Setting priorities in global child health research investments: assessment of principles and practice

This article reviews theoretical and practical approaches for setting priorities in global child health research investments. It also provides an overview of previous attempts to develop appropriate tools and methodologies to define priorities in health research investments. A brief review of the most important theoretical concepts that should govern priority setting processes is undertaken, showing how different perspectives, such as medical, economical, legal, ethical, social, political, rational, philosophical, stakeholder driven, and others will necessarily conflict each other in determining priorities. We specially address present research agenda in global child health today and how it relates to United Nation's (UN) Millennium Development Goal 4, which is to reduce child mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. The outcomes of these former approaches are evaluated and their benefits and shortcomings presented. The case for a new methodology for setting priorities in health research investments is presented, as proposed by Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative, and a need for its implementation in global child health is outlined. A transdisciplinary approach is needed to address all the perspectives from which investments into health research can be seen as priorities. This prioritization requires a process that is transparent, systematic, and that would take into account many perspectives and build on advantages of previous approaches.     

Setting priorities in global child health research investments: addressing values of stakeholders

Aim

To identify main groups of stakeholders in the process of health research priority setting and propose strategies for addressing their systems of values.

Methods

In three separate exercises that took place between March and June 2006 we interviewed three different groups of stakeholders: 1) members of the global research priority setting network; 2) a diverse group of national-level stakeholders from South Africa; and 3) participants at the conference related to international child health held in Washington, DC, USA. Each of the groups was administered different version of the questionnaire in which they were asked to set weights to criteria (and also minimum required thresholds, where applicable) that were a priori defined as relevant to health research priority setting by the consultants of the Child Health and Nutrition Research initiative (CHNRI).

Results

At the global level, the wide and diverse group of respondents placed the greatest importance (weight) to the criterion of maximum potential for disease burden reduction, while the most stringent threshold was placed on the criterion of answerability in an ethical way. Among the stakeholders’ representatives attending the international conference, the criterion of deliverability, answerability, and sustainability of health research results was proposed as the most important one. At the national level in South Africa, the greatest weight was placed on the criterion addressing the predicted impact on equity of the proposed health research.

Conclusions

Involving a large group of stakeholders when setting priorities in health research investments is important because the criteria of relevance to scientists and technical experts, whose knowledge and technical expertise is usually central to the process, may not be appropriate to specific contexts and in accordance with the views and values of those who invest in health research, those who benefit from it, or wider society as a whole.When decisions on investments in health research are made, the term “stakeholders” refers to all individuals and/or groups who have interest in prioritization of those investments. The stakeholders will therefore comprise a large and highly heterogeneous group. Some apparent examples may include research funding agencies (eg, governmental agencies, private organizations, public-private partnerships, international and regional organizations, and taxpayers of a certain region), direct recipients of the funding (eg, researchers and research institutions), beneficiaries of the research (eg, policy makers and the general population of a country), and any other group with interest in prioritization process (eg, advocacy groups, journalists and media, lawyers, economists, experts in ethics, and many others).Two fundamental characteristics of any acceptable and successful priority setting process are legitimacy and fairness (1). In order to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of the priority setting decisions in health research investments, involvement of a wide range of stakeholders (and/or eliciting their values) is needed. Unfortunately, health research priorities are presently mainly driven by technical experts (2-5). The results of prioritization are therefore in danger of being mostly influenced by their personal views, with minimal input from representatives from the wider community who also may have interest in the process but lack technical expertise. Since the values and criteria important to scientists and technical experts may vary remarkably from those of other relevant stakeholders (6-8), the relevance of eliciting wider stakeholders’ input is increasingly being acknowledged (9-11). However, the main challenge is to develop a systematic, flexible, and repeatable strategy on how this can be achieved in different contexts.The literature on priority setting for health interventions identifies two main strategies: 1) stakeholders’ values may impact decisions through procedural processes (by having access to the decisions and the rationales behind the decisions, and by having the authority to deliberate on the decisions and influence the final outcome); 2) stakeholders’ values can be directly elicited using quantitative methods (through surveys where respondents rank, weigh, or rate their values) and qualitative methods (involving individual interviews, Delphi technique, complaints procedures or group discussions, concept mapping, citizen’s jury, and public meetings) (12). The main challenges in those attempts have mainly been the lack of capacity for some stakeholders to engage in meaningful deliberations (13) and how to practically incorporate the elicited stakeholders’ values in decision-making (12,14). This paper presents our suggestions and experiences on how the values and interests of large and diverse group of stakeholders could still be incorporated in decisions on health research investment priorities. We specified thresholds and weights needed to address stakeholders’ values within CHNRI methodology using three different versions of a questionnaire. We aimed to assess stakeholders’ values for priority setting in global health research investments. We tested questionnaires that presented different levels of complexity and detail of the questions that stakeholders’ representatives would be asked. We also aimed to evaluate different strategies of turning their responses into numerical thresholds and weights.     

The Use of Dietary Supplements to Alleviate Androgen Deprivation Therapy Side Effects during Prostate Cancer Treatment

Prostate cancer (PCa), the most commonly diagnosed cancer and second leading cause of male cancer death in Western societies, is typically androgen-dependent, a characteristic that underlies the rationale of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Approximately 90% of patients initially respond to ADT strategies, however many experience side effects including hot flashes, cardiotoxicity, metabolic and musculoskeletal alterations. This review summarizes pre-clinical and clinical studies investigating the ability of dietary supplements to alleviate adverse effects arising from ADT. In particular, we focus on herbal compounds, phytoestrogens, selenium (Se), fatty acids (FA), calcium, and Vitamins D and E. Indeed, there is some evidence that calcium and Vitamin D can prevent the development of osteoporosis during ADT. On the other hand, caution should be taken with the antioxidants Se and Vitamin E until the basis underlying their respective association with type 2 diabetes mellitus and PCa tumor development has been clarified. However, many other promising supplements have not yet been subjected large-scale clinical trials making it difficult to assess their efficacy. Given the demographic trend of increased PCa diagnoses and dependence on ADT as a major therapeutic strategy, further studies are required to objectively evaluate these supplements as adjuvant for PCa patients receiving ADT.     

Changes in Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Integration in Physicians and the General US Working Population Between 2011 and 2017

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of burnout and satisfaction with work-life integration among physicians and other US workers in 2017 compared with 2011 and 2014.Participants and MethodsBetween October 12, 2017, and March 15, 2018, we surveyed US physicians and a probability-based sample of the US working population using methods similar to our 2011 and 2014 studies. A secondary survey with intensive follow-up was conducted in a sample of nonresponders to evaluate response bias. Burnout and work-life integration were measured using standard tools.ResultsOf 30,456 physicians who received an invitation to participate, 5197 (17.1%) completed surveys. Among the 476 physicians in the secondary survey of nonresponders, 248 (52.1%) responded. A comparison of responders in the 2 surveys revealed no significant differences in burnout scores (P=.66), suggesting that participants were representative of US physicians. When assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, 43.9% (2147 of 4893) of the physicians who completed the MBI reported at least one symptom of burnout in 2017 compared with 54.4% (3680 of 6767) in 2014 (P<.001) and 45.5% (3310 of 7227) in 2011 (P=.04). Satisfaction with work-life integration was more favorable in 2017 (42.7% [2056 of 4809]) than in 2014 (40.9% [2718 of 6651]; P<.001) but less favorable than in 2011 (48.5% [3512 of 7244]; P<.001). On multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, relationship status, and hours worked per week, physicians were at increased risk for burnout (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.26-1.54; P<.001) and were less likely to be satisfied with work-life integration (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85; P<.001) than other working US adults.ConclusionBurnout and satisfaction with work-life integration among US physicians improved between 2014 and 2017, with burnout currently near 2011 levels. Physicians remain at increased risk for burnout relative to workers in other fields.     

The challenges posed by climate change to successful ageing

Ever since the 2003 heat wave that caused 70,000 heat deaths, the dramatic consequences of climate change and rising temperatures in Europe have become an intensively researched topic. During heat waves, the older urban adult population is at highest risk. The STOPHOT project is the first investigation in Austria to establish a comprehensive knowledge base on heat perception, awareness of heat risks and adaptive/coping behaviours among older adults. The main research questions include: (1) Does climate change endanger the chances of successful ageing in urban areas? (2) How do age, social inequalities and the living environment intersect with environmental stressors in affecting successful ageing? (3) Which heat adaption strategies do older adults deploy and to what extent can they mediate heat stress in an effort to increase chances of successful ageing under the conditions of climate change? The results indicate that climate change and rising temperatures are in fact one important determinant of whether and how an older person can maintain well-being in later life. Older adults (>?65 years) with a low socio-economic status and poor health conditions, who tend to be socially isolated, are most at risk. However, no ‘heat island effect’ of the residential environment could be found. How much a person suffers from heat stress is highly dependent on the adaption strategies deployed. Adaption strategies of older urban residents mostly centred on body-related measures, such as drinking more or wearing lighter clothes, and indoor-centred measures, particularly avoiding the outdoors.