The importance of cancer prevention policies to inform and guide preventative and screening measures for people with intellectual disabilities: The COST project "Cancer- Understanding Prevention in Intellectual Disabilities".

Cancer is a global public health problem, but its exact prevalence in people with intellectual disabilities is still uncertain. This population, with limited health skills and complex health needs, faces many challenges in cancer prevention, screening, timely diagnosis and treatment. Furthermore, they are often underrepresented in general cancer prevention and screening policies across Europe, leading to widened disparities in health outcomes and premature mortality. Thus, unified national and local policies are needed to reduce inequalities and promoting a pan-European inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. Our goal is to raise public awareness of this issue, including the involvement of people with intellectual disabilities, and promote engagement from relevant stakeholders. The COST Action 'Cancer- Understanding Prevention in Intellectual Disabilities' (CUPID) project will address health inequalities faced by people with intellectual disabilities in relation to cancer, and support the development of policy recommendations specifically tailored to their unique cognitive and healthcare needs, having a positive long-term impact on quality of life.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT EVIDENCE ON E-HEALTH/M-HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES: EVALUATING THE TRANSPARENCY AND THOROUGHNESS.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation is crucial for integration of e-Health/m-Health into healthcare systems and health technology assessment (HTA) could offer sound methodological basis for these evaluations. Aim of this study was to look for HTA reports on e-Health/m-Health technologies and to analyze their transparency, consistency and thoroughness, with the goal to detect areas that need improvement. METHODS: PubMed, ISI-WOS, and University of York - Centre for Reviews and Dissemination-electronic databases were searched to identify reports on e-Health/m-Health technologies, published up until April 1, 2016. The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) checklist was used to evaluate transparency and consistency of included reports. Thoroughness was assessed by checking the presence of domains suggested by the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) HTA Core Model. RESULTS: Twenty-eight reports published between 1999 and 2015 were included. Most were delivered by non-European countries (71.4 percent) and only 35.7 percent were classified as full reports. All the HTA reports defined the scope of research whereas more than 80 percent provided author details, summary, discussed findings, and conclusion. On the contrary, policy and research questions were clearly defined in around 30 percent and 50 percent of reports. With respect to the EUnetHTA Core Model, around 70 percent of reports dealt with effectiveness and economic evaluation, more than 50 percent described health problem and approximately 40 percent organizational and social aspects. CONCLUSIONS: E-Health/m-Health technologies are increasingly present in the field of HTA. Yet, our review identified several missing elements. Most of the reports failed to respond to relevant assessment components, especially ethical, social and organizational implications.

Does public reporting influence quality, patient and provider's perspective, market share and disparities? A review.

Background: Public reporting (PR) of healthcare (HC) provider's quality was proposed as a public health instrument for providing transparency and accountability in HC. Our aim was to assess the impact of PR on five main domains: quality improvement; patient choice, service utilization and market share; provider's perspective; patient experience; and unintended consequences. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, ISI WOS, and EconLit databases were searched to identify studies investigating relationships between PR and five main domains, published up to April 1, 2016. Results: Sixty-two papers published between 1988 and 2015 were included. Nineteen studies investigated quality improvement, 19 studies explored the unintended consequences of PR, 10 explored the effects on market share, 10 on patients' choice, 7 evaluated the provider's perspective, 4 economic outcome, 4 service utilization, 2 purchasers' use of PR and 2 studies explored patient experiences. The effect of PR was diverse throughout the studies-mostly positive on: patient experience (100%), quality improvement (63%), patient choice, service utilization and market share (46%); mixed on provider's perspective and economic outcome (27%) and mainly negative on unintended consequences (68%). Conclusions: Our research covering different outcomes and settings reported that PR is associated with changes in HC provider's behavior and can influence market share. Unintended consequences are a concern of PR and should be taken into account when allocating HC resources. The experiences collected in this paper could give a snapshot about the impact of PR on a HC user's perception of the providers' quality of care, helping them to make empowered choices.