Altmetric coverage of health research in Ireland 2017-2023: a protocol for a cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Scientific publications have been growing exponentially, contributing to an oversaturated information environment. Quantifying a research output's impact and reach cannot be solely measured by traditional metrics like citation counts as these have a lag time and are largely focused on an academic audience. There is increasing recognition to consider 'alternative metrics' or altmetrics to measure more immediate and broader impacts of research. Better understanding of altmetrics can help researchers better navigate evolving information environments and changing appetites for different types of research. Objectives: Our study aims to: 1) analyse the amount and medium of Altmetric coverage of health research produced by Irish organisations (2017 - 2023), identifying changes over time and 2) investigate differences in the amount of coverage between clinical areas (e.g., nutrition vs. neurology). Methods: Using Altmetric institutional access, we will gather data on research outputs published 1 January 2017 through 31 December 2023 from active Irish organisations with Research Organisation Registry (ROR) IDs. Outputs will be deduplicated and stratified by their Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification relating to ≥1 field of health research: Biological Sciences, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Chemical Sciences, Health Sciences, and Psychology. We will clean data using R and perform descriptive analyses, establishing counts and frequencies of coverage by clinical area and medium (e.g., traditional news, X, etc.); data will be plotted on a yearly and quarterly basis where appropriate. Results and Conclusions: Improved understanding of one's information environment can help researchers better navigate their local landscapes and identify pathways for more effective communication to the public. All R code will be made available open-source, allowing researchers to adapt it to evaluate their local landscapes.

Availability and use of personal protective equipment in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Availability and appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is of particular importance in Low and Middle-Income countries (LMICs) where disease outbreaks other than COVID-19 are frequent and health workers are scarce. This study assesses the availability of necessary PPE items during the COVID-19 pandemic at health facilities in seven LMICs. METHODS: Data were collected using a rapid-cycle survey among 1554 health facilities in seven LMICs via phone-based surveys between August 2020 and December 2021. We gathered data on the availability of World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended PPE items and the use of items when examining patients suspected to be infected with COVID-19. We further investigated the implementation of service adaptation measures in a severe shortage of PPE. RESULTS: There were major deficiencies in PPE availability at health facilities. Almost 3 out of 10 health facilities reported a stock-out of medical masks on the survey day. Forty-six percent of facilities did not have respirator masks, and 16% did not have any gloves. We show that only 43% of health facilities had sufficient PPE to comply with WHO guidelines. Even when all items were available, healthcare workers treating COVID-19 suspected patients were reported to wear all the recommended equipment in only 61% of health facilities. We did not find a statistically significant difference in implementing service adaptation measures between facilities experiencing a severe shortage or not. CONCLUSION: After more than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall availability of PPE remained low in our sample of low and middle-income countries. Although essential, the availability of PPE did not guarantee the proper use of the equipment. The lack of PPE availability and improper use of available PPE enable preventable COVID-19 transmission in health facilities, leading to greater morbidity and mortality and risking the continuity of service delivery by healthcare workers.

Vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from facility surveys across six countries.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy remains a critical barrier in mitigating the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The willingness of health care workers (HCWs) to be vaccinated, and, in turn, recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for their patient population is an important strategy. This study aims to understand the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the reasoning for vaccine hesitancy among facility-based health care workers (HCWs) in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted nationally representative phone-based rapid-cycle surveys across facilities in six LMICs to better understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We gathered data on vaccine uptake among facility managers, their perceptions of vaccine uptake and hesitancy among the HCWs operating in their facilities, and their perception of vaccine hesitancy among the patient population served by the facility. RESULTS: 1,148 unique public health facilities participated in the study, with vaccines being almost universally offered to facility-based respondents across five out of six countries. Among facility respondents who have been offered the vaccine, more than 9 in 10 survey respondents had already been vaccinated at the time of data collection. Vaccine uptake among other HCWs at the facility was similarly high. Over 90% of facilities in Bangladesh, Liberia, Malawi, and Nigeria reported that all or most staff had already received the COVID-19 vaccine when the survey was conducted. Concerns about side effects predominantly drive vaccine hesitancy in both HCWs and the patient population. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that the opportunity to get vaccinated in participating public facilities is almost universal. We find vaccine hesitancy among facility-based HCWs, as reported by respondents, to be very low. This suggests that a potentially effective effort to increase vaccine uptake equitably would be to channel promotional activities through health facilities and HCWs.However, reasons for hesitancy, even if limited, are far from uniform across countries, highlighting the need for audience-specific messaging.

Resilience of front-line facilities during COVID-19: evidence from cross-sectional rapid surveys in eight low- and middle-income countries.

Responsive primary health-care facilities are the foundation of resilient health systems, yet little is known about facility-level processes that contribute to the continuity of essential services during a crisis. This paper describes the aspects of primary health-care facility resilience to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in eight countries. Rapid-cycle phone surveys were conducted with health facility managers in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi and Nigeria between August 2020 and December 2021. Responses were mapped to a validated health facility resilience framework and coded as binary variables for whether a facility demonstrated capacity in eight areas: removing barriers to accessing services, infection control, workforce, surge capacity, financing, critical infrastructure, risk communications, and medical supplies and equipment. These self-reported capacities were summarized nationally and validated with the ministries of health. The analysis of service volume data determined the outcome: maintenance of essential health services. Of primary health-care facilities, 1,453 were surveyed. Facilities maintained between 84% and 97% of the expected outpatient services, except for Bangladesh, where 69% of the expected outpatient consultations were conducted between March 2020 and December 2021. For Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea and Nigeria, critical infrastructure was the largest constraint in resilience capabilities (47%, 14%, 51%, 9% and 29% of facilities demonstrated capacity, respectively). Medical supplies and equipment were the largest constraints for Liberia and Malawi (15% and 48% of facilities demonstrating capacity, respectively). In Bangladesh, the largest constraint was workforce and staffing, where 44% of facilities experienced moderate to severe challenges with human resources during the pandemic. The largest constraints in facility resilience during COVID-19 were related to health systems building blocks. These challenges likely existed before the pandemic, suggesting the need for strategic investments and reforms in core capacities of comprehensive primary health-care systems to improve resilience to future shocks.

Healthcare utilization and maternal and child mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in 18 low- and middle-income countries: An interrupted time-series analysis with mathematical modeling of administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had wide-reaching direct and indirect impacts on population health. In low- and middle-income countries, these impacts can halt progress toward reducing maternal and child mortality. This study estimates changes in health services utilization during the pandemic and the associated consequences for maternal, neonatal, and child mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data on service utilization from January 2018 to June 2021 were extracted from health management information systems of 18 low- and lower-middle-income countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Uganda). An interrupted time-series design was used to estimate the percent change in the volumes of outpatient consultations and maternal and child health services delivered during the pandemic compared to projected volumes based on prepandemic trends. The Lives Saved Tool mathematical model was used to project the impact of the service utilization disruptions on child and maternal mortality. In addition, the estimated monthly disruptions were also correlated to the monthly number of COVID-19 deaths officially reported, time since the start of the pandemic, and relative severity of mobility restrictions. Across the 18 countries, we estimate an average decline in OPD volume of 13.1% and average declines of 2.6% to 4.6% for maternal and child services. We projected that decreases in essential health service utilization between March 2020 and June 2021 were associated with 113,962 excess deaths (110,686 children under 5, and 3,276 mothers), representing 3.6% and 1.5% increases in child and maternal mortality, respectively. This excess mortality is associated with the decline in utilization of the essential health services included in the analysis, but the utilization shortfalls vary substantially between countries, health services, and over time. The largest disruptions, associated with 27.5% of the excess deaths, occurred during the second quarter of 2020, regardless of whether countries reported the highest rate of COVID-19-related mortality during the same months. There is a significant relationship between the magnitude of service disruptions and the stringency of mobility restrictions. The study is limited by the extent to which administrative data, which varies in quality across countries, can accurately capture the changes in service coverage in the population. CONCLUSIONS: Declines in healthcare utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic amplified the pandemic's harmful impacts on health outcomes and threaten to reverse gains in reducing maternal and child mortality. As efforts and resource allocation toward prevention and treatment of COVID-19 continue, essential health services must be maintained, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects.

There are over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation. But are treaties actually helpful for addressing global challenges? This systematic field-wide evidence synthesis of 224 primary studies and meta-analysis of the higher-quality 82 studies finds treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. The only exceptions are treaties governing international trade and finance, which consistently produced intended effects. We also found evidence that impactful treaties achieve their effects through socialization and normative processes rather than longer-term legal processes and that enforcement mechanisms are the only modifiable treaty design choice with the potential to improve the effectiveness of treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains. This evidence synthesis raises doubts about the value of international treaties that neither regulate trade or finance nor contain enforcement mechanisms.

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a New Course on Essential Skills for Women's Leadership in Global Health.

While many calls have been made to support the development of women leaders in global health, few resources have been developed and evaluated to meet this goal. We developed and evaluated a one week online short course on the essential skills for women's leadership in global health, offered in June 2021 to 22 students from 4 countries (Australia, Ethiopia, Thailand, and the United States). The course covered the state of women's leadership in global health and influencing factors; leadership theories models and frameworks; self-awareness and self-assessments; organizations and enabling environments; communication; and negotiation, and was designed to promote skills via practice, discussion, and debrief. Students rated the course highly and enjoyed the skills-building components, diversity of voices presented throughout the course, and embedded networking opportunities. Future iterations of the course, particularly those held in low-and middle-income countries, should contextualize materials, co-create with local instructors and amplify local voices, and consider incorporating shadowing, coaching, mentorship, and communities of practice.

Evaluating official development assistance-funded granting mechanisms for global health and development research that is initiated in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Several countries allocate official development assistance (ODA) for research on global health and development issues that is initiated in the donor country. The integration of such research within domestic research systems aligns with efforts to coordinate ODA investments with science, technology and innovation policies towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). METHODS: Through a document synthesis and interviews with research funders in ODA donor and recipient countries, we evaluated the performance of this funding approach across seven donor-country programmes from five donor countries and examined the institutional design elements that increase its chances of advancing development goals and addressing global challenges. RESULTS: We found that carefully designed programmes provide a promising pathway to producing valuable and contextually relevant knowledge on global health and development issues. To achieve these outcomes and ensure they benefit ODA-receiving countries, programmes should focus on recipient-country priorities and absorptive capacity; translate research on global public goods into context-appropriate technologies; plan and monitor pathways to impact; structure equitable partnerships; strengthen individual and institutional capacity; and emphasize knowledge mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Global health and development research programmes and partnerships have an important role to play in achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges. Governments should consider the potential of ODA-funded research programmes to address gaps in their global health and development frameworks. In the absence of concrete evidence of development impact, donor countries should consider making increases in ODA allocations for research additional to more direct investments that have demonstrated effectiveness in ODA-receiving countries.

Role of Human Leukocyte Antigen Allele Sharing in Human Papillomavirus Infection Transmission Among Heterosexual Couples: Findings From the HITCH Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) polymorphism influences innate and adaptive immune responses. Among heterosexual couples in the HPV Infection and Transmission Among Couples Through Heterosexual Activity (HITCH) cohort study, we examined whether allele sharing in a couple predicted the partners' infections with the same human papillomavirus (HPV) type. METHODS: We tested genital samples from 271 couples for 36 HPV genotypes by polymerase chain reaction. We used direct DNA sequencing to type HLA-B07, -DRB1, -DQB1 and -G. Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the associations between the extent of allele sharing and HPV type concordance in which at least 1 of the partners was HPV positive. RESULTS: We identified 106 different HLA alleles. The most common HLA alleles among couples were G*01:01:01 (95.6%), G*01:01:02 (60.1%), DQB1*03:01 (57.2%), and DRB1*07:01 (46.9%). Allele sharing was as follows: 19.6% shared none, 43.2% shared 1 only, 25.1% shared 2, and 12.5% shared 3-5. Irrespective of HLA class, grouped or in combination, the extent of allele sharing was not a significant predictor of type-specific HPV concordance in a couple (odds ratio, 1.1 [95% confidence interval, .5-2.1], for 3-5 vs none). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the extent of HLA allele concordance influences the likelihood of HPV transmission in newly formed heterosexual couples.

COVID-19 risk perceptions of social interaction and essential activities and inequity in the USA: results from a nationally representative survey.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 has disproportionately affected disadvantaged communities across the USA. Risk perceptions for social interactions and essential activities during the COVID-19 pandemic may vary by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative online survey of 1592 adults in the USA to understand risk perceptions related to transmission of COVID-19 for social (eg, visiting friends) and essential activities (eg, medical visits or returning to work). We assessed relationships for activities using bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistic regression modelling, between responses of safe and unsafe, and participant characteristics. Data were collected and analysed in 2020. RESULTS: Among 1592 participants, risk perceptions of unsafe for 13 activities ranged from 29.2% to 73.5%. Large gatherings, indoor dining and visits with elderly relatives had the highest proportion of unsafe responses (>58%), while activities outdoor, accessing healthcare and going to the grocery store had the lowest (<36%). Older respondents were more likely to view social gatherings and indoor activities as unsafe but less likely for other activities, such as going to the grocery store and accessing healthcare. Compared with white/Caucasian respondents, black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino respondents were more likely to view activities such as dining and visiting friends outdoor as unsafe. Generally, men versus women, Republicans versus Democrats and independents, and individuals with higher versus lower income were more likely to view activities as safe. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based interventions should be tailored to sociodemographic differences in risk perception, access to information and health behaviours when implementing efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic.

Curating the Evidence About COVID-19 for Frontline Public Health and Clinical Care: The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium.

The public health crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a deluge of scientific research aimed at informing the public health and medical response to the pandemic. However, early in the pandemic, those working in frontline public health and clinical care had insufficient time to parse the rapidly evolving evidence and use it for decision-making. Academics in public health and medicine were well-placed to translate the evidence for use by frontline clinicians and public health practitioners. The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC), a group of >60 faculty and trainees across the United States, formed in March 2020 with the goal to quickly triage and review the large volume of preprints and peer-reviewed publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and summarize the most important, novel evidence to inform pandemic response. From April 6 through December 31, 2020, NCRC teams screened 54 192 peer-reviewed articles and preprints, of which 527 were selected for review and uploaded to the NCRC website for public consumption. Most articles were peer-reviewed publications (n = 395, 75.0%), published in 102 journals; 25.1% (n = 132) of articles reviewed were preprints. The NCRC is a successful model of how academics translate scientific knowledge for practitioners and help build capacity for this work among students. This approach could be used for health problems beyond COVID-19, but the effort is resource intensive and may not be sustainable in the long term.

Curating and translating the evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 for frontline public health and clinical care: The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC).

The public health crisis created by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has spurred a deluge of scientific research aimed at informing public health and medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, those working in frontline public health and clinical care had insufficient time to parse the rapidly evolving evidence and use it for decision making. Academics in public health and medicine were well-placed to translate the evidence for use by frontline clinicians and public health practitioners. The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC), a group of >50 faculty and trainees, began in March 2020 with the goal to quickly triage and review the large volume of preprints and peer-reviewed publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, and to summarize the most important, novel evidence to inform pandemic response. From April 6, 2020 through January 1, 2021, 54,192 papers and preprints were screened by NCRC teams and 527 were selected for review and uploaded to the NCRC website for public consumption. The majority of papers reviewed were peer-reviewed publications (n=395, 75%), published in 102 journals; 25% (n=132) of papers reviewed were of preprints. The NCRC is a successful model of how academics can support practitioners by translating scientific knowledge into action and help to build capacity among students for this work. This approach could be used for health problems beyond COVID-19, but the effort is resource intensive and may not be sustainable over the long term.

Health Systems and Services During COVID-19: Lessons and Evidence From Previous Crises: A Rapid Scoping Review to Inform the United Nations Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery.

This rapid scoping review has informed the development of the November 2020 United Nations Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery, by providing a synthesis of available evidence on the impact of pandemics and epidemics on (1) essential services and (2) health systems preparedness and strengthening. Emerging findings point to existing disparities in health systems and services being further exacerbated, with marginalized populations and low- and middle-income countries burdened disproportionately. More broadly, there is a need to further understand short- and long-term impacts of bypassed essential services, quality assurance of services, the role of primary health care in the frontline, and the need for additional mechanisms for effective vaccine messaging and uptake during epidemics. The review also highlights how trust-of institutions, of science, and between communities and health systems-remains central to a successful pandemic response. Finally, previous crises had repeatedly foreshadowed the inability of health systems to handle upcoming pandemics, yet the reactive nature of policies and practices compounded by lack of resources, infrastructure, and political will have resulted in the current failed response to COVID-19. There is therefore an urgent need for investments in implementation science and for strategies to bridge this persistent research-practice gap.

Impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control on global cigarette consumption: quasi-experimental evaluations using interrupted time series analysis and in-sample forecast event modelling.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on global cigarette consumption. DESIGN: Two quasi-experimental impact evaluations, using interrupted time series analysis (ITS) and in-sample forecast event modelling. SETTING AND POPULATION: 71 countries for which verified national estimates of cigarette consumption from 1970 to 2015 were available, representing over 95% of the world's cigarette consumption and 85% of the world's population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The FCTC is an international treaty adopted in 2003 that aims to reduce harmful tobacco consumption and is legally binding on the 181 countries that have ratified it. Main outcomes were annual national estimates of cigarette consumption per adult from 71 countries since 1970, allowing global, regional, and country comparisons of consumption levels and trends before and after 2003, with counterfactual control groups modelled using pre-intervention linear time trends (for ITS) and in-sample forecasts (for event modelling). RESULTS: No significant change was found in the rate at which global cigarette consumption had been decreasing after the FCTC's adoption in 2003, using either ITS or event modelling. Results were robust after realigning data to the year FCTC negotiations commenced (1999), or to the year when the FCTC first became legally binding in each country. By contrast to global consumption, high income and European countries showed a decrease in annual consumption by over 1000 cigarettes per adult after 2003, whereas low and middle income and Asian countries showed an increased annual consumption by over 500 cigarettes per adult when compared with a counterfactual event model. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds no evidence to indicate that global progress in reducing cigarette consumption has been accelerated by the FCTC treaty mechanism. This null finding, combined with regional differences, should caution against complacency in the global tobacco control community, motivate greater implementation of proven tobacco control policies, encourage assertive responses to tobacco industry activities, and inform the design of more effective health treaties.

Towards a Systematic Understanding of How to Institutionally Design Scientific Advisory Committees: A Conceptual Framework and Introduction to a Special Journal Issue.

Scientifically-derived insights are often held as requirements for defensible policy choices. Scientific advisory committees (SACs) figure prominently in this landscape, often with the promise of bringing scientific evidence to decision-makers. Yet, there is sparse and scattered knowledge about what institutional features influence the operations and effectiveness of SACs, how these design choices influence subsequent decision-making, and the lessons learned from their application. The consequences of these knowledge gaps are that SACs may not be functioning as effectively as possible. The articles in this special journal issue of Global Challenges bring together insights from experts across several disciplines, all of whom are committed to improving SACs' effectiveness worldwide. The aim of the special issue is to inform future SAC design in order to help maximize the application of high-quality scientific research for the decisions of policymakers, practitioners, and the public alike. In addition to providing an overview of the special issue and a summary of each article within it, this introductory essay presents a definition of SACs and a conceptual framework for how different institutional features and contextual factors affect three proximal determinants of SACs' effectiveness, namely the quality of advice offered, the relevance of that advice, and its legitimacy.

An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees.

The current lack of synthesized evidence for informing the design of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is surprising in light of the widespread use of SACs throughout decision-making processes. While existing research points to the importance of quality, relevance, and legitimacy for SACs' effectiveness, those planning SACs would benefit from efforts to systematically pinpoint optimal designs of these committees for maximal effectiveness. Search strategies are developed for seven electronic databases. Of the 1895 systematic reviews identified, six reviews meet the inclusion criteria: they report the results of systematic reviews that followed a clearly identified systematic methodology, examine factors related to the design of SACs, and involve processes in the natural or social sciences. These reviews collectively summarize 444 primary studies. Three of the six reviews look at the impacts of SAC size, two evaluate the influence of the committee's diversity, and half mention the importance of properly on-boarding new members. The goal is to identify recurring themes to understand the specific institutional features that optimize the usefulness of SACs. In turn, this overview of systematic reviews aims to contribute to a growing body of literature on how SACs should be designed to maximize their effectiveness and helpfulness for decision-making.

What Can Be Learned from Experience with Scientific Advisory Committees in the Field of International Environmental Politics?

Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are a critically important part of global environmental policy. This commentary reviews the role of SACs in six global and regional environmental regimes, defined here as the set of rules, norms, and procedures that are developed by states and international organizations out of their common concerns and used to organize common activities. First, SACs play a critical role in putting issues on the political agenda and the creation of an overarching regime. Second, the effectiveness of a given SAC and the associated regime is highly variable. Third, there is also considerable variation in the extent to which the regime is driven by an overarching scientific consensus, for example, high in the case of climate change, lower in the case of whaling. Fourth, the role of science in a given regime is also a function of whether the problem being addressed is relatively benign or more malign, that is to say, marked by deep political disagreements (i.e., climate change). Finally, the cases examined here suggest that the institutional design of the SAC matters and can influence the overall effectiveness of the SAC and by extension, the regime, but it is seldom decisive.

Outcomes for potential kidney transplant recipients offered public health service increased risk kidneys: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Discard rate of Public Health Service Increased Risk (PHS-IR) organs is high despite the absence of worse kidney transplant outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of PHS-IR kidney offers made to kidney transplant-only potential recipients from 6/2004 to 5/2015. Overall mortality and transplant outcomes between potential recipients were stratified by response to PHS-IR kidney offers. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses of mortality and allograft failure were performed. RESULTS: A total of 2423 potential recipients were offered a PHS-IR kidney, with 1502 transplanted, with or without a PHS-IR kidney. Predictors of accepting a PHS-IR kidney included higher Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score, prior kidney transplant, and lower educational achievement on multivariable analysis (P = 0.025, P = 0.004, P = 0.023). A positive response to a PHS-IR kidney was associated with lower risk of mortality (3.63% vs 11.6%; aHR 0.467, P = 0.0008). PHS-IR kidney recipients had decreased risk of allograft loss compared to non-PHS-IR recipients (P = 0.007), though mortality outcomes were not significantly different based on PHS-IR status (P = 0.38). No transmission of HIV, HBV, or HCV occurred from PHS-IR kidney donors in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts must be made to increase awareness of the beneficial outcomes of PHS-IR organs to maximize appropriate donor allocation.