Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: The exceptional production of research evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic required deployment of scientists to act in advisory roles to aid policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions. The unprecedented breadth, scale and duration of the pandemic provides an opportunity to understand how science advisors experience and mitigate challenges associated with insufficient, evolving and/or conflicting evidence to inform public health decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To explore critically the challenges for advising evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) in pandemic contexts, particularly around non-pharmaceutical control measures, from the perspective of experts advising policy-makers during COVID-19 globally. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 scientific experts and advisors who are/were engaged in COVID-19 EIDM representing four WHO regions and 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ghana, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Sweden, Uganda, UK, USA) from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants informed decision-making at various and multiple levels of governance, including local/city (n=3), state/provincial (n=8), federal or national (n=20), regional or international (n=3) and university-level advising (n=3). Following each interview, we conducted member checks with participants and thematically analysed interview data using NVivo for Mac software. RESULTS: Findings from this study indicate multiple overarching challenges to pandemic EIDM specific to interpretation and translation of evidence, including the speed and influx of new, evolving, and conflicting evidence; concerns about scientific integrity and misinterpretation of evidence; the limited capacity to assess and produce evidence, and adapting evidence from other contexts; multiple forms of evidence and perspectives needed for EIDM; the need to make decisions quickly and under conditions of uncertainty; and a lack of transparency in how decisions are made and applied. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the urgent need for global EIDM guidance that countries can adapt for in-country decisions as well as coordinated global response to future pandemics.

Shoulder Pain of Spinal Source in the Military: A Case Series.

Musculoskeletal injury (MSI) presents the greatest threat to military mission readiness. Atraumatic shoulder pain is a common military MSI that often results in persistent functional limitations. Shoulder orthopedic evaluation presents many diagnostic challenges, due in part to the possibility of a spinal source of symptoms. This case series outlines the use of mechanical diagnosis and therapy to screen the cervical and thoracic spine in active duty (AD) service members (SMs) with a chief complaint of unchanging or worsening shoulder pain. All three SMs previously received shoulder-specific diagnoses from experienced clinicians, yet repeated movements revealed a possible spinal nociceptive driver that guided targeted intervention. Treatment directed only at the cervical spine resulted in a clinically important improvement within an average of 10 days from the initial evaluation, return to duty (RTD) within an average of 32 days, and continued resolution at 3 months. SMs can independently complete the screening process with guidance from healthcare providers, ultimately shaping the treatment strategy and possibly facilitating self-management of future recurrence. This case series demonstrates that identification of shoulder pain of spinal source in the military population may be an important step in facilitating timely RTD. These cases also highlight the use of a standardized, systematic method to screen the cervical and thoracic spine that concurrently reveals the indicated treatment. Further research to determine the prevalence of shoulder pain of spinal source in the AD population and its impact on RTD rates has the potential to reduce the substantial burden of MSI in the military.

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

Phenotypic plasticity of mesenchymal stem cells is crucial for mesangial repair in a model of immunoglobulin light chain-associated mesangial damage.

Mesangiopathies produced by glomerulopathic monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains (GLCs) acting on the glomerular mesangium produce two characteristic lesions: AL-amyloidosis (AL-Am) and light chain deposition disease (LCDD). In both cases, the pathology is centered in the mesangium, where initial and progressive damage occurs. In AL-Am the mesangial matrix is destroyed and replaced by amyloid fibrils and in LCDD, the mesangial matrix is increased and remodeled. The collagen IV rich matrix is replaced by tenascin. In both conditions, mesangial cells (MCs) become apoptotic as a direct effect of the GLCs. MCs were incubated in-vitro with GLCs and animal kidneys were perfused ex-vivo via the renal artery with GLCs, producing expected lesions, and then mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were added to both platforms. Each of the two platforms provided unique information that when put together created a comprehensive evaluation of the processes involved. A "cocktail" with growth and differentiating factors was used to study its effect on mesangial repair. MSCs displayed remarkable phenotypic plasticity during the repair process. The first role of the MSCs after migrating to the affected areas was to dispose of the amyloid fibrils (in AL-Am), the altered mesangial matrix (in LCDD) and apoptotic MCs/debris. To accomplish this task, MSCs transformed into facultative macrophages acquiring an abundance of lysosomes and endocytotic capabilities required to engage in phagocytic functions. Once the mesangial cleaning was completed, MSCs transformed into functional MCs restoring the mesangium to normal. "Cocktail" made the repair process more efficient.