The ecosystem of health decision making: from fragmentation to synergy.

Clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, programme managers, regulators, and science communities invest considerable amounts of time and energy in influencing or making decisions at various levels, using systematic reviews, health technology assessments, guideline recommendations, coverage decisions, selection of essential medicines and diagnostics, quality assurance and improvement schemes, and policy and evidence briefs. The criteria and methods that these actors use in their work differ (eg, the role economic analysis has in decision making), but these methods frequently overlap and exist together. Under the aegis of WHO, we have brought together representatives of different areas to reconcile how the evidence that influences decisions is used across multiple health system decision levels. We describe the overlap and differences in decision-making criteria between different actors in the health sector to provide bridging opportunities through a unifying broad framework that we call theory of everything. Although decision-making activities respond to system needs, processes are often poorly coordinated, both globally and on a country level. A decision made in isolation from other decisions on the same topic could cause misleading, unnecessary, or conflicted inputs to the health system and, therefore, confusion and resource waste.

Virtual Reality as a Tool for Eliciting Empathetic Behaviour in Carers: An Integrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Empathy is an essential behavioural competency required of healthcare providers. It is included in the Canadian National Competency Profile for Medical Radiation Technologists; supporting patient-centered care and the development of therapeutic relationships between carers and care recipients. This review synthesizes evidence on Virtual Reality (VR) as a tool for eliciting empathetic behaviour in carers. METHODS: Six Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, ERIC, Academic Search Premier and CINAHL) were searched for studies published from 1997-2020. Studies with MeSH terms "Empathy" and "Virtual Reality", and conducted on adult carers, were eligible for inclusion. The Cochrane risk of bias tool guided the assessment of study quality. Prospero review registration number: CRD42020210049 RESULTS: Seven studies, with 485 carers, were included in this review. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of interventions and tools for collecting outcome measures. All seven studies demonstrated VR could elicit empathetic behaviour in carers. Studies included one randomized controlled trial, three non-randomized controlled trials, two with quasi-experimental designs, and one non-experimental design. All studies had a moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that VR may be an appropriate method for eliciting empathetic behaviours in carers. Future studies employing appropriately powered multicentere randomized controlled designs should seek to determine which VR experiences are the most effective in evoking empathetic behaviours.