare costs in a context of scarce resources, worsened by the fiscal crisis of the 1990s and economic crises spreading in Europe since 2007, has highlighted the ever more urgent need to address the fundamental issues of resource allocation and priority-setting at both European and national levels. Hence, priority-setting is arguably one of the most important health policy issues of our time at global, European and national levels.

Countdown to 2030: eliminating hepatitis B disease, China.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a major public health problem worldwide. China has the world's largest burden of HBV infection and will be a major contributor towards the global elimination of hepatitis B disease by 2030. The country has made good progress in reducing incidence of HBV infection in the past three decades. The achievements are mainly due to high vaccination coverages among children and high coverage of timely birth-dose vaccine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HBV (both > 95%). However, China still faces challenges in achieving its target of 65% reduction in mortality from hepatitis B by 2030. Based on targets of the World Health Organization's Global health sector strategy on viral hepatitis 2016-2021, we highlight further priorities for action towards HBV elimination in China. To achieve the impact target of reduced mortality we suggest that the service coverage targets of diagnosis and treatment should be prioritized. First, improvements are needed in the diagnostic and treatment abilities of medical institutions and health workers. Second, the government needs to reduce the financial burden of health care on patients. Third, better coordination is needed across existing national programmes and resources to establish an integrated prevention and control system that covers prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment of HBV infection across the life cycle. In this way, progress can be made towards achieving the target of eliminating hepatitis B in China by 2030.

Les infections par le virus de l'hépatite B (VHB) constituent un problème de santé publique majeur à l'échelle mondiale. La Chine est le pays le plus lourdement touché par les infections par le VHB et sa contribution sera donc essentielle pour atteindre l'objectif d'élimination de l'hépatite B dans le monde à l'horizon 2030. Au cours des trente dernières années, le pays a fait des progrès notables en matière de réduction de l'incidence des infections par le VHB. Ces avancées sont principalement dues aux forts niveaux de couverture vaccinale des enfants et d'administration de la dose vaccinale à la naissance visant à prévenir la transmission du VHB de la mère à l'enfant (>95% dans les deux cas). Néanmoins, la Chine doit encore relever des défis de taille pour atteindre l'objectif de réduction de 65% de la mortalité due à l'hépatite B d'ici à 2030. À partir des cibles définies dans la Stratégie mondiale du secteur de la santé contre l'hépatite virale, 2016-2021 de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé, nous avons identifié les actions à mener prioritairement en vue de l'élimination du VHB en Chine. Pour atteindre l'objectif de réduction de la mortalité, nous suggérons d'orienter en priorité les efforts sur l'amplification de la couverture des services de diagnostic et de traitement. Premièrement, des améliorations sont requises au niveau des capacités diagnostiques et de traitement des institutions médicales et des agents de santé. Deuxièmement, le gouvernement doit réduire la charge financière des soins de santé qui pèse sur les patients. Troisièmement, une meilleure coordination est nécessaire entre les ressources et les programmes nationaux existants, en vue d'établir un système intégré de prévention et de lutte englobant la prévention, le dépistage, le diagnostic et le traitement des infections par le VHB à tous les âges de la vie. De nouveaux progrès pourraient ainsi être faits en vue d'atteindre l'objectif d'élimination de l'hépatite B en Chine à l'horizon 2030.

La infección por el virus de la hepatitis B (VHB) es un gran problema de sanidad pública en todo el mundo. China tiene la mayor carga de infección por VHB en el mundo y será uno de los principales contribuyentes a la eliminación mundial de la enfermedad de la hepatitis B para 2030. En las últimas tres décadas, el país ha hecho grandes progresos en la reducción de la incidencia de la infección por el VHB. Los logros se deben principalmente a la alta cobertura de vacunación entre los niños y a la alta cobertura de la vacuna de dosis oportuna al nacer para la prevención de la transmisión maternoinfantil del VHB (ambas > 95 %). Sin embargo, China sigue teniendo dificultades para alcanzar su objetivo de reducir en un 65 % la mortalidad por hepatitis B para 2030. Basados en los objetivos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud sobre la Estrategia global del sector sanitario para la hepatitis viral 2016-2021, destacamos otras prioridades de acción para la eliminación del VHB en China. Para lograr el objetivo de impacto de la reducción de la mortalidad, sugerimos que se prioricen los objetivos de cobertura de los servicios de diagnóstico y tratamiento. En primer lugar, es necesario mejorar la capacidad de diagnóstico y tratamiento de las instituciones médicas y los trabajadores sanitarios. En segundo lugar, el gobierno debe reducir la carga financiera de la atención sanitaria para los pacientes. En tercer lugar, se necesita una mejor coordinación entre los programas y recursos nacionales existentes para establecer un sistema integrado de prevención y control que abarque la prevención, el cribado, el diagnóstico y el tratamiento de la infección por VHB a lo largo de todo el ciclo de vida. De esta manera, se puede avanzar hacia el objetivo de eliminar la hepatitis B en China para 2030.

Top research priorities for preterm birth: results of a prioritisation partnership between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: We report a process to identify and prioritise research questions in preterm birth that are most important to people affected by preterm birth and healthcare practitioners in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. METHODS: Using consensus development methods established by the James Lind Alliance, unanswered research questions were identified using an online survey, a paper survey distributed in NHS preterm birth clinics and neonatal units, and through searching published systematic reviews and guidelines. Prioritisation of these questions was by online voting, with paper copies at the same NHS clinics and units, followed by a decision-making workshop of people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Overall 26 organisations participated. Three hundred and eighty six people responded to the survey, and 636 systematic reviews and 12 clinical guidelines were inspected for research recommendations. From this, a list of 122 uncertainties about the effects of treatment was collated: 70 from the survey, 28 from systematic reviews, and 24 from guidelines. After removing 18 duplicates, the 104 remaining questions went to a public online vote on the top 10. Five hundred and seven people voted; 231 (45%) people affected by preterm birth, 216 (43%) health professionals, and 55 (11%) affected by preterm birth who were also a health professional. Although the top priority was the same for all types of voter, there was variation in how other questions were ranked. Following review by the Steering Group, the top 30 questions were then taken to the prioritisation workshop. A list of top 15 questions was agreed, but with some clear differences in priorities between people affected by preterm birth and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: These research questions prioritised by a partnership process between service users and healthcare professionals should inform the decisions of those who plan to fund research. Priorities of people affected by preterm birth were sometimes different from those of healthcare professionals, and future priority setting partnerships should consider reporting these separately, as well as in total.