Assessing the inclusion of children's surgical care in National Surgical, Obstetric and Anaesthesia Plans: a policy content analysis.

OBJECTIVE: While National Surgical, Obstetric and Anaesthesia Plans (NSOAPs) have emerged as a strategy to strengthen and scale up surgical healthcare systems in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), the degree to which children's surgery is addressed is not well-known. This study aims to assess the inclusion of children's surgical care among existing NSOAPs, identify practice examples and provide recommendations to guide inclusion of children's surgical care in future policies. DESIGN: We performed two qualitative content analyses to assess the inclusion of children's surgical care among NSOAPs. We applied a conventional (inductive) content analysis approach to identify themes and patterns, and developed a framework based on the Global Initiative for Children's Surgery's Optimal Resources for Children's Surgery document. We then used this framework to conduct a directed (deductive) content analysis of the NSOAPs of Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania and Zambia. RESULTS: Our framework for the inclusion of children's surgical care in NSOAPs included seven domains. We evaluated six NSOAPs with all addressing at least two of the domains. All six NSOAPs addressed 'human resources and training' and 'infrastructure', four addressed 'service delivery', three addressed 'governance and financing', two included 'research, evaluation and quality improvement', and one NSOAP addressed 'equipment and supplies' and 'advocacy and awareness'. CONCLUSIONS: Additional focus must be placed on the development of surgical healthcare systems for children in LMICs. This requires a focus on children's surgical care separate from adult surgical care in the scaling up of surgical healthcare systems, including children-focused needs assessments and the inclusion of children's surgery providers in the process. This study proposes a framework for evaluating NSOAPs, highlights practice examples and suggests recommendations for the development of future policies.

University patenting and licensing practices in the United Kingdom during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Universities' decisions during technology transfer may affect affordability, accessibility, and availability of COVID-19 health technologies downstream. We investigated measures taken by the top 35 publicly funded UK universities to ensure global equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies between January and end of October 2020. We sent Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests and analysed universities' websites, to (i) assess institutional strategies on the patenting and licensing of COVID-19-related health technologies, (ii) identify all COVID-19-related health technologies licensed or patented and (iii) record whether universities engaged with the Open COVID pledge, COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), or Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) COVID-19 licensing guidelines during the time period assessed. Except for the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh, UK universities did not update their institutional strategies during the first year of the pandemic. Nine universities licensed 22 COVID-19 health technologies. Imperial College London disclosed ten patents relevant to COVID-19. No UK universities participated in the Open COVID Pledge or C-TAP, but discussions were ongoing in autumn 2020. The University of Bristol endorsed the AUTM guidelines. Despite important COVID-19 health technologies being developed by UK universities, our findings suggest minimal engagement with measures that may promote equitable access downstream. We suggest universities review their technology transfer policies and implement global equitable access strategies for COVID-19 health technologies. We furthermore propose that public and charitable funders can play a larger role in encouraging universities to adopt such practices by making access and transparency clauses a mandatory condition for receiving public funds for research.

Public Risk-Taking and Rewards During the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Case Study of Remdesivir in the Context of Global Health Equity.

Public investment, through both research grants and university funding, plays a crucial role in the research and development (R&D) of novel health technologies, including diagnostics, therapies, and vaccines, to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using the example of remdesivir, one of the most promising COVID-19 treatments, this paper traces back public contributions to different stages of the innovation process. Applying the Risk-Reward Nexus framework to the R&D of remdesivir, we analyse the role of the public in risk-taking and reward and address inequities in the biomedical innovation system. We discuss the collective, cumulative and uncertain characteristics of innovation, highlighting the lack of transparency in the biomedical R&D system, the need for public investment in the innovation process, and the "time-lag" between risk-taking and reward. Despite the significant public transnational contributions to the R&D of remdesivir, the rewards are extracted by few actors and the return to the public in the form of equitable access and affordable pricing is limited. Beyond the necessity to treat remdesivir as a global public good, we argue that biomedical innovation needs to be viewed in the broader concept of public value to prevent the same equity issues currently seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires the state to take a market-shaping rather than market-fixing role, thereby steering innovation, ensuring that patents do not hinder global equitable access and affordable pricing and safeguarding a global medicines supply.

Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

OBJECTIVES: The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. RESULTS: We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search. CONCLUSION: Our study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%-99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

NeoAct: A Randomized Prospective Pilot Study on Communication Skill Training of Neonatologists.

Background: This randomized interventional study evaluated the impact of a 1-day experiential communication skills training on neonatologists' performance in doctor-parents-communication. Methods: 17 neonatologists with different levels of professional experience from the Medical University of Vienna were randomized into one of two study groups: The intervention group (IG) as opposed to the control group (CG) participated in a 1-day experiential communication training. Eight weeks after the training, participants' communication skills were assessed during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Neonatologists were assessed in a simulated conversation by how effectively they performed when conveying complex health-related information to parents of ill infants. Participants in the control group (CG) were assessed first during the OSCE and received their communication training later on. Self-assessment questionnaires before and after the workshop and OSCE were completed. Results: The study determined that neonatologists in the IG subjectively perceived that their competence level regarding their communication skills had increased after the workshop, while this was not reflected by their performance during the OSCE assessment. Discussion: A 1-day experiential communication skills training significantly increased physicians' self-evaluation concerning their communicative competence. This perceived competence did not manifest itself in increased communication skills during the OSCE. Conclusion: Repeated training is needed.