ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Migrants from high HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) endemicity regions have a great burden of these infections and related diseases in the host countries. This study aimed to assess the predictive capacity of the Test Rapide d'Orientation Diagnostique (TROD) Screen questionnaire for HIV, HBV and HCV infections among migrants arriving in France. DESIGN: An observational and multicentre study was conducted among migrants. A self-questionnaire on demographic characteristics, personal medical history and sexual behaviours was completed. SETTING: The study was conducted in the centres of the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII). PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sampling was used to select and recruit adult migrants between January 2017 and March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were tested for HIV, HBV and HCV with rapid tests. For each infection, the test performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristics curves, using area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of accuracy. RESULTS: Among 21 133 regular migrants seen in OFII centres, 15 343 were included in the study. The participants' mean age was 35.6 years (SD±11.1). The prevalence (95% CI) of HBV, HCV and HIV was 2.0% (1.8% to 2.2%), 0.3% (0.2% to 0.4%) and 0.3% (0.2% to 0.4%), respectively. Based on the sensitivity-specificity curve analysis, the cut-off points (95% CI) chosen for the risk score were: 2.5 (2.5 to 7.5) for HBV infection in men; 6.5 (0.5 to 6.5) for HBV infection in women; 9.5 (9.5 to 12.5) for HCV infection; and 10.5 (10.0 to 18.5) for HIV infection. Test performance was highest for HIV (AUC=82.15% (95% CI 74.54% to 87.99%)), followed by that for HBV in men (AUC=79.22%, (95% CI 76.18% to 82.26%)), for HBV in women (AUC=78.83 (95% CI 74.54% to 82.10%)) and that for HCV (AUC=75.95% (95% CI 68.58% to 83.32%)). CONCLUSION: The TROD screen questionnaire showed good overall performance for predicting HIV, HBV and HCV infections among migrants in OFII centres. It could be used to optimise screening for these infections and to propose rapid screening tests to those who are at high risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02959684.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Hepatitis B , Hepatitis C , Mass Screening , Transients and Migrants , Humans , Male , Female , Adult , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/epidemiology , France/epidemiology , Hepatitis C/epidemiology , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Hepatitis B/epidemiology , Hepatitis B/diagnosis , Transients and Migrants/statistics & numerical data , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged , Risk Assessment/methods , ROC Curve , Surveys and Questionnaires , PrevalenceABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Clinical research has focused on risk factors and treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), particularly in people with a comorbidity including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but little attention has been paid to the care pathway. This article aims to show how living with HIV may have been a biopsychosocial burden or boost in care pathways for Covid-19. METHOD: People living with HIV (PLHIV) from 9 clinical centers were invited to participate in this qualitative study. The sampling was purposive with a maximum variation in their sociodemographic profiles. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until data saturation, then coded for thematic analysis, using an inductive general approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 34 PLHIV of which 20 had SARS-COV-2 once. They were 24 males, 26 born in France; median age: 55. Twenty had a CD4 number above 500, and all were on antiretroviral therapy (ART). HIV appeared as a burden when Covid-19 symptoms reminded HIV seroconversion, fear of contamination, and triggered questions about ART effectiveness. HIV was not considered relevant when diagnosing Covid-19, caused fear of disclosure when participants sought SARS-COV-2 testing, and its care in hospitals was disrupted by the pandemic. ART-pill fatigue caused avoidance for Covid-19 treatment. As a boost, living with HIV led participants to observe symptoms, to get advice from healthcare professionals, and screening access through them. Some participants could accept the result of screening or a clinical diagnosis out of resilience. Some could consider ART or another drug prescribed by their HIV specialist help them to recover from Covid-19. CONCLUSION: Living with HIV could function as a burden and/or a boost in the care pathways for Covid-19, according to patients' relationship to their HIV history, comorbidities and representation of ART. Covid-19 in PLHIV needs further qualitative study to gain a more comprehensive assessment of the pandemic's consequences on their lives and coping strategies.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , HIV , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 Testing , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the prevalence of sexual difficulties and identify factors associated with the Sexual Quality of Life (SQoL) among people living with HIV (PLWHA). METHODS: The study included 107 heterosexual men and 474 men who have sex with men (MSM) from five countries. Participants self-reported variables related to physical and mental health, as well as HIV-related parameters. Erectile or ejaculation difficulty, as well as low sexual desire, were investigated. SQoL was measured using the PROQOL-SexLife questionnaire. RESULTS: Most of participants reported low sexual desire, predominantly among MSM. Among MSM, living with a partner and healthcare satisfaction were associated with SQoL scores in POP dimension, while consistent condom use, cardiovascular complications, and being single were associated with SQoL scores in STI dimension. Viagra use, anti-cholesterol treatment, and living with a partner were associated with SQoL scores in DIS dimension. Among heterosexual men, employment and African origin were associated with SQoL scores in the POP dimension. Alcohol consumption was associated with SQoL scores in STI dimension. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the importance of non-clinical determinants when assessing SQoL among PLWHA, emphasizing psychological factors and the perceived quality of healthcare. Tailored interventions should incorporate these findings to enhance overall SQoL outcomes.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Sexually Transmitted Diseases , Male , Humans , Homosexuality, Male , Sexual Partners/psychology , Quality of Life , Sexual Behavior , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology , HIV Infections/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to identify factors related to smoking and smoking cessation as well as preferences for cessation methods reported by migrants in France. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-directive interviews with migrants in the Parisian area thematically analyzed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Sixteen interviews conducted. The stress and isolation induced by migration favor the increase of tobacco consumption. These two factors, as well as the lack of information on the resources available for quitting smoking, were identified as obstacles to cessation. The main motivations for quitting are the identified or experienced effects of smoking on their health and pressure from family members, especially children. Quitting is essentially a personal strategy centered on the true will to quit. The most popular method identified by the participants as the most effective in helping them to quit, is follow-up or therapy by a health professional combining listening and psychological support. DISCUSSION: For migrants, smoking is a resource to combat stress that increases during the migration process and upon arrival in the host country and presents a psychosocial dimension for the most isolated individuals. Smoking cessation must be accompanied and must take into account the specificities of this population as well as the expressed need for psychosocial support, as suggested by our results, to be most effective.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Occupational Safety and Health is an important public health topic. Many employers may regard health promotion or prevention initiatives as an additional cost with few benefits. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the studies conducted on the return on investment (ROI) of preventive health interventions conducted within workplaces, and to describe their designs, topics and calculation methods. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, International Labour Organization and Occupational Safety and Health Administration from 2013 to 2021. We included studies that evaluated prevention interventions in the workplace setting and reported an economic outcome or company-related benefits. We report the findings according to PRISMA reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We included 141 articles reporting 138 interventions. Of them, 62 (44.9%) had an experimental design, 29 (21.0%) had a quasi-experimental design, 37 (26.8%) were observational studies and 10 (7.2%) were modelling studies. The interventions' objectives were mostly related to psychosocial risks (N = 42; 30.4%), absenteeism (N = 40; 29.0%), general health (N = 35; 25.4%), specific diseases (N = 31; 22.5%), nutrition (N = 24; 17.4%), sedentarism (N = 21; 15.2%) musculoskeletal disorders (N = 17; 12.3%) and accidents (N = 14; 10.1%). The ROI calculation was positive for 78 interventions (56.5%), negative for 12 (8.7%), neutral for 13 (9.4%) and undetermined for 35 (25.4%). CONCLUSION: There were many different ROI calculations. Most studies have a positive result but randomized controlled trials have fewer positive results than other designs. It is important to conduct more high-quality studies so that results can inform employers and policy-makers.
Subject(s)
Occupational Health , Workplace , Humans , Health Promotion/methods , Nutritional Status , AbsenteeismABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the burden of COVID-19-related sick leave during the first pandemic wave in France, accounting for sick leaves due to symptomatic COVID-19 ('symptomatic sick leaves') and those due to close contact with COVID-19 cases ('contact sick leaves'). METHODS: We combined data from a national demographic database, an occupational health survey, a social behaviour survey and a dynamic SARS-CoV-2 transmission model. Sick leave incidence from 1 March 2020 to 31 May 2020 was estimated by summing daily probabilities of symptomatic and contact sick leaves, stratified by age and administrative region. RESULTS: There were an estimated 1.70M COVID-19-related sick leaves among France's 40M working-age adults during the first pandemic wave, including 0.42M due to COVID-19 symptoms and 1.28M due to COVID-19 contacts. There was great geographical variation, with peak daily sick leave incidence ranging from 230 in Corse (Corsica) to 33 000 in Île-de-France (the greater Paris region), and greatest overall burden in regions of north-eastern France. Regional sick leave burden was generally proportional to local COVID-19 prevalence, but age-adjusted employment rates and contact behaviours also contributed. For instance, 37% of symptomatic infections occurred in Île-de-France, but 45% of sick leaves. Middle-aged workers bore disproportionately high sick leave burden, owing predominantly to greater incidence of contact sick leaves. CONCLUSIONS: France was heavily impacted by sick leave during the first pandemic wave, with COVID-19 contacts accounting for approximately three-quarters of COVID-19-related sick leaves. In the absence of representative sick leave registry data, local demography, employment patterns, epidemiological trends and contact behaviours can be synthesised to quantify sick leave burden and, in turn, predict economic consequences of infectious disease epidemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Sick Leave , Adult , Middle Aged , Humans , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Employment , France/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Gas-related symptoms (GRS) are common in the general population (GPop) and among patients with disorders of gut-brain interactions but there is no patient-reported outcome evaluating these symptoms and their impact on daily life. We have previously developed a 43-item intestinal gas questionnaire (IGQ). The aim of the present study is to perform a psychometric validation of this instrument. METHODS: Participants (119 from the GPop and 186 irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients) were recruited from 3 countries (UK, Spain, France). IBS patients fulfilled ROME IV criteria with an IBS severity score between 150 and 300. Participants completed the IGQ, the functional Digestive Disorders Quality of Life (FDDQL), and the EQ-5D. A subgroup (n = 90) repeated the IGQ completion after 7 days on paper or electronically. RESULTS: From the original IGQ questionnaire, 26 items were deleted because of poor performance. Confirmatory factorial analysis on the remaining 17 items (7 symptom and 10 impact items) yielded a 6-factor structure accounting for 67% of the variance for bloating (6 items), flatulence (3), belching (2), bad breath (2), stomach rumbling (2), and difficult gas evacuation (2). Global score (0-100) was worse among IBS vs GPop (40 ± 15 vs 33 ± 17; p = 0.0016). At the second visit, the intraclass correlation coefficient of IGQ scores was between 0.71 and 0.86 (n = 67) for test-retest reliability and 0.61-0.87 (n = 64) for equivalence between electronic and paper versions of IGQ. CONCLUSION: The IGQ available in paper and electronic versions in 3 languages is a robust instrument for capturing and measuring GRS and their impact on daily life.
Subject(s)
Irritable Bowel Syndrome , Flatulence , Humans , Irritable Bowel Syndrome/diagnosis , Psychometrics , Quality of Life , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Late diagnoses of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C are important public health problems that affect the population at large and migrants in particular. Missed opportunities of HIV and hepatitis screening are numerous, with language differences being a significant barrier to testing. Several studies have shown that migrants who do not speak the language of the health provider are less likely to get tested, due to health providers' reluctance to offer a test and to migrants' reluctance to accept testing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study is to develop a multilingual electronic tool (app) that assists health providers in offering and explaining HIV and hepatitis screenings to migrants with a language barrier and to evaluate its acceptability and impact in terms of public health. METHODS: The study will go through 3 stages: (1) concept development, (2) app development, and (3) app evaluation. A qualitative study has been undertaken to explore language barriers during health care encounters and their effect on communication, specifically when a screening test is offered. In parallel, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to have a comprehensive overlook of electronic tools designed to help health care providers communicate with migrants with a language barrier. To generate a list of items to be translated for inclusion in the app, we will conduct a focus group and Delphi survey. The development of the app will include translation and voice recording of items. The electronic development will also include 3 steps of user testing. The acceptability of the app will be evaluated using the System Usability Scale. Evaluation of the app's efficacy will consist of a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial. The study will be carried out in 16 centers that treat migrants and offer them screening tests for infectious diseases. The primary outcome is the percentage of screening tests realized. The secondary outcomes are the rate of screening proposal by health professionals, acceptance rate by migrants, number of positive cases using this app, and frequency of use of the app. RESULTS: The app evaluation study received a 3-year grant from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche contre le SIDA et les hépatites virales (ANRS) and from the Office Français de l'Immigration et Intégration (OFII). At the time of publication of this protocol, the initial qualitative study and systematic literature review were completed. CONCLUSIONS: This study will develop an app that assists health providers in offering and explaining HIV and hepatitis screenings to migrants with a language barrier and measure its acceptability and effectiveness in terms of public health. When completed, this app could be distributed to numerous professionals carrying out screening with migrant populations in various health care settings. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/22239.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: People who have migrated or with a language barrier may face significant hurdles in accessing health care. Some apps have been specifically developed to facilitate the dialogue between health care professionals and people who have migrated who have low-level language proficiency or to promote health among people who have migrated. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to investigate development, acceptability, and effectiveness of these types of apps. METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. We included all study designs (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) reporting development, evaluation of efficacy, or acceptability of apps facilitating dialogue with a health professional or promoting health for people who have migrated, minorities, or tourists with a language barrier, using any outcome. Two researchers selected the studies independently. We collected general information about the app, information about health literacy and cultural adaptation, information about the development of the app, evidence on acceptability or efficacy, and information on app use. Data were collected by 2 researchers independently and results were reviewed to verify agreement and reported according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis). RESULTS: Positive results for translation apps included better communication, but with possible limitations, and reduced consultation time. Positive results for health promotion apps included improved quality of life and better management of chronic illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the apps had good levels of acceptability, though only half had their efficacy evaluated. In those evaluations, the endpoints were mostly related to reported behavior change and knowledge improvement, which is common for evaluations of health promotion programs. In the future, as more health apps are created, it is essential that apps that claim to have a public health objective undergo a rigorous evaluation of their acceptability, efficacy, and actual use. Indicators of outcomes beyond changes in behavior and knowledge should be reported; change in health status or access to care should also be reported. This systematic review has helped us note the characteristics associated with improved acceptability and efficacy, which can be helpful for the development of future apps.
Subject(s)
Health Promotion , Mobile Applications , Delivery of Health Care , Electronics , Humans , Language , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C amongst migrants in France is high. Thus, effective screening and follow-up is needed. The mandatory medical check-up for residency application is an opportunity to offer rapid HIV and hepatitis testing. The main objective of the STRADA study is to create a feasible and acceptable screening strategy for migrants. Within the STRADA study, this qualitative research examined the acceptability of conducting screening tests in the context of residency application. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study amongst legal migrants over 18 years of age with sufficient knowledge of the French, English, or Arabic language. Interviews were performed following a semi-structured interview guide of open-ended questions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 34 migrants. Mean age was 32.6 (min-max: 19, 59) years. The participants' region of origin was mostly Sub-Saharan Africa and the main reason for migrating to France was family reunification. Migrants' acceptability of HIV and hepatitis testing was high. Participants who accepted testing indicated a benefit for individual health and to avoid transmission. Most preferred rapid tests; reluctance was related to anxiety about the immediate results and the perceived reliability of rapid tests. Migrants' knowledge about HIV was satisfactory, but inadequate for hepatitis. Screening in the context of a compulsory medical visit did not present an obstacle for acceptability. Some expressed concern in the case of HIV but when explained, the independence between obtaining the residence permit along with screening and access to medical care was well understood. DISCUSSION: Medical check-ups at immigration centers is an opportunity to screen for HIV and hepatitis which is considered acceptable by migrants. Informing migrants that test results do not affect residency applications, and incorporating their preferences, are all important to optimize the acceptability of screening.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections/diagnosis , Hepatitis B/diagnosis , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Mass Screening/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Transients and Migrants/psychology , Adult , Female , France , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sexuality , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology , Transients and Migrants/statistics & numerical data , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: No evidence exists to date on which to base the selection of outcome measures for assessing nutritional interventions in critically ill patients. We conducted a systematic literature review to describe the outcomes used in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing nutritional interventions in critically ill patients. Our objective was to set the foundation for the development of a core set of outcome measures for use in future RCTs. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for RCTs of nutritional interventions in critically ill patients aged 18 years or older, published and/or registered between January 2000 and August 2018. Outcomes were divided into six categories (mortality, length of stay, duration of organ dysfunction, complications, functional outcomes, and others) and analysed according to the study characteristics and publication year. RESULTS: Of the 885 references retrieved, 170 were included in the review. Of these, 136 (80%) defined a primary outcome, 114 (67%) defined secondary outcomes (two per study on average), and 34 (20%) did not specify whether outcomes were primary or secondary. We identified 24 different outcomes in all, of which 19 were primary. Complications were the most widely used primary outcome (65/136, 48%). Mortality was the primary outcome in 17/136 (13%) studies, with six different timepoints. The main secondary outcomes were length of stay (90/114, 79%), mortality (82/114, 72%), and duration of organ dysfunction (75/114, 65%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the heterogeneity of outcomes used in recent randomized controlled trials evaluating nutritional interventions in critically ill patients. The results of our systematic review may have implications for designing future RCTs of nutritional interventions in the ICU.
Subject(s)
Nutritional Support/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Nutritional Status , Nutritional Support/methods , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In a context where there is an increasing demand to evaluate the outcome of bio-medical research, our work aims to develop a set of indicators to measure the impact of translational cancer research. The objective of our study was to explore the scope and issues of translational research relevant to evaluation, explore the views of researchers on the evaluation of oncological translational research, and select indicators measuring the outcomes and outputs of translational research in oncology by consensus. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews amongst 23 researchers involved in translational cancer research were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. A two-round modified Delphi survey of 35 participants with similar characteristics was then performed followed by a physical meeting. Participants rated the feasibility and validity of 60 indicators. The physical meeting was held to discuss the methodology of the new indicators. RESULTS: The main themes emerging from the interviews included a common definition for translational research but disagreements about the exact scope and limits of this research, the importance of multidisciplinarity and collaboration for the success of translational research, the disadvantages that translational research faces in current evaluation systems, the relative lack of pertinence of existing indicators, and propositions to measure translational cancer research in terms of clinical applications and patient outcomes. A total of 35 participants took part in the first round survey and 12 in the second round. The two-round survey helped us select a set of 18 indicators, including four that seemed to be particularly adapted to measure translational cancer research impact on health service research (number of biomarkers identified, generation of clinical guidelines, citation of research in clinical guidelines, and citation of research in public health guidelines). The feedback from participants helped refine the methodology and definition of indicators not commonly used. CONCLUSION: Indicators need to be accepted by stakeholders under evaluation. This study helped the selection and refinement of indicators considered as the most relevant by researchers in translational cancer research. The feasibility and validity of those indicators will be tested in a scientometric study.
Subject(s)
Consensus , Neoplasms , Process Assessment, Health Care , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Translational Research, Biomedical , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Biomedical Research , Clinical Protocols , Female , Health Services Research , Humans , Male , Research Personnel , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Healthcare accreditation is considered to be an essential quality improvement tool. However, its effectiveness has been critiqued. METHODS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted with clinicians (five), nurses (six), managers (eight), and basic/translational researchers (five) from eight European cancer centres on changes observed from participating in a European cancer accreditation programme. Data were thematically analysed and verified with participants and checked against auditor's feedback. RESULTS: Four change categories emerged: (i) the growing importance of the nursing and supportive care field (role change). Nurses gained more autonomy/clarity on their daily duties. Importance was given to the hiring and training of supportive care personnel (ii) critical thinking on data integration (strategic change). Managers gained insight on how to integrate institutional level data (iii) improved processes within multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (procedural change). Clinical staff experienced improved communication between MDTs (iv) building trust (organisational change). Accreditation improved the centre's credibility with its own staff and externally with funders and patients. No motivational changes were perceived. Researchers perceived no changes. The auditor's feedback included changes in 13 areas: translational research, biobanks, clinical trials, patient privacy and satisfaction, cancer registries, clinical practice guidelines, patient education, screening, primary prevention, role of nurses, MDT, supportive care, and data integration. However, our study revealed that staff perceived changes only in the last four areas. CONCLUSION: Staff perceived changes in data integration, nursing and supportive care, and in certain clinical aspects. Accreditation programmes must pay attention to the needs of different stakeholder groups, track changes, and observe how/why change happens.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points. METHODOLOGY: We have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors. FINDINGS: We included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it. DISCUSSION: The majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.
Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Biomedical Research , Cooperative Behavior , Databases, Bibliographic , Efficiency , Health Impact Assessment , Humans , Information Dissemination , Journal Impact Factor , PubMedABSTRACT
This article presents a bibliometric study carried out in order to describe the trends and evolutions of French breast cancer research from 2003 to 2013. The results show an increase in the number of publications, especially international publications coordinated by non-French institutions. The most visible topics, in terms of number of publications by keywords, are related to biology, clinical trials and genetics. Most publications are written by authors affiliated to comprehensive cancer centres, followed by universities, research centres, university hospitals and governmental agencies. The importance of publications by topic varies throughout the years: there has been an increase of the number of publications related to targeted therapies or genomics. The importance of institutions or country affiliation of authors varies with the topics. This study, especially the analysis by keywords, enables the coordinators of research programs to identify the predominant actors and themes.
Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Biomedical Research/trends , Breast Neoplasms , International Cooperation , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , Authorship , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Female , France , Humans , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
We performed a literature review of existing benchmarking projects of health facilities to explore (1) the rationales for those projects, (2) the motivation for health facilities to participate, (3) the indicators used and (4) the success and threat factors linked to those projects. We studied both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We examined 23 benchmarking projects of different medical specialities. The majority of projects used a mix of structure, process and outcome indicators. For some projects, participants had a direct or indirect financial incentive to participate (such as reimbursement by Medicaid/Medicare or litigation costs related to quality of care). A positive impact was reported for most projects, mainly in terms of improvement of practice and adoption of guidelines and, to a lesser extent, improvement in communication. Only 1 project reported positive impact in terms of clinical outcomes. Success factors and threats are linked to both the benchmarking process (such as organisation of meetings, link with existing projects) and indicators used (such as adjustment for diagnostic-related groups). The results of this review will help coordinators of a benchmarking project to set it up successfully.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. METHODS: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. RESULTS: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. CONCLUSION: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next step.