Identifying Barriers to Appropriate Use of Metabolic/Bariatric Surgery for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment: Policy Lab Results.

Despite increasing recognition of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of bariatric/metabolic surgery in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, few patients who may be appropriate candidates and may benefit from this type of surgery avail themselves of this treatment option. To identify conceptual and practical barriers to appropriate use of surgical procedures, a Policy Lab was hosted at the 3rd World Congress on Interventional Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes on 29 September 2015. Twenty-six stakeholders participated in the Policy Lab, including academics, clinicians, policy-makers, industry leaders, and patient representatives. Participants were provided with a summary of available evidence about the cost-effectiveness of bariatric/metabolic surgery and the costs of increasing the use of bariatric/metabolic surgery, using U.K. and U.S. scenarios as examples of distinct health care systems. There was widespread agreement among this group of stakeholders that bariatric/metabolic surgery is a legitimate and cost-effective approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes in obese patients. The following four building blocks were identified to facilitate policy changes: 1) communicating the scale of the costs and harms associated with rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes; 2) properly articulating the role of bariatric/metabolic surgery for certain population groups; 3) identifying new funding sources for bariatric/metabolic surgery; and 4) incorporating bariatric/metabolic surgery into the appropriate clinical pathways. Although more research is needed to identify specific clinical scenarios for the prioritization of bariatric/metabolic surgery, the case appears to be strong enough to engage relevant policy-makers and practitioners in a concerted discussion of how to better use metabolic surgical resources in conjunction with other interventions in good diabetes practice.

'Even though it's a small checkbox, it's a big deal': stresses and strains of managing sexual identity(s) on Facebook.

Facebook offers a socialisation context in which young people from ethnic, gender and sexual minorities must continually manage the potential for prejudice and discrimination in the form of homophobia and racism. In-depth interviews were conducted with eight young women, aged 16-19 years, who self-identified as queer and as women of colour. A detailed analysis of these interviews--focusing in particular on how young people described navigating expectations of rejection from family and friends--offered insight into the psychological and health consequences associated with managing sexual identity(s) while online. The 'closet' ultimately takes on new meaning in this virtual space: participants described trying to develop social relationships within Facebook, which demands sharing one's thoughts, behaviours and ideas, while also hiding and silencing their emerging sexuality. In this 'virtual closet', tempering self-presentation to offset social exclusion has become a continuous, yet personally treacherous, activity during the daily practice of using Facebook.

What is good governance in the context of drug policy?

The concept of governance is applied in a wide range of contexts, but this paper focuses on governance in relation to public administration, i.e. states and how they take action, and specifically governance of particular policy areas. In the current context of financial austerity and an era of globalisation, policy-makers face pressures and challenges from a growing range of interests and local, national and supranational actors. Drug policy is an example of a particularly contentious and polarised area in which governance-related challenges abound. In response to these challenges, interest has grown in developing agreed policy governance standards and processes and articulating policy-making guidelines, including the use of available evidence to inform policy-making. Attempts have been made to identify 'policy fundamentals' - factors or aspects of policy-making apparently associated with successful policy development and implementation (Hallsworth & Rutter, 2011; Laughrin, 2011) and, in the drug policy field, Hughes et al. (2010) reflecting on the co-ordination of Australian drug policy highlighted some of what they considered principles of good governance. But how useful is the concept of 'good governance'; how well can it be defined, and to what purpose? As part of a wider project considering the governance of drug policy, RAND Europe and the UK Drug Policy Commission undertook a targeted review of other research and sought expert views, from within and beyond drug policy, on principles, processes, structures and stakeholders associated with good drug policy governance. From this emerged some perceived characteristics of good governance that were then used by the UK Drug Policy Commission to assess the extent to which drug policy making in the UK fits with these perceived good governance characteristics, and to suggest possible improvements. Particular consideration was given to the range of interests at stake, the overarching aims of drug policy and the development and inclusion of an evidence base where possible. This paper draws on findings of the study to highlight challenges associated with defining good governance, provides an example of a framework for assessing drug policy governance and discusses the feasibility, transferability and potential benefits of such an undertaking.

For debate: a new wave in public health improvement.

The rising burden of chronic disease poses a challenge for all public health systems and requires innovative approaches to effectively improve population health. Persisting inequalities in health are of particular concern. Disadvantage because of education, income, or social position is associated with a larger burden of disease and, in particular, multimorbidity. Although much has been achieved to enhance population health, challenges remain, and approaches need to be revisited. In this paper, we join the debate about how a new wave of public health improvement might look. We start from the premise that population health improvement is conditional on a health-promoting societal context. It is characterised by a culture in which healthy behaviours are the norm, and in which the institutional, social, and physical environment support this mindset. Achievement of this ambition will require a positive, holistic, eclectic, and collaborative effort, involving a broad range of stakeholders. We emphasise three mechanisms: maximisation of the value of health and incentives for healthy behaviour; promotion of healthy choices as default; and minimisation of factors that create a culture and environment which promote unhealthy behaviour. We give examples of how these mechanisms might be achieved.

Development of a Framework to Estimate the Cost of Opioid Dependence.

Opioid dependence imposes a range of costs on individuals, families, communities and society, and understanding these costs is important to inform policy and decision making in this area, especially when budgets for services to address challenges such as substance misuse are under pressure. This article sets out the findings of a targeted review of the harms of opioid dependence, and an assessment of existing estimates of the costs of opioid dependence. A proposed framework for developing new, more comprehensive estimates of the costs of opioid dependence is outlined.

Assessment of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and its Action Plans.

Illicit drug use continues to be an important public health and safety concern in Europe. Production, trafficking and dealing in illicit drugs constitute important criminal justice challenges in themselves, and are associated with other criminal activities. The 2005-2012 EU Drugs Strategy (as with previous strategies) was developed to complement and add value to national strategies and approaches while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality set out in the EU Treaties. The main rationale for its development was that while drugs problems vary across Member States, and are experienced at the local and national level, they are "a global issue that needs to be addressed in a transnational context." RAND Europe undertook an independent evaluation of the current Strategy and its Action Plans, addressing four research objectives: (1) to assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation of objectives and priorities at EU and Member State level, (2) to assess the relevance and influence of the Strategy with respect to national drugs policy and legislation, (3) to assess possible impact on the drugs situation in the EU, and (4) to identify key aspects and recommendations for future EU Drugs Strategies.