Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions are increasingly being conducted to assist public policy decision making. Many intra-country initiatives have been established to conduct systematic reviews in their relevant public health areas. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation established to conduct and publish systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, is committed to high quality reviews that are regularly updated, published electronically, and meeting the needs of the consumers. AIMS: To identify global priorities for Cochrane systematic reviews of public health topics. METHODS: Systematic reviews of public health interventions were identified and mapped against global health risks. Global health organisations were engaged and nominated policy-urgent titles, evidence based selection criteria were applied to set priorities. RESULTS: 26 priority systematic review titles were identified, addressing interventions such as community building activities, pre-natal and early infancy psychosocial outcomes, and improving the nutrition status of refugee and displaced populations. DISCUSSION: The 26 priority titles provide an opportunity for potential reviewers and indeed, the Cochrane Collaboration as a whole, to address the previously unmet needs of global health policy and research agencies.     

Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the presence and effectiveness of existing systems of prioritization for Cochrane review topics and to explore methods of improving those systems.Study Design and SettingWe surveyed groups of Cochrane review authors and recorded any evidence of their use of priority-setting processes or policies. To evaluate the effectiveness of the policies we encountered, we assessed them using two frameworks from the literature: “Accountability for Reasonableness” (1) and Sibbald’s 2009 framework (2) for successful priority setting. We then held two workshops with the subject groups to discuss our findings and their implications.ResultsOf the 66 groups surveyed, 29 had a system in place to inform the selection or prioritization of topics for Cochrane reviews. Fifteen groups used a more comprehensive structured approach that eventually resulted in a list of ranked priority titles for authoring, updating, or disseminating Cochrane reviews. Most groups involved researchers, practitioners, and patients in their prioritization processes.ConclusionGroups within The Cochrane Collaboration currently use a range of different priority-setting systems, some of which are more detailed than others. These differences often reflect the nature of The Cochrane Collaboration itself: given the topic breadth, history, and variety of international contexts present in the organization, a single unified system would not always be appropriate. All Cochrane entities, however, should have or develop strategic plans to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of their own prioritization processes, increase the number of finished prioritized reviews, and make more effective use of feedback from end users to increase the likelihood of producing reviews that have positive effects on health outcomes.     

A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals

This study set out to compare Cochrane reviews and reviews published in paper-based journals. Two assessment tools were used to collect the data, a 23-item checklist developed by Sacks and a nine-item scale developed by Oxman. Cochrane reviews were found to be better at reporting some items and paper-based review at reporting others. The overall quality was found to be low. This represents a serious situation because clinicians, health policy makers, and consumers are often told that systematic reviews represent "the best available evidence." In the period since this study, the Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve the quality of its reviews through, for example, more thorough prepublication refereeing, developments in the training and support offered to reviewers, and improvements in the system for postpublication peer review. In addition, the use of evidence-based criteria (i.e., the QUOROM statement) for reporting systematic reviews may help further to improve their quality.     

Developing and implementing an effective framework for collaboration: the experience of the CS2day collaborative

Organizations from varied sectors have pursued collaboration to better fulfill their missions, facilitate decision making, solve more complex problems, and respond more rapidly to a changing environment. While these benefits are evident through the products and services provided, few organizations evaluate the factors that contribute to the success or failure of the collaboration itself. The CS2day Collaborative was formed by 9 separate organizations with a common goal of increasing smoking quit rates through health care professional education. To better understand the factors that influence successful collaboration, the authors applied criteria established by the Wilder Foundation to the functioning of this health care education collaborative. Factors analyzed include the influence of the environment, membership, process and structure, communication, purpose, and resources. Factors relevant to continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CME/CPD) including accreditation, conflict of interest resolution and management, guideline dissemination, continuous assessment and interprofessional education influenced the collaborative structure. Specific examples provided illustrate how diverse organizations can work together effectively to address a public health need. While the CS2day Collaborative was not formed with prior knowledge of these factors, they provide a useful framework for examining how this collaborative was developed and has operated.     

Local and state collaboration for effective preparedness planning.

State and local collaboration is critical to effective preparedness and response planning. Through various assessments, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) is tracking the way in which local and state public health agencies are coordinating their planning efforts to ensure adequate bioterrorism and emergency response capacities. NACCHO's analysis of planning provides a case study of effective and ineffective collaboration. NACCHO intends to share these lessons to provide local and state public health agencies with strategies for enhancing collaboration in the future.     

Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting

Background  

The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting.     

Strategy to identify priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination: A population based cohort study

BackgroundEvidence from COVID-19 outbreak shows that individuals with specific chronic diseases are at higher risk of severe prognosis after infection. Public health authorities are developing vaccination programmes with priorities that minimize the risk of mortality and severe events in individuals and communities. We propose an evidence-based strategy that targets the frailest subjects whose timely vaccination is likely to minimize future deaths and preserve the resilience of the health service by preventing infections.MethodsThe cohort includes 146,087 cases with COVID-19 diagnosed in 2020 in Milan (3.49 million inhabitants). Individual level data on 42 chronic diseases and vital status updated as of January 21, 2021, were available in administrative data. Analyses were performed in three sub-cohorts of age (16–64, 65–79 and 80+ years) and comorbidities affecting mortality were selected by means of LASSO cross-validated conditional logistic regression. Simplified models based on previous results identified high-risk categories worth targeting with highest priority. Results adjusted by age and gender, were reported in terms of odds ratios and 95%CI.ResultsThe final models include as predictors of mortality (7,667 deaths, 5.2%) 10, 12, and 5 chronic diseases, respectively. The older age categories shared, as risk factors, chronic renal failure, chronic heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson disease and psychiatric diseases. In the younger age category, predictors included neoplasm, organ transplantation and psychiatric conditions. Results were consistent with those obtained on mortality at 60 days from diagnosis (6,968 deaths).ConclusionThis approach defines a two-level stratification for priorities in the vaccination that can easily be applied by health authorities, eventually adapted to local results in terms of number and types of comorbidities, and rapidly updated with current data. After the early phase of vaccination, data on effectiveness and safety will give the opportunity to revise prioritization and discuss the future approach in the remaining population.     

On illness,disease, and priority: a framework for more fruitful debates

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy - The distinction between ‘disease’ and ‘illness’ has played an important role in the debate between naturalism and normativism. Both...     

Strategies for enhancing collaboration between social workers and physicians

Strains between the professions of medicine and social work continue to exist as a result of basic differences in histories, values and socialization processes of the two professions. This paper suggests that collaboration between them will be enhanced by the identification of social work as a resource for the physician. The concepts of negotiation and exchange are utilized as the basis for collaborative strategies by individual social workers and on the departmental level.