Coding Public Health Interventions for Health Technology Assessments: A Pilot Experience With WHO's International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI).

Introduction: An important requirement for successful public health interventions is a standardized classification in order to make these health technologies comparable in all contexts and recognized by all parties. The WHO International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI), including an integrated public health component, has been developed to propose such an international standard. Methods: To test (a) the translation of public health interventions to ICHI codes and (b) the technical handling and general coding in public health, we used a set of public health interventions from a recent cross-sectional survey among Health Technology Assessment professionals. Results: Our study showed that handling of the ICHI interface is stable, that there is a need for specificity and adequate detail of intervention descriptions and desired outcomes to code adequately with ICHI and that the professional background of the coder, as well as his/her sex might influence the selection of codes. Conclusion: International Classification of Health Interventions provides a good coverage of public health interventions. However, the broader character of system wide interventions, often involving a variety of institutions and stakeholders, may present a challenge to the application of ICHI coding. Based on this experience, we would tailor future surveys more specifically to the needs of the classification and we advise training for health professionals before coding with ICHI. Standards of reporting will likely strengthen insights about the efficiency of primary prevention interventions and thus benefit long-term health of populations and structured HTA reporting process.

International assessment of the link between COVID-19 related attitudes, concerns and behaviours in relation to public health policies: optimising policy strategies to improve health, economic and quality of life outcomes (the iCARE Study).

INTRODUCTION: In the context of a highly contagious virus with only recently approved vaccines and no cure, the key to slowing the spread of the COVID-19 disease and successfully transitioning through the phases of the pandemic, including vaccine uptake, is public adherence to rapidly evolving behaviour-based public health policies. The overall objective of the iCARE Study is to assess public awareness, attitudes, concerns and behavioural responses to COVID-19 public health policies, and their impacts, on people around the world and to link behavioural survey data with policy, mobility and case data to provide behavioural science, data-driven recommendations to governments on how to optimise current policy strategies to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The iCARE study (www.icarestudy.com) uses a multiple cross-sectional survey design to capture self-reported information on a variety of COVID-19 related variables from individuals around the globe. Survey data are captured using two data capture methods: convenience and representative sampling. These data are then linked to open access data for policies, cases and population movement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The primary ethical approval was obtained from the coordinating site, the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Nord-de-l'Île-de-Montréal (REB#: 2020-2099/03-25-2020). This study will provide high-quality, accelerated and real-time evidence to help us understand the effectiveness of evolving country-level policies and communication strategies to reduce the spread of the COVID-19. Due to the urgency of the pandemic, results will be disseminated in a variety of ways, including policy briefs, social media posts, press releases and through regular scientific methods.

Evaluating Public Health Interventions: A Neglected Area in Health Technology Assessment.

Introduction: Public health (PH) interventions are crucial for ensuring sustainable healthcare services. Nevertheless, they represent a neglected area in the field of health technology assessment (HTA) due to various methodological issues and their complex design that goes beyond clinical setting. The present study provides an environmental scan of HTA initiatives related to the assessment of PH technologies on a global level. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 85 HTA-related European and international societies, health bodies, and networks from September 2018 to January 2019. The questionnaire contained four sections and 18 questions regarding activities related to the evaluation of PH technologies, information on existing PH technologies, and methodologies of assessment as well as barriers and facilitators to reaching a decision and implementing a PH technology. Results: Among 52 survey responses, the majority of the respondents came from European countries (35%), followed by North American (27%), and South American (19%) countries. The main type of organizations covered by our survey included HTA agencies, public administrations, and research institutes. Seventy-one % of the institutions reported engagement in any aspect of HTA in the area of PH (N = 37). Among those, 81% evaluated less than 5 PH technologies from 2013 to 2018. The most common barriers for reaching a decision on PH technologies were lack of data, conflicting stakeholder priorities, and methodological issues. A total of 76 PH interventions were reported, and most cited initiatives were related to chronic disease screening, prevention of infectious diseases, and maternal, prenatal, and neonatal screening. Conclusion: Our survey reported a rather limited involvement of HTA in the evaluation of PH technologies. In particular, an evaluation of behavioral and lifestyle interventions remains extremely rare. The implementation of collaborative HTA approaches in the setting of PH practice and policy needs to be prioritized and further strengthened. Moreover, ensuring reliable data structures and consolidation of HTA methods for the evaluation of PH technologies will be crucial for tackling the enormous burden of non-communicable diseases in societies.

Workplace health promotion for older workers: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Aging of the workforce is a growing problem. As workers age, their physical, physiological and psychosocial capabilities change. Keeping older workers healthy and productive is a key goal of European labor policy and health promotion is a key to achieve this result. Previous studies about workplace health promotion (WHP) programs are usually focused on the entire workforce or to a specific topic. Within the framework of the EU-CHAFEA ProHealth65+ project, this paper aims to systematically review the literature on WHP interventions specifically targeted to older workers (OWs). METHODS: This systematic review was conducted by making a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases. Search terms included ageing (and synonyms), worker (and synonyms), intervention (and synonyms), and health (and synonyms). The search was limited to papers in English or Italian published between January, 1(st) 2000 and May, 31(st) 2015. Relevant references in the selected articles were also analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 299 articles initially identified as relating to the topic, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. The type, methods and outcome of interventions in the WHP programs retrieved were heterogenous, as was the definition of the age at which a worker is considered to be 'older'. Most of the available studies had been conducted on small samples for a limited period of time. CONCLUSION: Our review shows that, although this issue is of great importance, studies addressing WHP actions for OWs are few and generally of poor quality. Current evidence fails to show that WHP programs improve the work ability, productivity or job retention of older workers. In addition, there is limited evidence that WHP programs are effective in improving lifestyles and concur to maintain the health and well-being of older workers. There is a need for future WHP programs to be well-designed so that the effectiveness and cost-benefit of workplace interventions can be properly investigated.

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals. METHODS: In order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32). We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. RESULTS: Among case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7-8) versus Group B: 8 (7-9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1). The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively). CONCLUSION: The epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals.