How to Integrate Personalized Medicine into Prevention? Recommendations from the Personalized Prevention of Chronic Diseases (PRECeDI) Consortium.

Medical practitioners are increasingly adopting a personalized medicine (PM) approach involving individually tailored patient care. The Personalized Prevention of Chronic Diseases (PRECeDI) consortium project, funded within the Marie Sklodowska Curie Action (MSCA) Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) scheme, had fostered collaboration on PM research and training with special emphasis on the prevention of chronic diseases. From 2014 to 2018, the PRECeDI consortium trained 50 staff members on personalized prevention of chronic diseases through training and research. The acquisition of skills from researchers came from dedicated secondments from academic and nonacademic institutions aimed at training on several research topics related to personalized prevention of cancer and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases. In detail, 5 research domains were addressed: (1) identification and validation of biomarkers for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases, secondary prevention of Alzheimer disease, and tertiary prevention of head and neck cancer; (2) economic evaluation of genomic applications; (3) ethical-legal and policy issues surrounding PM; (4) sociotechnical analysis of the pros and cons of informing healthy individuals on their genome; and (5) identification of organizational models for the provision of predictive genetic testing. Based on the results of the research carried out by the PRECeDI consortium, in November 2018, a set of recommendations for policy makers, scientists, and industry has been issued, with the main goal to foster the integration of PM approaches in the field of chronic disease prevention.

PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe): methods, structures and evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE), building on previous European collaborative projects, was developed to assess national uptake and impacts of European public health innovations, to describe national public health research programmes, strategies and structures and to develop participation of researchers through the organizational structures of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA). This article describes the methods used. METHODS: PHIRE was led by EUPHA with seven partner organisations over 30 months. It was conceived to engage the organisation of EUPHA--working through its thematic Sections, and through its national public health associations--and assess innovation and research across 30 European countries. Public health research was defined broadly as health research at population and organisational level. There were seven Work Packages (three covering coordination and four for technical aspects) led by partners and coordinated through management meetings. RESULTS: Seven EUPHA Sections identified eight innovations within the projects funded by the Public Health Programme of the European Commission Directorate for Health and Consumers. Country informants, identified through EUPHA thematic Sections, reported on national uptake of the innovations in eight public health projects supported by the European Union Public Health Programme. Four PHIRE partners, each taking a regional sector of Europe, worked with the public health associations and other informants to describe public health research programmes, calls and systems. A classification was created for the national public health research programmes and calls in 2010. The internal and external evaluations were supportive. CONCLUSIONS: PHIRE described public health innovations and research across Europe through national experts. More work is needed to conceptualize and define public health 'innovations' and to develop theories and methods for the assessment of their uptake and impacts at country and cross-country levels. More attention to methods to describe and assess national public health research programmes, strategies and structures--contributing to development of the European Research Area.

Programmes and calls for public health research in European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Public health research, at population and organizational level, needs to be identified independently within 'health' research from biomedicine and life sciences. In PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), we investigated the extent and character of public health research calls and programmes in European countries. METHODS: Country respondents, identified through national member associations of the European Public Health Association completed a standardized recording instrument. Public health research was defined, and the call period limited to the latest full year (2010). Of the 30 countries included (EU 27 plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), there were reports for 25 countries A simple classification of the calls was developed. RESULTS: There were 75 calls and programmes included. Of these, 41 (55%) together were in France and the UK, and 34 in a further 14 countries, while 9 countries reported there were no calls or programmes opened in 2010. Calls were categorized across diseases, behaviours, determinants, services and methodologies. Some calls were broad, while others--particularly in the countries with several calls--were more detailed towards specific issues. Levels of funding varied markedly and were difficult to define. Where stated, in 32 responses, 19 calls were only open to national applicants and 13 from abroad. CONCLUSIONS: Most European countries have competitive programmes and calls relevant for public health research, but they are poorly identified. Only a minority of countries present a wide range of topics and specific fields. Effort is needed to develop classifications for public health programmes and calls for public health research, improve information (including financial) collection to enable systematic comparisons and build greater recognition of public health research within research communities, with national and European research funding organizations, and for practitioners and policymakers.

National action for European public health research.

INTRODUCTION: Research and innovation are the basis for improving health and health services. The European Union (EU) supports research through multi-annual programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE) investigated how European countries cooperate for action in public health research. METHODS: In PHIRE, following stakeholder workshops and consultations, a national report on public health research was created for 24 of 30 European countries. The report template asked five questions, on national links to European public health research and on national research through the Structural Funds and Ministry of Health. The national reports were assessed with framework analysis, and the country actions were classified strong/partial/weak or none. There were responses to the five questions sufficient for this analysis for between 14 and 20 countries RESULTS: Six countries had public health research aligned with the EU, while three (large) countries were reported not aligned. Only two countries expressed strong engagement in developing public health research within Horizon 2020: most Ministries of Health had no position and only had contact with EU health research through other ministries. Only two countries reported use of the 2007-13 Structural Funds for public health research. While seven Ministries of Health led research from their own funds, or linked with Ministries of Science in six, the Ministries of Health of seven countries were reported not to be involved in public health research. CONCLUSIONS: Ministries of Health and stakeholders are poorly engaged in developing public health research, with the Horizon 2020 research programme, or the Structural Funds. The European Commission should give more attention to coordination of public health research with member states if it is to give best value to European citizens.