How is "coverage" defined for occupational health services?

The proportion of workers receiving occupational health services (OHS), or OHS coverage, is considered an important indicator in the evaluation of the national OHS levels. Although the term "coverage" is used in some papers, the definition of the term appears to vary from author to author. Despite vague definitions of the term, the issue has not been much studied. It appears that this vagueness has not led to attempts to establish a clear definition of the term. This study, was undertaken to clarify the meaning of "coverage" when used in relation to OHS. Papers using "coverage" as an indicator of the OHS levels or discussing the issue were collected and analyzed. The first aspect examined concerned the definition of "coverage." Next, the denominator (the target population), and methods for estimating the numerator (the number of workers provided with OHS) were described according to this definition. Few papers dealing with OHS coverage provided an explicit definition: none of the papers stated clearly the OHS functions encompassed when considering coverage, using simply the term in the context. Nor was the worker category to be represented in the denominator discussed, e.g. employees only, or the entire working population. The method for estimating the numerator was generally undefined. This study makes it clear that the term "coverage" in relation to OHS is currently used without clear definition. To permit objective assessments of the national OHS levels, "coverage" must be defined in terms of three elements: OHS functions, the numerator and the denominator of the proportion representing the extent of OHS coverage.     

Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect"

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there is evidence that randomized controlled trials are systematically beneficial, or harmful, for patients. In other words, is there a "trial effect"? If so, to examine whether the evidence sheds light on the likely sources of the difference in outcomes. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: We set out in some detail potential sources of a "trial effect" and potential biases. We found only 14 research articles (covering more than 21 trials) with relevant primary data. We extracted, with difficulty, quantitative data-sets from the articles, and classified these according to likely source of any apparent trial effect. The categories used were: differences in prognosis; superior treatment in the trial; and "protocol/Hawthorne effect" (benefit from improved routine care within a trial). ANALYSIS: The evidence available is limited in breadth (coming largely from cancer trials) and quality, as well as quantity. There is weak evidence to suggest that clinical trials have a positive effect on the outcome of participants. This does not appear to depend strongly on the trial demonstrating that an experimental treatment is superior. However, benefit to participants is less evident where scope for a "protocol/Hawthorne effect" was apparently limited (because there was no effective routine treatment or because the comparison group also received protocol care). A form of bias, arising if clinicians who tend to recruit to trials also tend to be better clinicians, could also explain these results. CONCLUSION: While the evidence is not conclusive, it is more likely that clinical trials have a positive rather than a negative effect on the outcome of patients. In the limited data available, the effect seems to be larger in trials where an effective treatment already exists and is included in the trial protocol. RECOMMENDATION: That carefully researched treatment protocols, and monitoring of outcomes, be used for all patients, not just those in trials.     

Res ipsa loquitur: "the thing speaks for itself": so why isn't evidence enough for enactment?

The gap between scientific evidence and its application poses profound challenges to adolescent healthcare researchers, educators, and advocates. These challenges are compounded by the alliance of political power with social and religious ideology, the consequence of which is the distortion and undermining of scientific evidence and inquiry. This article, based on a keynote presentation to the Center for Health Promotion Research Conference on Adolescent Health, describes examples of such interference and the need for effective response to those who deliberately seek to widen the gap between evidence-based approaches to adolescent health, as well as the implementation of such knowledge in programs and policy.     

Pharmacogenomic technologies: a necessary "luxury" for better global public health?

Background

Pharmacogenomic technologies aim to redirect drug development to increase safety and efficacy of individual care. There is much hope that their implementation in the drug development process will help respond to population health needs, particularly in developing countries. However, there is also fear that novel pharmacogenomic drugs will remain too costly, be designed for the needs of the wealthy nations, and so constitute an unnecessary "luxury" for most populations. In this paper, we analyse the promise that pharmacogenomic technologies hold for improving global public health and identify strategies and challenges associated with their implementation.

Discussion

This paper evaluates the capacity of pharmacogenomic technologies to meet six criteria described by the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics group: 1) impact of the technology, 2) technology appropriateness, 3) capacity to address local burdens, 4) feasibility to be implemented in reasonable time, 5) capacity to reduce the knowledge gap, and 6) capacity for indirect benefits. We argue that the implementation of pharmacogenomic technologies in the drug development process can positively impact population health. However, this positive impact depends on how and for which purposes the technologies are used. We discuss the potential of these technologies to stimulate drug discovery in the case of rare (orphan diseases) or neglected diseases, but also to reduce acute adverse drug reactions in infectious disease treatment and prevention, which promises to improve global public health.

Conclusions

The implementation of pharmacogenomic technologies may lead to the development of drugs that appear to be a "luxury" for populations in need of numerous interventions that are known to have a demonstrable impact on population health (e.g., secure access to potable water, reduction of social inequities, health education). However, our analysis shows that pharmacogenomic technologies do have the potential to redirect drug development and distribution so as to improve the health of vulnerable populations. Strategies should thus be developed to better direct their implementation towards meeting the needs and responding to the realities of populations of the developing world (i.e., social, cultural and political acceptability, and local health burdens), making pharmacogenomic technologies a necessary "luxury" for global public health.     

Limitation of therapeutic effort: a "question for professionals or for patients as well?"

Limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) is a medical term that is not free of polemic. Thus, some hold that limitation is an expression that could be considered pejorative and believe it would be more appropriate to speak of "adjustment", in order to avoid "negative" considerations concerning patient care. Because it is not a case of "ceasing to act" but of adopting a proactive attitude that includes adding or modifying measures according to the therapeutic aims of the moment. There are numerous definitions of LTE. They usually coincide in referring to not starting or withdrawing a certain treatment in which no benefits to the patient are generated, in situations where the latter is able or unable to decide for himself. Its justification is found facing a perception of disproportion between therapeutic ends and means. Nowadays, LET is fully accredited. Its use is very frequent in the field of critical care, with positions adopted by different scientific societies that endorse it to the point of considering it a standard of quality. LTE has been dealt with from numerous perspectives in many articles and forums of debate, so it would initially seems difficult to contribute something novel concerning the issue. However, there is one question that does not seem to have been sufficiently explored: Does the decision on LTE have a purely technical character, that is to say, is it the responsibility of the professional, or should the patient also intervene, or if he/she is unable to, his/her representative?