ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. METHODS: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. RESULTS: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. CONCLUSION: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.
Subject(s)
Health Priorities , Universal Health Insurance , Pakistan , Humans , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Universal Health Insurance/organization & administration , Decision Making , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Policy , Advisory Committees/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Pakistan developed an essential package of health services at the primary healthcare (PHC) level as a key component of health reforms aiming to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). This supplement describes the methods and processes adopted for evidence-informed prioritization of services, policy decisions adopted, and the lessons learned in package design as well as in the transition to effective rollout. The papers conclude that evidence-informed deliberative processes can be effectively applied to design affordable packages of services that represent good value for money and address a major part of the disease burden. Transition to implementation requires a comprehensive assessment of health system gaps, strong engagement of the planning and financing sectors, serious involvement of key national stakeholders and the private health sector, capacity building, and institutionalization of technical and managerial skills. Pakistan's experience highlights the need for updating the evidence and model packages of the Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) initiative and reinforcing international collaboration to support technical guidance to countries in priority setting and UHC reforms.
Subject(s)
Health Care Reform , Health Policy , Health Priorities , Primary Health Care , Universal Health Insurance , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Pakistan , Universal Health Insurance/organization & administration , Humans , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Care Reform/organization & administrationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Providing healthcare for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is challenging. Polypharmacy and complex treatment plans can lead to high treatment burden and risk for adverse events. For clinicians, managing the complexities of patients with MCC leaves little room to identify what matters and align care options with patients' health priorities. New care approaches are needed to navigate these challenges. In this clinical trial, we evaluate implementation and effectiveness outcomes of an innovative, structured, patient-centered care approach (Patient Priorities Care; PPC) for reducing treatment burden and aligning health care decisions with the health priorities of older adults with MCC. METHODS: This is a multisite, assessor-blind, two-arm, parallel hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial. We are enrolling 396 older (65+) Veterans with MCC who receive primary care at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Veterans are randomly assigned to either PPC or usual care. In the PPC arm, Veterans have a brief telephone call with a study facilitator to identify their personal health priorities. Then, primary care providers use this information to align healthcare with Veteran priorities during their established clinic appointments. Data are collected at baseline and 4-month follow up to assess for changes in treatment burden and use of home and community services. Formative and summative evaluations are also collected to assess for implementation outcomes according to Proctor's implementation framework. CONCLUSIONS: This work has the potential to significantly improve the standard of care by personalizing healthcare and helping patients achieve what is most important to them.
Subject(s)
Multiple Chronic Conditions , Patient-Centered Care , Humans , Aged , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Multiple Chronic Conditions/therapy , United States , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/organization & administration , Veterans , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Female , Male , Health Priorities/organization & administration , PolypharmacyABSTRACT
Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements-in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively-that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three implications for institutional design in developed democracies: (1) indeterminacy at the level of moral psychology can increase the probability of indeterminacy at the level of institutional design; (2) situational constraints in effect require priority-setting policy-makers to adopt normative-moral pluralism; and (3) the U.S. health care system may be in an anti-priority-setting equilibrium.
Subject(s)
Health Priorities , Morals , Humans , Health Priorities/ethics , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Australia , Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Health Policy , Politics , Conflict, Psychological , United StatesABSTRACT
A obesidade é confirmada como um dos principais fatores de risco de doenças cardiovasculares, diabetes mellitus e doença renal crônica, entre outros. Na projeção para os próximos 12 anos, o Brasil terá 41% de sua população adulta com obesidade, segundo a nova edição do Atlas Mundial da Obesidade 2023. O número é confirmado para 2035 a partir das tendências projetadas na prevalência de obesidade. Para os adultos, o crescimento será de 2,8% por ano, enquanto nas crianças, fator mais preocupante, o crescimento anual será de 4,4%. O objetivo deste estudo é a estratificação de risco dos pacientes que estão aguardando cirurgia bariátrica pelo HSPM (Hospital do Servidor Público Municipal), através do protocolo SOS (Score de Obesidade do Servidor), ao definir critérios de gravidade e priorização desses pacientes, correlacionando a obesidade ao grau de disfunções orgânicas dos mesmos. Em nosso serviço o tempo na fila de espera para a cirurgia bariátrica gira em torno de 6 a 7 anos, para todos os pacientes, não levando em consideração as comorbidades e riscos destes indivíduos, e no Brasil não há até hoje nenhum protocolo de priorização por comorbidades descrito para a cirurgia bariátrica. Foi realizada a estratificação de gravidade dos pacientes que aguardam pela cirurgia bariátrica no HSPM, com elaboração de pontuação de risco alto (maior ou igual que cinco pontos: prioridade vermelha), médio (3 a 4 pontos: prioridade amarela) e baixo (0 a 2 pontos: prioridade verde), através do protocolo SOS (Score de Obesidade do Servidor). Palavras-chave: Cirurgia bariátrica. Obesidade. Listas de espera. Priorização. Manejo de Obesidade.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Young Adult , Indicators of Morbidity and Mortality , Waiting Lists , Waiting Lists/mortality , Bariatric Surgery/statistics & numerical data , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Obesity/surgery , Obesity/classificationABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: British Pakistani women have exceptionally high rates of obesity and yet are seldom heard in a research priority setting concerning weight management. The objectives of this study were (i) to ascertain what multisectoral professionals perceive to be the most pressing unmet obesity needs or topic areas that need more research in relation to Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford and (ii) to determine the top 10 obesity health priorities for this group to develop an obesity research agenda. METHODS: A two-step process was adopted using the following: (i) a survey of a wide range of multisectoral professional stakeholders (n = 159) and (ii) a ranking exercise involving Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford (n = 32) to select and prioritize their top 10 obesity health concerns and unmet needs from a list of 31 statements identified in the survey and previous research. Survey data were analysed using inductive content analysis and themes were identified. Themes were translated into statements to be ranked by Pakistani women. The ranking exercise was conducted by telephone either via voice or video call. Data were analysed using a reverse scoring system. RESULTS: Survey responses were grouped into statements reflecting the following three categories: education needs; healthy behaviour barriers and mental well-being. The highest rankings were given by Pakistani women to statements on mental health and the need for education. The top 10 prioritized statements were developed with members of the public into an obesity research agenda that reflected the target population. CONCLUSION: Actively engaging British Pakistani women in setting research priorities provided a unique opportunity to understand the key areas they think are important for future research. The culminating research agenda can be used by researchers to advance the field of obesity research in Pakistani communities, thus producing research outputs that are relevant to and have impact in this population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants in the ranking exercise collected data. Public contributors were involved in developing the prioritized statements into a research agenda.
Subject(s)
Health Priorities , Health Services Needs and Demand , Health Services Research , Obesity , Poverty Areas , Social Determinants of Health , Biomedical Research/methods , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Female , Health Care Surveys , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Research/methods , Health Services Research/organization & administration , Humans , Intersectoral Collaboration , Obesity/epidemiology , Obesity/therapy , Pakistan/ethnology , Social Determinants of Health/statistics & numerical data , Stakeholder Participation , United Kingdom/epidemiologyABSTRACT
CONTEXTE Le présent document ainsi que les constats qu'il énonce ont été rédigés en réponse à une demande du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. L'objectif était de réaliser une recension des données publiées et de mobiliser les savoirs clés afin d'informer les décideurs publics et les professionnels de la santé et des services sociaux. Vu la nature de cette réponse, les constats qui en découlent ne reposent pas sur une évaluation de la qualité méthodologique des études avec une méthode systématique ou sur un processus de consultation élaboré. Le produit livré consiste en une réponse rapide. Aucune recommandation n'a été formulée par l'INESSS relativement aux constats énoncés. PRÉSENTATION DE LA DEMANDE: Le cancer colorectal (CCR) est la deuxième cause de mortalité par cancer au Québec, après le cancer du poumon. La Société canadienne du cancer (SCC) estime qu'en 2020, au Québec, 7 000 nouveaux cas de CCR auront été diagnostiqués et 2 700 décès associés à ce cancer auront été enregistrés [SCC, 2020]. Le CCR se développe suivant une accumulation graduelle de changements génétiques et épigénétiques qui mènent à la transformation de la muqueuse du colon normale en un cancer invasif. La plupart des cas de CCR se développent à partir d'adénomes bénins et évoluent vers des adénocarcinomes malins durant une période qui varie entre 10 et 15 ans [Binefa et al., 2014]. Le CCR est souvent asymptomatique aux stades précoces et il reste non diagnostiqué jusqu'aux stades avancés où le pronostic devient défavorable. Détecté à un stade précoce, le CCR peut être traité et guéri, le taux de survie à 5 ans approchant 90 % [Simon, 2016]. L'introduction de programmes de dépistage du CCR a contribué à réduire la mortalité due à ce cancer dans les pays développés [Rosello et al., 2019]. En 2010, le ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux a amorcé le Programme québécois de dépistage du cancer colorectal (PQDCCR) dont l'objectif est d'accroître l'accès aux tests de dépistage et de réduire la mortalité associée à cette maladie. Ce programme recommande la recherche de sang occulte dans les selles (RSOS) tous les deux ans pour les personnes âgées de 50 à 74 ans, asymptomatiques et sans autre facteur de risque. Le test immunochimique de recherche de sang occulte dans les selles (RSOSi, aussi appelé FIT test) est disponible au Québec depuis 2013, en remplacement du test de RSOS au gaïac (RSOSg). Le seuil de positivité du test de RSOSi adopté au Québec est de 175 ng hémoglobine (Hb)/mL1 [INESSS, 2012]. Lorsque le résultat du test de RSOSi indique la présence de sang dans les selles, une coloscopie est recommandée pour préciser le diagnostic [MSSS, 2018]. La priorisation des patients pour l'accès à la coloscopie est faite en attribuant un rendez-vous qui tient compte de la priorité clinique, et ensuite de la date de réception de la requête par le centre hospitalier (formulaire AH 702). Les patients dont le résultat du test de RSOSi est positif sont jugés de priorité 3 (P3) (échelle à cinq niveaux [MSSS, 2018]), et ils devraient avoir accès à la coloscopie dans un délai maximal de 60 jours. Le délestage de plusieurs activités cliniques en raison de la pandémie de la COVID-19 a eu un impact important sur plusieurs activités médicales, dont le dépistage du CCR. Le délestage des activités en endoscopie a fortement diminué l'accès à la coloscopie et à l'investigation de ce cancer. Une diminution de près de 72 500 coloscopies a été observée durant l'année financière 2020-2021 par rapport à l'année 2019-2020 [MSSS, 2021]. En novembre 2021, un peu moins de 120 000 personnes étaient en attente d'une coloscopie, dont 65 % étaient hors délai depuis plusieurs mois (plus de 60 jours). À la même époque, le nombre de requêtes primaires (premiers examens) hors délai était près de trois fois plus élevé de celui de l'année prépandémie. Ainsi, 31 070 requêtes dépassaient le délai d'attente maximal comparativement à 11 894 requêtes à la même période de l'année prépandémie. À cela s'ajoute une baisse d'environ 160 000 du nombre de tests de RSOSi observée en 2020-2021 par rapport à l'année précédente [MSSS, 2021]. Une demande supplémentaire en coloscopie est donc à prévoir à l'occasion du rattrapage des listes d'attente associées à ces tests. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Questions d'évaluation: Quelles sont les différentes stratégies de priorisation des patients qui présentent un résultat de test RSOSi positif dans l'investigation du CCR dans un contexte de délais importants attribuables aux listes d'attente? Deux types de priorisation ont été recherchés : priorisation des patients basée sur le résultat quantitatif du test de RSOSi; priorisation des patients basée sur des caractéristiques autres que le résultat quantitatif du test de RSOSi (âge, sexe, biomarqueurs). Quelles sont les retombées cliniques d'une priorisation de l'investigation: pour les patients (CCR détectés et non détectés, CCR détectés à un stade précoce et avancé, survie)? Quel est l'impact du délai entre la coloscopie et le test de RSOSi sur l'incidence de CCR, de CCR avancé et de décès associés à la maladie? Dimension organisationnelle: Quelles sont les retombées organisationnelles de différentes stratégies de priorisation des patients sur les ressources hospitalières (nombre de coloscopies évitées et à réaliser, effet sur la liste d'attente)? Stratégie de repérage de l'information Scientifique: La stratégie de recherche et le repérage des documents tirés de la littérature scientifique ont été réalisés le 20 juillet 2021 en collaboration avec un conseiller en information scientifique. La recherche a été effectuée dans les bases de données bibliographiques MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment et NHS Economic Evaluation Database en employant les mots clés listés à l'annexe A. Une mise à jour des stratégies de repérage a été effectuée périodiquement jusqu'au dépôt de la version préliminaire du document. Les listes de références des documents retenus ont été consultées afin de repérer d'autres études pertinentes que la stratégie de recherche de la littérature aurait pu omettre. Les liens similar articles et cited by de l'interface PubMed ont été consultés pour chacune des publications scientifiques ainsi que des revues narratives pertinentes. RÉSULTATS: Le seuil de positivité du test de RSOSi adopté au Québec pour le dépistage du CCR est de 175 ng Hb/mL [INESSS, 2012]. La technologie utilisée au Québec est le OC-Sensor®. Des technologies différentes, comme le test FOB Gold, sont aussi utilisées dans d'autres juridictions. Bien que les protocoles d'utilisation soient différents entre les technologies, le résultat obtenu permet d'évaluer la présence de sang dans les selles. Une méta-analyse (quatre études; n = 4 126) a évalué la performance du test de RSOSi pour la détection du CCR en contexte de dépistage populationnel à des seuils inclus entre 100 et 200 ng Hb/mL. La sensibilité et la spécificité rapportées ont été respectivement de 81 % (IC 95 % 46-91) et de 94 % (IC 95 % 92-95) [Stonestreet et al., 2019]. Dans la perspective d'une priorisation pour la coloscopie de groupes de patients dont le résultat au test est positif en privilégiant des seuils plus élevés, la performance du test de RSOSi à des seuils supérieurs à 175 ng Hb/mL a été investiguée en contexte de dépistage du CCR. Des caractéristiques relatives à la performance du test précité ont été évaluées, notamment la sensibilité et la spécificité.
Subject(s)
Humans , Triage/methods , Colonoscopy , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Occult Blood , Health Evaluation , Cost-Benefit AnalysisABSTRACT
In the past decade, Nigeria has been experiencing worsening flooding. Beyond the physical injuries caused, it can impact the mental health of affected individuals. While new mental health disorders can emerge, exacerbation of preexisting mental conditions are common in the aftermath of flooding. Therefore, it is critical to integrate mental health and psychosocial support as part of the emergency response available to affected populations on both short-term and long-term basis.
Subject(s)
Emergency Services, Psychiatric , Floods , Health Priorities , Humans , Emergency Services, Psychiatric/organization & administration , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Mental Disorders/prevention & control , Nigeria/epidemiology , Psychosocial Support SystemsABSTRACT
Este produto visa orientar todo processo de elaboração de uma resposta rápida para desenvolver um produto que seja de interesse para seu local de trabalho e incorporação dos resultados à dinâmica do serviço. Ele foi pensado e construído para que você possa elaborar o seu produto de resposta rápida com bastante tranquilidade e segurança. Apresenta conteúdos bem explicativos de cada uma das etapas exemplificados, além de indicações de materiais complementares, os quais você poderá acessar para ampliar o seu conhecimento.
This product aims to guide you through the process of developing a rapid response product that is of interest to your workplace and incorporating the results into the dynamics of the service. It has been designed and constructed so that you can develop your rapid response product with a great deal of peace of mind. It contains explanatory content for each of the stages, as well as indications of complementary materials that you can access to broaden your knowledge.
Subject(s)
Research Design/standards , Writing/standards , Review Literature as Topic , Information Storage and Retrieval/methods , Problem Solving , Time Factors , Databases, Bibliographic/standards , Decision Making , Evidence-Informed Policy , Health Priorities/organization & administrationSubject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Government Regulation , Infection Control , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Priorities/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Infection Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Infection Control/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Public Health Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Public Health Administration/methods , Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Research/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Food and Drug Administration/organization & administrationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: When vaccine supplies are anticipated to be limited, necessitating the vaccination of certain groups earlier than others, the assessment of values and preferences of stakeholders is an important component of an ethically sound vaccine prioritization framework. The objective of this study was to conduct a priority-setting exercise to establish an expert stakeholder perspective on the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada. METHODS: The priority-setting exercise included a survey of stakeholders that was conducted from July 22 to Aug. 14, 2020. Stakeholders included clinical and public health expert groups, provincial and territorial committees and national Indigenous groups, patient and community advocacy representatives and experts, health professional associations and federal government departments. Survey results were analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 155 stakeholders contacted, 76 surveys were received for a participation rate of 49%. During a period of anticipated initial vaccine scarcity for all pandemic scenarios, stakeholders generally considered the most important vaccination strategy to be protecting those who are most vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. This was followed in importance by strategies to protect health care capacity, minimize transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and protect critical infrastructure. INTERPRETATION: This priority-setting exercise established that there is general alignment in the values and preferences across stakeholder groups: the most important vaccination strategy at the time of limited initial vaccine availability is to protect those who are most vulnerable. The findings of this priority-setting exercise provided a timely expert perspective to guide early public health planning for COVID-19 vaccines.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Priorities/ethics , Vaccination/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Canada/epidemiology , Capacity Building/organization & administration , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Health Occupations/statistics & numerical data , Health Occupations/trends , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Stakeholder Participation , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vulnerable PopulationsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in the management of urology patients, especially those with prostate cancer. The aim of this work is to show the changes in the ambulatory care practices by individualized telematic care for each patient profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles published from March 2020 to January 2021 were reviewed. We selected those that provided the highest levels of evidence regarding risk in different aspects: screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer. RESULTS: We developed a classification system based on priorities, at different stages of the disease (screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up) to which the type of care given, in-person or telephone visits, was adapted. We established 4 options, as follows: in priority A or low, care will be given by telephone in all cases; in priority B or intermediate, if patients are considered subsidiary of an in-person visit after telephone consultation, they will be scheduled within 3 months; in priority C or high, patients will be seen in person within a margin from 1 to 3 months and in priority D or very high, patients must always be seen in person within a margin of up to 48â¯h and considered very preferential. CONCLUSIONS: Telematic care in prostate cancer offers an opportunity to develop new performance and follow-up protocols, which should be thoroughly analyzed in future studies, in order to create a safe environment and guarantee oncologic outcomes for patients.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Pandemics , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Telemedicine , Appointments and Schedules , Continuity of Patient Care , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Time FactorsSubject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Hospitalization , Vaccination , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines/classification , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Efficiency, Organizational , Female , Hospitalization/economics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Immunization Programs/methods , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/methods , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Washington/epidemiologySubject(s)
COVID-19/nursing , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Nurse Clinicians/organization & administration , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Nurses'/legislation & jurisprudence , Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Midwestern United States/epidemiology , Nurse Clinicians/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
The supply limitations of COVID-19 vaccines have led to the need to prioritize vaccine distribution. Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension have been associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Approximately half as many individuals with a cardiovascular risk factor need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to prevent related death compared with individuals without a risk factor. Adults with body mass index ≥ 30, diabetes, or hypertension should be of a similar priority for COVID-19 vaccination to adults 10 years older with a body mass index of 20 to < 30, no diabetes, and no hypertension.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Needs Assessment , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Canada , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As the number of older adults continues to increase, addressing their health becomes increasingly important for both the population and the health care system. The aim of this priority setting partnership was to use direct engagement with older adults, caregivers and health care providers to identify and prioritize the most important topics on the health of older adults that should be addressed by future research. METHODS: We followed the James Lind Alliance method. We conducted an initial online and paper survey from Jan. 22 to May 2, 2018, with older adults in Alberta aged 65 years and older to identify what respondents saw as being most important for the health of older adults. We formed responses into summary questions and checked them against existing evidence. We administered a second survey (July 3 to Aug. 2, 2018) to shortlist summary questions and held an in-person workshop (Aug. 30, 2018) to rank the list through discussion and shared decision-making. RESULTS: We recruited 670 participants (32.7% older adults, 19.7% caregivers, 46.9% health and social care workers) in the initial survey to tell us what topics on the health of older adults mattered most to them. Over 3000 responses generated 101 summary questions, of which only 4 were completely answered by existing evidence. The second prioritization survey was completed by 232 participants (28.4% older adults, 24.6% care partners, 47.0% health and social care workers) to produce a shortlist of 22 high priority questions. Twenty-two attendees participated in the summary workshop to create a prioritized list of 10 questions for future research that address aspects of the health system, provision of care and living well in older adulthood. INTERPRETATION: Older adults, caregivers and clinicians collectively produced a prioritized list of questions that matter most to older adults' health in Alberta. Provincial researchers and research funders should consider these unmet knowledge needs of end-users in future endeavours.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Health Priorities , Patient Participation , Research Design , Stakeholder Participation , Aged , Alberta/epidemiology , Caregivers/statistics & numerical data , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Priorities/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intersectoral Collaboration , Male , Needs Assessment , Research , Social Workers/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic is the most serious health crisis of our time. Global public measures have been enacted to try to prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. The trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) community has overcome challenges in order to continue to deliver acute trauma care to patients and plan for challenges ahead. This review explores the lessons learnt, the priorities and the controversies that the T&O community has faced during the crisis. Historically, the experience of major incidents in T&O has focused on mass casualty events. The current pandemic requires a different approach to resource management in order to create a long-term, system-sustaining model of care alongside a move towards resource balancing and facilitation. Significant limitations in theatre access, anaesthetists and bed capacity have necessitated adaptation. Strategic changes to trauma networks and risk mitigation allowed for ongoing surgical treatment of trauma. Outpatient care was reformed with the uptake of technology. The return to elective surgery requires careful planning, restructuring of elective pathways and risk management. Despite the hope that mass vaccination will lift the pressure on bed capacity and on bleak economic forecasts, the orthopaedic community must readjust its focus to meet the challenge of huge backlogs in elective caseloads before looking to the future with a robust strategy of integrated resilient pathways. The pandemic will provide the impetus for research that defines essential interventions and facilitates the implementation of strategies to overcome current barriers and to prepare for future crises.