Challenges in the Evaluation of Emerging Highly Specialised Technologies: Is There a Role for Living HTA?

There is currently deep uncertainty about the clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of highly specialised technologies (HSTs), like gene and cell therapies. These treatments are novel, typically have high upfront costs, the patient populations are small and heterogenous, there is minimal information on their long-term safety and effectiveness, and data are limited and often of poor quality. With the increasing number of these technologies and their high cost burden on governments and health care providers, policy makers are currently walking a decision tightrope. On the one hand, an unfavourable funding decision could potentially limit patient access to life-saving treatments, while on the other, a favourable decision could result in unsustainable budget impacts and perhaps poorer patient health outcomes. Health technology assessment (HTA) is meant to determine the value of a health technology in order to promote an equitable, efficient, and high-quality health system. However, standard HTA processes have failed to mitigate the deep uncertainties associated with these technologies. In this paper, we propose a Living HTA framework to address these challenges. This framework includes a one-off process for making explicit the societal values associated with HSTs. These would inform the decision-making approach, data collection and the development of disease-specific reference models to be used by industry sponsors as the basis for their submissions for public funding. Coverage with an evidence development mechanism is also proposed by which data can be collected in real time to update the reference model on a rolling basis, thereby allowing re-assessment of the clinical and cost effectiveness of individual HSTs. The HTA would be 'live' until the results indicate there is sufficient certainty for the funding decision to be confirmed, the price changed or the funding removed.

Ethical issues in big data: A qualitative study comparing responses in the health and higher education sectors.

INTRODUCTION: The health and higher education sectors are increasingly using large administrative datasets for secondary purposes. Both sectors experience ethical challenges in the use of big data. This study identifies and explores how these two sectors are responding to these ethical challenges. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH: Through in-depth qualitative interviews, we asked 18 key Australian stakeholders using or sharing big data in the health and higher education sectors to identify the ethical, social and legal issues associated with big data use and their views on how to build ethical policies in this area. RESULTS: There was strong agreement between participants in the two sectors in a number of areas. All participants believed in the benefits of data usage and recognised the importance of privacy, transparency and consent, and the duties for data custodians which followed from these principles. However, there were also significant differences. The participants in the two sectors took different views on what data are for, what benefits data should provide, who should benefit and how, and the imagined unit of analysis for working with data. Broadly, participants from the higher education sector approached these questions with individual students in mind, while health sector informants approached these questions with collectives, groups, or publics in mind. In deciding what to do, the health participants drew principally on a shared toolkit of legislative, regulatory and ethical instruments, and higher education participants on a culture of duties towards individuals. CONCLUSION / IMPLICATIONS: The health and higher education sectors are responding to ethical challenges in the use of big data in different, but potentially complementary, ways.

Using World Cafés to engage an Australian culturally and linguistically diverse community around human papillomavirus vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Internationally, cultural factors are associated with vaccine uptake and completion in ethnic minority communities. Whilst Australia has achieved high human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, little is known about how culture or ethnicity influences HPV vaccination engagement. To address these gaps, we partnered with our Local Health District to explore how one culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) community engages with school and HPV vaccination. METHODS: We adapted a participatory research method (the World Café) to engage one local CALD community-the Macedonian community (Our bi-cultural researcher and participants preferred the term 'Macedonia' rather than The Republic of North Macedonia as outlined in the 2018 Prespa agreement) in New South Wales (Australia)-to discuss HPV and school vaccination. Our qualitative analysis combined deductive codes taken from the Tailoring Immunization Programme framework, inductive codes guided by narrative inquiry (temporality, sociality and place) and previously known vaccination 'trust' frameworks. RESULTS: In late 2019, 31 local Macedonian community members were purposely recruited for two World Cafés (n = 15 mothers/grandmothers and n = 16 young adults). Our themes reveal a community narrative grounded in historical vaccine experiences, family views on vaccination and a general trust in schools. Participants collectively discussed how 'increasing knowledge' and 'tailoring health communications' could strengthen community vaccine decision-making. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how research partnerships and participatory methods can be applied in CALD community settings to research engagement with school and HPV vaccination. Our World Café dialogues highlight a positive narrative about vaccines, where community vaccination behaviours were built on multilayer trust relationships despite low vaccine knowledge. Our findings further knowledge around 'public trust' in school vaccination, highlighting the importance of existing (or missing) trust relationships when tailoring vaccine communication to local CALD communities. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Participants who took part in the World Cafes were all local Macedonian community parents or young adults who have been or will be exposed to the health services offered by school-based HPV vaccination. Thus, all the data collected came from their personal experiences with the school vaccination programme, or how they expect to participate in the programme. To ensure our study design was culturally appropriate and tailored to the Macedonian community, we engaged with the relevant local health stakeholders (the bi-cultural Multicultural Health Officer and Multicultural Health Service Manager Programme Director) to adapt and refine the World Café method for this context and setting. Our local health stakeholders also reviewed our preliminary findings, assisted with data interpretation and participated in manuscript editing.

Older Adults' Perspectives of Smart Technologies to Support Aging at Home: Insights from Five World Café Forums.

Globally, there is an urgent need for solutions that can support our aging populations to live well and reduce the associated economic, social and health burdens. Implementing smart technologies within homes and communities may assist people to live well and 'age in place'. To date, there has been little consultation with older Australians addressing either the perceived benefits, or the potential social and ethical challenges associated with smart technology use. To address this, we conducted five World Cafés in two Australian states, aiming to capture citizen knowledge about the possibilities and challenges of smart technologies. The participants (n = 84) were aged 55 years and over, English-speaking, and living independently. Grounding our analysis in values-based social science and biomedical ethical principles, we identified the themes reflecting the participants' understanding, resistance, and acceptance of smart technologies, and the ethical principles, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, privacy, confidentiality, and justice. Similar to other studies, many of the participants demonstrated cautious and conditional acceptance of smart technologies, while identifying concerns about social isolation, breaches of privacy and confidentiality, surveillance, and stigmatization. Attention to understanding and incorporating the values of older citizens will be important for the acceptance and effectiveness of smart technologies for supporting independent and full lives for older citizens.

Sharing Government Health Data With the Private Sector: Community Attitudes Survey.

BACKGROUND: The use of government health data for secondary purposes, such as monitoring the quality of hospital services, researching the health needs of populations, and testing how well new treatments work, is increasing. This increase in the secondary uses of health data has led to increased interest in what the public thinks about data sharing, in particular, the possibilities of sharing with the private sector for research and development. Although international evidence demonstrates broad public support for the secondary use of health data, this support does not extend to sharing health data with the private sector. If governments intend to share health data with the private sector, knowing what the public thinks will be important. This paper reports a national survey to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing health data with private companies for research on and development of therapeutic drugs and medical devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing government health data with the private sector. METHODS: A web-based survey tool was developed to assess attitudes about sharing government health data with the private sector. A market research company was employed to administer the web-based survey in June 2019. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 2537 individuals residing in Australia. Between 51.8% and 57.98% of all participants were willing to share their data, with slightly fewer in favor of sharing to improve health services (51.99%) and a slightly higher proportion in favor of sharing for research and development (57.98%). There was a preference for opt-in consent (53.44%) and broad support for placing conditions on sharing health information with private companies (62% to 91.99%). Wide variability was also observed in participants' views about the extent to which the private sector could be trusted and how well they would behave if entrusted with people's health information. In their qualitative responses, the participants noted concerns about private sector corporate interests, corruption, and profit making and expressed doubt about the Australian government's capacity to manage data sharing safely. The percentages presented are adjusted against the Australian population. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey provides preliminary evidence that Australians are uncertain about sharing their health data with the private sector. Although just over half of all the respondents supported sharing health data with the private sector, there was also strong support for strict conditions on sharing data and for opt-in consent and significant concerns about how well the private sector would manage government health data. Addressing public concern about sharing government health data with the private sector will require more and better engagement to build community understanding about how agencies can collect, share, protect, and use their personal data.

Sharing administrative health data with private industry: A report on two citizens' juries.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence of both community support for sharing public sector administrative health data in the public interest and concern about data security, misuse and loss of control over health information, particularly if private sector organizations are the data recipients. To date, there is little research describing the perspectives of informed community members on private sector use of public health data and, particularly, on the conditions under which that use might be justified. METHODS: Two citizens' juries were held in February 2020 in two locations close to Sydney, Australia. Jurors considered the charge: 'Under what circumstances is it permissible for governments to share health data with private industry for research and development?' RESULTS: All jurors, bar one, in principle supported sharing government administrative health data with private industry for research and development. The support was conditional and the juries' recommendations specifying these conditions related closely to the concerns they identified in deliberation. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the deliberative processes suggest that informed Australian citizens are willing to accept sharing their administrative health data, including with private industry, providing the intended purpose is clearly of public benefit, sharing occurs responsibly in a framework of accountability, and the data are securely held. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The design of the jury was guided by an Advisory Group including representatives from a health consumer organization. The jurors themselves were selected to be descriptively representative of their communities and with independent facilitation wrote the recommendations.

The representation of public values in health technology assessment to inform funding decisions: the case of Australia's national funding bodies.

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing recognition of the value of public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of public funding decisions [Street J, Stafinski T, Lopes E, Menon D. Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:87-95]. However, important challenges remain, in particular, how to reorient HTA to reflect public priorities. In a recent international survey of thirty HTA agencies conducted by the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA), public engagement in HTA was listed as one of the "Top 10" challenges for HTA agencies [O'Rourke B, Werko SS, Merlin T, Huang LY, Schuller T. The "Top 10" challenges for health technology assessment: INAHTA viewpoint. Int J Technol Assess. 2020;36:1-4].Historically, Australia has been at the forefront of the application of HTA for assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health technologies to inform public funding decisions. However, current HTA processes in Australia lack meaningful public inputs. Using Australia as an example, we describe this important limitation and discuss the potential impact of this gap on the health system and future directions.

The rationale and design of public involvement in health-funding decision making: focus groups with the Canadian public.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, governments employ health technology assessment (HTA) in healthcare funding decision making. Requests to include public perspectives in this are increasing, with the idea being that the public can identify social values to guide policy development, increasing the transparency and accountability of government decision making. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of the Canadian public on the rationale and design of public involvement in HTA. DESIGN: A demographically representative sample of residents of a Canadian province was selected to take part in two sets of two focus groups (sixteen people for the first set and twenty for the second set). RESULTS: Participants were suspicious of the interests driving various stakeholders involved in HTA. They saw the public as uniquely impartial though also lacking knowledge about health technologies. Participants were also suspicious of personal biases and commended mechanisms to reduce their impact. Participants suggested various involvement methods, such as focus groups, citizens' juries and surveys, noting advantages and disadvantages belonging to each and commending a combination. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified a lack of public understanding of how decisions are made and distrust concerning whose interests and values are being considered. Public involvement was seen as a way of providing information to the public and ascertaining their views and values. Participants suggested that public involvement should employ a mixed-methods strategy to support informed debate and participation of a large number of people.

Understanding Canadian Health Technology Assessment through a systems lens.

OBJECTIVE: Governments around the world face challenges in maintaining sustainable, high-quality healthcare systems. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is widely used as a method to assist in funding decisions. However, the scope and influence of HTA is still limited. We examined how policymakers can improve the usefulness of HTA. METHODS: We used Systems Thinking as a theoretical framework to examine HTA as a system. We purposely sampled stakeholders involved in Canadian HTA at a national or provincial level. We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews in September-December 2016. Data were analysed using NVivo10 and findings are presented as a concept map with explanatory text. FINDINGS: The HTA system is influenced by stakeholder interactions. Such interactions are, in turn, affected by stakeholders' worldviews and environmental factors. Stakeholders' worldviews includes individual's or groups' values and affect the exchange of information, and interpretation of events. External factors, such as changes to government structures, also affect the system. CONCLUSION: Most stakeholder groups are supportive of the system. However, participants identified a need for change, though the exact changes being recommended differed. Some interactions were praised (formal, inclusive collaborations to provide government with policy guidance on both broad and technology-specific matters), while other interactions were criticised (two-party alliances formed around purposes other than the common good, and lacklustre patient and industry engagement on the part of provincial government).

Defining the role of the public in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and HTA-informed decision-making processes.

OBJECTIVES: The terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world. METHODS: We drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the "public" and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world. RESULTS: The goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA process. CONCLUSIONS: There are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making.

Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Australian policymakers have acknowledged that implementing obesity prevention regulations is likely to be facilitated or hindered by public opinion. Accordingly, we investigated public views about possible regulations. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 2732 persons, designed to be representative of South Australians aged 15 years and over. Questions examined views about four obesity prevention regulations (mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling for packaged foods; zoning restrictions to prohibit fast food outlets near schools; taxes on unhealthy high fat foods; and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages). Levels of support (Likert scale) for each intervention and reasons for support/opposition were ascertained. RESULTS: Views about the regulations were mixed: support was highest for mandatory nutrition labelling (90%) and lowest for taxes (40%-42%). High levels of support for labelling were generally underpinned by a belief that this regulation would educate "Other" people about nutrition. Lower levels of support for zoning restrictions and taxes were associated with concerns about government overreach and the questionable effectiveness of these regulations in changing behaviours. Levels of support for each regulation, and reasons for support or opposition, differed by gender and socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: Socio-demographic differences in support appeared to reflect gendered responsibilities for food provision and concerns about the material constraints of socio-economic deprivation. Engagement with target populations may offer insights to optimise the acceptability of regulations and minimise unintended social consequences. SO WHAT?: Resistance to regulations amongst socio-economically disadvantaged target populations warrants attention from public health advocates. Failure to accommodate concerns identified may further marginalise these groups.

A checklist for managed access programmes for reimbursement co-designed by Canadian patients and caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Reimbursement decisions on orphan drugs carry significant uncertainty, and as the amount increases, so does the risk of making a wrong decision, where harms outweigh benefits. Consequently, patients often face limited access to orphan drugs. Managed access programmes (MAPs) are a mechanism for managing risk while enabling access to potentially beneficial drugs. Patients and their caregivers have expressed support for these programmes and see patient input as critical to successful implementation. However, they have yet to be systematically involved in their design. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to co-design with patients and caregivers a tool for the development of managed access programmes. METHODS: Building upon established relationships with the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders, the project team collaborated with patients and caregivers using the principles of participatory action research. Data were collected at two workshops and analysed using a thematic network approach. RESULTS: Patients and caregivers co-designed a checklist comprised of six aspects of an ideal MAP relating to accountability (programme goals); governance (MAP-specific committee oversight, patient input, international collaboration); and evidence collection (outcome measures and continuation criteria, on-going monitoring and registries). They recognized that health-care resources are finite and considered disease or drug eligibility criteria for deciding when to use a MAP (eg drugs treating diseases for which there are no other legitimate alternatives). CONCLUSIONS: A patient and caregiver-designed checklist was created, which emphasized patient involvement and transparency. Further research is needed to examine the feasibility of this checklist and roles for other stakeholders.

Supporting youth wellbeing with a focus on eating well and being active: views from an Aboriginal community deliberative forum.

OBJECTIVE: Including and prioritising community voice in policy development means policy is more likely to reflect community values and priorities. This project trialled and evaluated a storyboard approach in a deliberative community forum to engage Australian Aboriginal people in health policy priority setting. METHODS: The forum was co-constructed with two Aboriginal community-controlled organisations. A circle storyboard was used to centre Aboriginal community knowledge and values and encourage the group to engage with broader perspectives and evidence. The forum asked a diverse (descriptively representative) group of Aboriginal people in a rural town what governments should do to support the wellbeing of children and youth, particularly to encourage them to eat well and be active. RESULTS: The storyboard provided a tactile device to allow shared stories and identification of community issues. The group identified policies they believed governments should prioritise, including strategies to combat racism and provide local supports and outlets for young people. CONCLUSIONS: An informed deliberative storyboard approach offers a novel way of engaging with Aboriginal communities in a culturally appropriate and inclusive manner. Implications for public health: The identification of racism as a major issue of concern in preventing children from living healthy lifestyles highlights the need for policy responses in this area.

Engagement of Canadian Patients with Rare Diseases and Their Families in the Lifecycle of Therapy: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient involvement is increasingly recognized as critical to the development, introduction and use (i.e. the lifecycle) of new and effective therapies, particularly those for rare diseases, where natural histories and the impact on patients and families are less well-understood than for common diseases. However, little is known about how patients and families would like to be involved during the lifecycle. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore ways in which Canadian patients with rare diseases and their families would like to be involved in the lifecycle of therapies and identify their priorities for involvement. METHODS: Patients with rare diseases and their families were recruited to participate in two deliberative sessions, during which concepts related to decision-making uncertainty and the technology lifecycle were introduced before eliciting input around ways in which they could be involved. This was followed by a webinar, which was used to further identify opportunities for involvement. The data were then analyzed qualitatively using eclectic coding. RESULTS: Patients and families identified opportunities that fell into three goals: (1) incorporation of their 'lived experience' in coverage decision making (i.e. decisions by governments on funding new therapies); (2) improved care for patients; and (3) greater awareness of rare diseases, with the first being a priority. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities for patients and families to contribute their 'lived experience' are needed throughout the orphan drug lifecycle, but the ideal mechanisms for providing this input have yet to be determined.

Exploring patient and family involvement in the lifecycle of an orphan drug: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patients and their families have become more active in healthcare systems and research. The value of patient involvement is particularly relevant in the area of rare diseases, where patients face delayed diagnoses and limited access to effective therapies due to the high level of uncertainty in market approval and reimbursement decisions. It has been suggested that patient involvement may help to reduce some of these uncertainties. This review explored existing and proposed roles for patients, families, and patient organizations at each stage of the lifecycle of therapies for rare diseases (i.e., orphan drug lifecycle). METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. To validate the findings from the literature and identify any additional opportunities that were missed, a consultative webinar was conducted with members of the Patient and Caregiver Liaison Group of a Canadian research network. RESULTS: Existing and proposed opportunities for involving patients, families, and patient organizations were reported throughout the orphan drug lifecycle and fell into 12 themes: research outside of clinical trials; clinical trials; patient reported outcomes measures; patient registries and biorepositories; education; advocacy and awareness; conferences and workshops; patient care and support; patient organization development; regulatory decision-making; and reimbursement decision-making. Existing opportunities were not described in sufficient detail to allow for the level of involvement to be assessed. Additionally, no information on the impact of involvement within specific opportunities was found. Based on feedback from patients and families, documentation of existing opportunities within Canada is poor. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities for patient, family, and patient organization involvement exist throughout the orphan drug lifecycle. However, based on the information found, it is not possible to determine which opportunities would be most effective at each stage.

Improving food environments and tackling obesity: A realist systematic review of the policy success of regulatory interventions targeting population nutrition.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015025276) employs a realist approach to investigate the effect of "real-world" policies targeting different aspects of the food environment that shape individual and collective nutrition. OBJECTIVES: We were interested in assessing intermediate outcomes along the assumed causal pathway to "policy success", in addition to the final outcome of changed consumption patterns. DATA SOURCES: We performed a search of 16 databases through October 2015, with no initial restriction by language. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all publications that reported the effect of statutory provisions aimed at reducing the consumption of energy-dense foods and beverages in the general population. We allowed all methodological approaches that contained some measure of comparison, including studies of implementation progress. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We reviewed included studies using the appraisal tools for pre-post and observational studies developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Given the considerable heterogeneity in interventions assessed, study designs employed, and outcome measures reported, we opted for a narrative synthesis of results. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS: Results drawn from 36 peer-reviewed articles and grey literature reports demonstrated that isolated regulatory interventions can improve intermediate outcomes, but fail to affect consumption at clinically significant levels. The included literature covered six different types of interventions, with 19 studies reporting on calorie posting on chain restaurant menus. The large majority of the identified interventions were conducted in the US. Early results from recent taxation measures were published after the review cut-off date but these suggested more favorable effects on consumption levels. Nevertheless, the evidence assessed in this review suggests that current policies are generally falling short of anticipated health impacts.

Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries.

Citizens'/community juries [CJs] engage members of the public in policy decision-making processes. CJs can be employed to develop policy responses to health problems that require the consideration of both community values and scientific evidence. Based on the principles of deliberative democracy, recent reviews indicate that findings from CJs have successfully been used to influence health policy decision-making. Despite this evidence of success, there appears to be a gap between the goals of health researchers who organize CJs and the needs of policy actors and decision makers. Drawing on our experiences working with CJs and recent research on CJ methods, we describe a synopsis of the current state of the art organized around four key questions, and informed by insights from deliberative theory and critical policy studies. Our intention is to stimulate further discussion as to the types of health policy questions that can be usefully addressed through public deliberation, and provide guidance on the methodological and political dimensions that need to be considered in deciding whether a CJ is an appropriate approach for informing a policy decision-making process.

Community perspectives on the use of regulation and law for obesity prevention in children: A citizens' jury.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood obesity is a significant challenge for public health internationally. Regulatory and fiscal measures propagated by governments offer a potentially effective response to this issue. Fearing public criticism, governments are often reluctant to use such measures. In this study we asked a descriptively representative and informed group of Australians their views on the use of legislation and fiscal measures by governments to address childhood obesity. METHODS: A citizens' jury, held in South Australia in April 2015, was asked to consider the question: What laws, if any, should we have in Australia to address childhood obesity? RESULTS: The jury agreed that prevention of obesity was complex requiring multifaceted government intervention. Recommendations fell into the areas of health promotion and education (n=4), regulation of food marketing (n=3), taxation/subsidies (n=2) and a parliamentary enquiry. School-based nutrition education and health promotion and mandatory front-of-pack interpretive labelling of food and drink were ranked 1 and 2 with taxation of high fat, high sugar food and drink third. CONCLUSION: The recommendations were similar to findings from other citizens' juries held in Australia suggesting that the reticence of decision makers in Australia, and potentially elsewhere, to use legislative and fiscal measures to address childhood obesity is misguided. Supporting relevant informed public discussion could facilitate a politically acceptable legislative approach.

Prevalence and characteristics of overweight and obesity in indigenous Australian children: A systematic review.

Evidence-based profiling of obesity and overweight in Indigenous Australian children has been poor. This study systematically reviewed evidence of the prevalence and patterns of obesity/overweight, with respect to gender, age, remoteness, and birth weight, in Indigenous Australian children, 0-18 years (PROSPERO CRD42014007626). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed. Twenty-five publications (21 studies) met inclusion criteria, with large variations in prevalence for obesity or overweight (11 to 54%) reported. A high degree of heterogeneity in study design was observed, few studies (6/21) were representative of the target population, and few appropriately recruited Indigenous children (8/21). Variability in study design, conduct, and small sample sizes mean that it is not possible to derive a single estimate for prevalence although two high-quality studies indicate at least one in four Indigenous Australian children are overweight or obese. Four of six studies reporting on gender, found overweight/obesity higher in girls and eight studies reporting on overweight/obesity by age suggest prevalence increases with age with one high quality large national study reporting total overweight/obesity as 22.4% of children aged 2-4 years, 27.5% of those aged 5-9, 38.5% aged 10-14, and 36.3% aged 15-17. Three of four studies, reporting obesity/overweight by region, found lower rates for children living in more remote areas than urban areas.

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.

BACKGROUND: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. DESIGN: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. RESULTS: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). CONCLUSIONS: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.