Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS II) statement: a validated Dutch translation.

OBJECTIVES: This study primarily aimed to develop a validated Dutch translation of the 28 items of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) II. A secondary aim was to provide a worked example of a scientifically valid translation process. METHODS: A four-step process was applied: (1) forward translation, (2) backward translation, (3) quantitative validation (two back-translated English versions vs. original English version), and (4) qualitative validation (one Dutch version vs. original English version), resulting in the final Dutch CHEERS II checklist. RESULTS: During quantitative validation, the average scores indicated high language comparability (1.88 (SD 0.70); 1.70 (SD 0.73)) and interpretation similarity (1.77 (SD 0.81); 1.54 (SD 0.74)). Four items required formal revision. In the qualitative validation step, feedback primarily focused on specific terms 'outcomes,' 'benefits and harms,' '(year of) conversion,' 'any,' and 'characterizing.' CONCLUSION: Despite English being the common language of science, translating research instruments remains relevant to enhance clarity, accessibility, and inclusivity. The Dutch translation can be used by students, regulators, researchers, or others to report and evaluate reporting of economic evaluations. Our detailed description of the applied methodology can facilitate future translations of research instruments.

Examining animal testing for risk assessment: A WC-12 workshop report.

In toxicology and regulatory testing, the use of animal methods has been both a cornerstone and a subject of intense debate. To continue this discourse a panel and audience representing scientists from various sectors and countries convened at a workshop held during the 12th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences (WC-12). The ensuing discussion focused on the scientific and ethical considerations surrounding the necessity and responsibility of defending the creation of new animal data in regulatory testing. The primary aim was to foster an open dialogue between the panel members and the audience while encouraging diverse perspectives on the responsibilities and obligations of various stakeholders (including industry, regulatory bodies, technology developers, research scientists, and animal welfare NGOs) in defending the development and subsequent utilization of new animal data. This workshop summary report captures the key elements from this critical dialogue and collective introspection. It describes the intersection of scientific progress and ethical responsibility as all sectors seek to accelerate the pace of 21st century predictive toxicology and new approach methodologies (NAMs) for the protection of human health and the environment.

[Attend, consult, involve: do we need to redefine the concept of community engagement?] / Asistir, consultar, involucrar: ¿es necesario redefinir el concepto de participación comunitaria?

OBJECTIVE: To describe how a sample of people working in community health promotion projects perceive and implement community engagement approaches. METHOD: Mixed qualitative-quantitative study. Data was collected through: semi-structured interviews with 10 people representing the projects, and workshops in which 53 people participated and responded to a questionnaire prepared ad hoc to identify levels of community engagement. Descriptive statistical analysis of the questionnaires and framework analysis of the interviews, observations and workshops recordings. RESULTS: Although the projects are described as highly participatory, community engagement appeared mainly in the form of attending events, with few examples of consultation or community involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This difference may be due to the lack of a culture of participation, both in individuals and institutions, and lack of training in community engagement. It is proposed to change the language from participation-attendance to using expressions such as consulting or involving people.

Research gaps identified in Iran's health technology assessment reports.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying gaps in the evidence is a useful byproduct of conducting a health technology assessment (HTA). This study aims to identify research gaps in Iran's HTA reports. METHOD: We reviewed the HTA reports published between 2014 and 2016. Then, we developed two separate questionnaires for principal investigators (PIs) and independent HTA researchers. The questionnaire for independent HTA researchers consisted of four main parts. However, the PIs' questionnaire consisted of two main parts. We also conducted a literature search in the PubMed database in November 2017 to find frameworks for prioritizing research gaps. We also conducted a semi-structured interview with the head of the Iran's HTA Office at that time and sought feedback based on his expert opinion about questionnaires, the priority-setting tool and our process for extracting research gaps. RESULTS: A total of 11 HTA reports published between 2014 and 2016 by Iran's HTA Office were selected for the study. Of these 11 reports, 5 involved technologies related to medical equipment, while 6 involved medical and surgical interventions. Assessing the outcomes of technology use in various indications and updating HTAs when new evidence arises; evaluating the viewpoints of patients, clinicians and key technology users; conducting post-marketing evaluations of technology; comparing the impact of the technology in question to other treatments for the same condition; and requesting long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness data for technologies with limited follow-up periods were identified as the main gaps by independent HTA researchers and PIs. CONCLUSIONS: The research gaps identified from Iran's HTAs could be utilized by research funding agencies.

ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.

The peer review process is a critical step in ensuring the quality of scientific research. However, its subjectivity has raised concerns. To investigate this issue, I examined over 500 publicly available peer review reports from 200 published neuroscience papers in 2022-2023. OpenAI's generative artificial intelligence ChatGPT was used to analyze language use in these reports, which demonstrated superior performance compared to traditional lexicon- and rule-based language models. As expected, most reviews for these published papers were seen as favorable by ChatGPT (89.8% of reviews), and language use was mostly polite (99.8% of reviews). However, this analysis also demonstrated high levels of variability in how each reviewer scored the same paper, indicating the presence of subjectivity in the peer review process. The results further revealed that female first authors received less polite reviews than their male peers, indicating a gender bias in reviewing. In addition, published papers with a female senior author received more favorable reviews than papers with a male senior author, for which I discuss potential causes. Together, this study highlights the potential of generative artificial intelligence in performing natural language processing of specialized scientific texts. As a proof of concept, I show that ChatGPT can identify areas of concern in scientific peer review, underscoring the importance of transparent peer review in studying equitability in scientific publishing.

Peer review is a vital step in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research before publication. Experts assess research manuscripts, advise journal editors on publishing them, and provide authors with recommendations for improvement. But some scientists have raised concerns about potential biases and subjectivity in the peer review process. Author attributes, such as gender, reputation, or how prestigious their institution is, may subconsciously influence reviewers' scores. Studying peer review to identify potential biases is challenging. The language reviewers use is very technical, and some of their commentary may be subjective and vary from reviewer to reviewer. The emergence of OpenAI's ChatGPT, which uses machine learning to process large amounts of information, may provide a new tool to analyze peer review for signs of bias. Verharen demonstrated that ChatGPT can be used to analyze peer review reports and found potential indications of gender bias in scientific publishing. In the experiments, Verharen asked ChatGPT to analyze more than 500 reviews of 200 neuroscience studies published in the scientific journal Nature Communications over the past year. The experiments found no evidence that institutional reputation influenced reviews. Yet, female first authors were more likely to receive impolite comments from reviewers. Female senior authors were more likely to receive higher review scores, which may indicate they had to clear a higher bar for publication. The experiments indicate that ChatGPT could be used to analyze peer review for fairness. Verharen suggests that reviewers might apply this tool to ensure their reviews are polite and accurate reflections of their opinions. Scientists or publishers might also use it for large-scale analyses of peer review in individual journals or in scientific publishing more widely. Journals might also use ChatGPT to assess the impact of bias-prevention interventions on review fairness.

Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas.

Theories of innovation emphasize the role of social networks and teams as facilitators of breakthrough discoveries1-4. Around the world, scientists and inventors are more plentiful and interconnected today than ever before4. However, although there are more people making discoveries, and more ideas that can be reconfigured in new ways, research suggests that new ideas are getting harder to find5,6-contradicting recombinant growth theory7,8. Here we shed light on this apparent puzzle. Analysing 20 million research articles and 4 million patent applications from across the globe over the past half-century, we begin by documenting the rise of remote collaboration across cities, underlining the growing interconnectedness of scientists and inventors globally. We further show that across all fields, periods and team sizes, researchers in these remote teams are consistently less likely to make breakthrough discoveries relative to their on-site counterparts. Creating a dataset that allows us to explore the division of labour in knowledge production within teams and across space, we find that among distributed team members, collaboration centres on late-stage, technical tasks involving more codified knowledge. Yet they are less likely to join forces in conceptual tasks-such as conceiving new ideas and designing research-when knowledge is tacit9. We conclude that despite striking improvements in digital technology in recent years, remote teams are less likely to integrate the knowledge of their members to produce new, disruptive ideas.

Evaluating the quality of health technology assessment reports in a developing country.

Background: No single method of health technology assessment (HTA) can meet all the policy- and decision-making needs in a country. However, there should be minimum criteria for performing HTA worldwide, and many HTA agencies have reached a consensus on this. Aim: This study aimed to assess the quality of HTA reports in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Method: We examined all the HTA research reports published by the Iranian HTA office up to 2020, using the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment checklist for quality assessment. Results: A total of 97 reports were examined, of which only 10.0% provided complete and appropriate contact details for further information and 5.6% clearly stated a conflict of interest. In 87.78% of the reports, the scope of assessment was clearly determined. The quality of the reports was relatively appropriate as well as details of the sources of information and text search strategies. Some 7.8%, 74.4%, 11.1%, 8.9%, and 4.4%, respectively, of the reports considered legal aspects, economic analysis, ethical implications, social implications, and other stakeholder perspectives. Conclusion: We recommend that minimum standards be established for the HTA process so that healthcare policy- and decision-makers can make reliable decisions on the basis of the HTA reports.

AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model-based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy.

The introduction of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG-186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field-tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well-characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor-specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-Radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG-186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well-known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step-by-step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192 Ir-based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.

PURPOSE: The scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) is unknown. This systematic review and meta-epidemiological study assessed the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in anesthesiology. METHODS: We searched four databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, for anesthesiology NMAs published from inception to October 2020. We assessed the compliance of NMAs against A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA), and PRISMA checklists. We measured the compliance across various items in AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists and provided recommendations to improve quality. RESULTS: Using the AMSTAR-2 rating method, 84% (52/62) of NMAs were rated "critically low." Quantitatively, the median [interquartile range] AMSTAR-2 score was 55 [44-69]%, while the PRISMA score was 70 [61-81]%. Methodological and reporting scores showed a strong correlation (R = 0.78). Anesthesiology NMAs had a higher AMSTAR-2 score and PRISMA score if they were published in higher impact factor journals (P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively) or followed PRISMA-NMA reporting guidelines (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Network meta-analyses from China had lower scores (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Neither score improved over time (P = 0.69 and P = 0.67, respectively). CONCLUSION: The current study highlights numerous methodological and reporting deficiencies in anesthesiology NMAs. Although the AMSTAR tool has been used to assess the methodological quality of NMAs, dedicated tools for conducting and assessing the methodological quality of NMAs are urgently required. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); first submitted 23 January 2021.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La rigueur scientifique de la conduite et de la communication des méta-analyses en réseau (MAR) en anesthésiologie est inconnue. Cette revue systématique et étude méta-épidémiologique a évalué la qualité méthodologique et de communication des MAR en anesthésiologie. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené des recherches dans quatre bases de données, soit MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase et la base de données des revues systématiques Cochrane, pour trouver des MAR en anesthésiologie publiées depuis la création de ces bases de données jusqu'en octobre 2020. Nous avons évalué la conformité des MAR par rapport à trois outils, soit : AMSTAR-2 (outil de mesure pour évaluer les revues systématiques), PRISMA-NMA et les listes de contrôle PRISMA. Nous avons mesuré la conformité de divers éléments des listes de contrôle AMSTAR-2 et PRISMA et formulé des recommandations pour améliorer la qualité. RéSULTATS: En utilisant la méthode de notation AMSTAR-2, 84 % (52/62) des MAR ont reçu la cote « extrêmement faible ¼. Quantitativement, le score médian [écart interquartile] sur l'AMSTAR-2 était de 55 [44-69] %, tandis que le score PRISMA était de 70 [61-81] %. Les scores méthodologiques et de communication ont montré une forte corrélation (R = 0,78). Les MAR en anesthésiologie avaient un score AMSTAR-2 et un score PRISMA plus élevés si elles étaient publiées dans des revues à facteur d'impact plus élevé (P = 0,006 et P = 0,01, respectivement) ou avaient suivi les lignes directrices de PRISMA-NMA en matière de communication des résultats (P = 0,001 et P = 0,002, respectivement). Les méta-analyses en réseau provenant de Chine avaient des scores plus faibles (P < 0,001 et P < 0,001, respectivement). Aucun des deux scores ne s'est amélioré au fil du temps (P = 0,69 et P = 0,67, respectivement). CONCLUSION: La présente étude met en évidence de nombreuses lacunes méthodologiques et de communication dans les MAR en anesthésiologie. Bien que l'outil AMSTAR ait été utilisé pour évaluer la qualité méthodologique des MAR, il est urgent de disposer d'outils spécialisés pour mener des MAR et en évaluer la qualité méthodologique. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); soumis pour la première fois le 23 janvier 2021.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool. RESULTS: We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (ß = 22) and reports (ß = 14) per study and experience of the team (ß = -6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. CONCLUSION: The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.

[Utilization of routine data from different statutory health insurance funds: a practical report of experience from the TIM-HF2 study about data acquisition, validation, and processing]. / Nutzung von Routinedaten unterschiedlicher gesetzlicher Krankenkassen: Ein Erfahrungsbericht aus der TIM-HF2-Studie zur Datenerschließung, -validierung und -aufbereitung.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled clinical trial "TIM-HF2" investigated the benefit of telemonitoring in chronic heart failure. The health economic evaluation of this intervention was based on routine data from statutory health insurance (SHI) funds. Since participants were recruited independently of their SHI affiliation, there was a large number of potential data-providing SHI funds. This resulted in both organizational and methodological challenges, from participation of the data providers to data preparation. METHOD: The procedures are described from study planning and data acquisition to data review and processing in the TIM-HF2 trial. Based on the identification of potential problems for data completeness and data quality, possible solutions have been derived. RESULTS: In total, participants were insured with 49 different SHI funds, which provided routine data for a total of 1450 participants. About half of all initial data deliveries were correct. The most common problems in data preparation occurred in the machine readability of the data. Success factors for a high level of data completeness were close communication with the SHI funds and a high level of time and personnel commitment to intensive data checking and preparation. DISCUSSION: Based on the experience of the TIM-HF2 trial, a high heterogeneity has been detected in data management and transmission of routine data. Universally applicable data descriptions are desired to improve data access, quality, and usability for research purposes.

[Interpretation of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022].

The number of studies related to health economics evaluation is increasing. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) contains 28 items. Based on CHEERS 2013, CHEERS 2022 adds a health economic analysis plan, model sharing, and community, patient, public, and other relevant stakeholders' participation in the statement, taking into account the future development direction of health economics evaluation. It provides a useful review tool for peer reviewers, editors, and readers and supports health technology assessment agencies in establishing standard reporting standards for health economics evaluations. In this study, we briefly introduced and interpreted the CHEERS 2022 statement and analyzed an example of health economics evaluation in infectious disease epidemiology to provide a reference for researchers to report studies regarding health economics evaluation standardly.

Urinary proteomics combined with home blood pressure telemonitoring for health care reform trial-First progress report.

High blood pressure (BP) and type-2 diabetes (T2DM) are forerunners of chronic kidney disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Home BP telemonitoring (HTM) and urinary peptidomic profiling (UPP) are technologies enabling risk stratification and personalized prevention. UPRIGHT-HTM (NCT04299529) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial with blinded endpoint evaluation designed to assess the efficacy of HTM plus UPP (experimental group) over HTM alone (control group) in guiding treatment in asymptomatic patients, aged 55-75 years, with ≥5 cardiovascular risk factors. From screening onwards, HTM data can be freely accessed by all patients and their caregivers; UPP results are communicated early during follow-up to patients and caregivers in the intervention group, but at trial closure in the control group. From May 2021 until January 2023, 235 patients were screened, of whom 53 were still progressing through the run-in period and 144 were randomized. Both groups had similar characteristics, including average age (62.0 years) and the proportions of African Blacks (81.9%), White Europeans (16.7%), women 56.2%, home (31.2%), and office (50.0%) hypertension, T2DM (36.4%), micro-albuminuria (29.4%), and ECG (9.7%) and echocardiographic (11.5%) left ventricular hypertrophy. Home and office BP were 128.8/79.2 mm Hg and 137.1/82.7 mm Hg, respectively, resulting in a prevalence of white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension of 40.3%, 11.1%, and 25.7%. HTM persisted after randomization (48 681 readings up to 15 January 2023). In conclusion, results predominantly from low-resource sub-Saharan centers proved the feasibility of this multi-ethnic trial. The COVID-19 pandemic caused delays and differential recruitment rates across centers.

Research Report: Exploring Needs, Impediments and Perspectives for a Digital Mental Health Tool in Psychiatric Settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought forth rapid responses and changes in the acceptance of digital health interventions. Digital solutions appear increasingly promising, yet little is known about the peculiarities in the psychiatric context, contrary to other medical branches. The project MeHealth aimed at disclosing specific needs and reservations of patients and professionals in the psychiatric field. Apprehensions towards technology were found to be held on both sides. Cooperating with a psychiatric hospital in Austria, through a transdisciplinary research approach including focus groups and workshops, a framework for an integrated Digital Mental Health Tool was established. The findings leading to the framework show a strong need for patient-empowerment, enhancement of trust in technology and the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation. Digital tools should be designed to enhance the continuity of care and information exchange on behalf of the patient. Learnings were gained, which prove recommendable for future R&D projects on digitalization in the delicate field of psychiatry.

Description of the nationally implemented National Health Service digital diabetes prevention programme and rationale for its development: mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme (DDPP) is a behaviour change programme for adults in England who are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers deliver the NHS-DDPP following a competitive tendering process. Although providers work to a single service specification, there is potential for some variation in the service across providers. This study (1) assesses fidelity of the structural features of the design of the NHS-DDPP compared to the service specification, (2) describes the structural features of delivery of the NHS-DDPP as implemented (3) reports developers' views on how the structural components of the NHS-DDPP were developed and why changes were made following implementation. METHODS: Using mixed methods, we conducted a document review of providers' NHS-DDPP design and delivery documentation, and extracted information using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist, which was adapted to capture features of digital delivery. Documentation was supplemented by content analysis of interviews with 12 health coaches involved in delivering the NHS-DDPP. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with 6 programme developers employed by the digital providers. RESULTS: Provider plans for the NHS-DDPP show relatively high fidelity to the NHS service specification. Despite this, there was wide variation in structural features of delivery of the NHS-DDPP across providers, particularly for delivery of 'support' (e.g. use, dose and scheduling of health coaching and/or group support). Interviews with developers of the programmes showed that much of this variation is likely to be attributable to the origin of each provider's programme, which was usually a pre-existing programme that was adapted to conform to the NHS-DDPP service specification. The NHS-DDPP is continually improved and developed based on user experience feedback and research conducted by the providers. CONCLUSION: Indirect evidence suggests that variation in delivery of support could affect effectiveness of the NHS-DDPP. A priority for future research is ascertaining whether the variation in delivery of the NHS-DDPP across providers is related to any differences in health outcomes. It is recommended that future rounds of commissioning the NHS-DDPP pre-specify the type of support participants should receive, including expected dose and scheduling.

Recognition and CBT for Paternal Perinatal Depression in Primary Care: A Case Report.

Perinatal depression is prevalent in primary care in the United Kingdom. The recent NHS agenda implemented specialist perinatal mental health services to improve women's access to evidence-based care. Although there is ample research on maternal perinatal depression, paternal perinatal depression remains overlooked. Fatherhood can have a positive long-term protective impact on men's health. However, a proportion of fathers also experience perinatal depression which often correlates with maternal depression. Research reports that paternal perinatal depression is a highly prevalent public health concern. As there are no current specific guidelines for screening for paternal perinatal depression, it is often unrecognized, misdiagnosed, or untreated in primary care. This is concerning as research reports a positive correlation between paternal perinatal depression with maternal perinatal depression and overall family well-being. This study illustrates the successful recognition and treatment of a paternal perinatal depression case in a primary care service. The client was a 22-year-old White male living with a partner who was 6 months pregnant. He attended primary care with symptoms consistent with paternal perinatal depression as indicated by his interview and specified clinical measures. The client attended 12 sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy, conducted weekly over a period of 4 months. At the end of treatment, he no longer portrayed symptoms of depression. This was maintained at 3-month follow-up. This study highlights the importance of screening for paternal perinatal depression in primary care. It could benefit clinicians and researchers who may wish to better recognize and treat this clinical presentation.

Neurosurgical Academic Impact Rankings by h5-Index: A Global Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the 5-year h-index (h5)-index by nation. We aimed to assess the relationship between a nation's h5-index and numbers of neurosurgeons, population, gross domestic product (GDP), and expenditure on both health and research. METHODS: Using Web of Science we collected data on each nation's h5-index and number of publications for the 5-year period 2016 to 2020. Neurosurgical data were collected from the global neurosurgical workforce map provided by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies. National economic data were collected from the World Bank Open Data provided. We analyzed how economic and neurosurgical factors correlated with h5-index and publication numbers. RESULTS: We report the top 28 countries ranked according to their h5-index. Regarding the h5-index the strongest positive relationship was found with GDP, proportion of GDP spent on health and total amount spent on health per capita. In regard to the total number of publications (2016 to 2020), the strongest positive relationship was found with GDP and total number of neurosurgeons. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore the h-index between nations on an international level. GDP and proportion of GDP spent on health expenditure are the strongest correlates of the h5-index. Although a higher number of neurosurgeons in a nation does result in more publications, this is not necessarily translated into higher quality research.

Sponsorship bias in oncology cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been increasingly used to inform cancer treatment coverage policy making worldwide. The primary objective of this study was to assess the association between industry sponsorship and CEA results in oncology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All CEAs in oncology used incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as health effect identified from the Tufts CEA Registry since 1976 was analyzed. Descriptive analyses were performed to present and compare the characteristics of CEA funded by industry and non-industry. Robust logistic regression was performed to assess the relationship between the industry sponsorship and cost effective conclusion over a wide range of threshold values. RESULTS: A total of 1537 CEAs in oncology published from 1976 to 2021 were included. There were 387 (25.2%) with the industry sponsorship. CEAs sponsored by the industry were more likely to report ICERs below $50,000/QALY (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.45-2.51, P < 0.001), $100,000/QALY (2.74, 1.98-3.79, P < 0.001), and $150,000/QALY (3.53, 2.37-5.27, P < 0.001) than studies without industry sponsorship. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that there has been a significant sponsorship bias in CEAs in oncology. This bias could have a profound implication on drug pricing and coverage policy making.