A call to advance and translate research into policy on governance, ethics, and conflicts of interest in public health: the GECI-PH network.

Efforts to adopt public health policies that would limit the consumption of unhealthy commodities, such as tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food products, are often undermined by private sector actors whose profits depend on the sales of such products. There is ample evidence showing that these corporations not only try to influence public health policy; they also shape research, practice and public opinion. Globalization, trade and investment agreements, and privatization, amongst other factors, have facilitated the growing influence of private sector actors on public health at both national and global levels. Protecting and promoting public health from the undue influence of private sector actors is thus an urgent task. With this backdrop in mind, we launched the "Governance, Ethics, and Conflicts of Interest in Public Health" Network (GECI-PH Network) in 2018. Our network seeks to share, collate, promote and foster knowledge on governance, ethical, and conflicts of interest that arise in the interactions between private sectors actors and those in public health, and within multi-stakeholder mechanisms where dividing lines between different actors are often blurred. We call for strong guidance to address and manage the influence of private sector actors on public health policy, research and practice, and for dialogue on this important topic. Our network recently reached 119 members. Membership is diverse in composition and expertise, location, and institutions. We invite colleagues with a common interest to join our network.

Exploring patient perspectives: A qualitative inquiry into healthcare perceptions, experiences and satisfaction in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: Patient perspectives have received increasing importance within health systems over the past four decades. Measures of patient experience and satisfaction are commonly used. However, these measures do not capture all the information that is available through engaging with patients. An improved understanding of the various types of patient perspectives and the distinctions between them is needed. The lack of such knowledge limits the usefulness of including patient perspectives as components within pay-for-performance initiatives. This study aimed to explore patient perspectives on hospital care in Lebanon. It also aimed to contribute insights that may improve the national pay-for-performance initiative and to the knowledge on engaging patients towards person-centered health systems. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group discussions with persons recently discharged after hospitalization under the coverage of the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health. This study was implemented in 2017 and involved 42 participants across eight focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the information provided by participants. RESULTS: Five overall themes supported by 17 categories were identified, capturing the meaning of the participants' perspectives: health is everything; being turned into second class citizens; money and personal connections make all the difference; wanting to be treated with dignity and respect; and tolerating letdown, for the sake of right treatment. The most frequently prioritized statement in a ranking exercise regarding patient satisfaction was regular contact with the patient's doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perspectives include more than what is traditionally incorporated in measures of patient satisfaction and experience. Patient valuing of health and their perceptions on each of the health system, and access and quality of care should also be taken into account. Hospital pay-for-performance initiatives can be made more responsive through a broader consideration of these perspectives. More broadly, health systems would benefit from wider engagement of patients. We propose a framework relating patient perspectives to value-based healthcare and health system performance.