International Journal of Health Policy and Management最新文献

Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for coproduction and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

This editorial critiques the existing literature on decolonizing global health, using the current assault on health in Gaza as a case in point. It argues that the failure to address the ongoing violence and blatant targeting of health facilities, personnel and innocent civilians demonstrates most clearly the limitations of an approach that is strong on rhetoric and weak on mounting a forthright challenge to the entire system supporting and perpetuating settler colonialism. We propose a more radical rethinking of the position of global health institutions within the current neoliberal system and of the systems of knowledge production that continue to underpin the existing colonial approach to the health of victims of settler colonialism.

Recent regulatory reforms have favored expedited drug marketing and increased reliance on Phase IV clinical trials for safety and efficacy assurance. This study, utilizing ClinicalTrials.gov, assesses the characteristics of Phase IV trials, with at least one site in Canada, examing those funded by industry sponsors and those lacking industry funding. Additionally, it compares the publication status of industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials through a manual review of the medical literature. Between 2000 and 2022, 864 Phase IV trials were completed, with 480 (55.6%) receiving industry funding and 384 (44.4%) funded solely by non-industry sources. Industry-funded clinical trials were larger (mean 204 enrollees versus 70), more likely to be international (57.7% versus 9.6%) and reported results more promptly (1.21 years after completion versus 1.85 years), yet both types shared similar design, outcomes, and completion time. Publication rates were 81.8% for industry-funded and 65.8% for non-industry-funded trials. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry displayed 48 inaccuracies in publication associations, raising concerns about its accuracy. Our findings underscore the existing institutional limitations in ensuring comprehensive reporting and publication of Phase IV trial results funded by both industry and non-industry sources.

Background: Unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs) engage in political practices to influence public health policy, which poses barriers to protecting and promoting public health. Such influence exhibits characteristics of a complex system. Systems thinking would therefore appear to be a useful lens through which to study this phenomenon, potentially deepening our understanding of how UCI influence are interconnected with one another through their underlying political, economic and social structures. As such this study developed a qualitative systems map to depict the complex pathways through which UCIs influence public health policy and how they are interconnected with underlying structures.

Methods: Online participatory systems mapping workshops were conducted between November 2021 and February 2022. As a starting point for the workshops, a preliminary systems map was developed based on recent research. Twenty-three online workshops were conducted with 52 geographically diverse stakeholders representing academia, civil society, public office and global governance organisations. Analysis of workshop data in NVivo and feedback from participants resulted in a final systems map.

Results: The preliminary systems map consisted of 40 elements across six interdependent themes. The final systems map consisted of 64 elements across five interdependent themes, representing key pathways through which UCIs impact health policymaking: 1) direct access to public sector decision-makers; 2) creation of confusion and doubt about policy decisions; 3) corporate prioritisation of commercial profits and growth; 4) industry leveraging the legal and dispute settlement processes; and 5) industry leveraging policymaking, norms, rules, and processes.

Conclusion: UCI influence on public health policy is highly complex, involves interlinked practices, and is not reducible to a single point within the system. Instead, pathways to UCI influence emerge from the complex interactions between disparate national and global political, economic and social structures. These pathways provide numerous avenues for UCIs to influence public health policy, which poses challenges to formulating a singular intervention or limited set of interventions capable of effectively countering such influence. Using participatory methods, we made transparent the interconnections that could help identify interventions future work.

Background: Several initiatives have been developed to target low-value care (i.e. waste) in decision-making with varying success. As such, decision-making is a complex process and context's influence on decisions concerning low-value care is limitedly explored. Hence, a more detailed understanding of residents' decision-making is needed to reduce future low-value care. This study explores which contextual factors residents experience to influence their decision-making concerning low-value care. Methods: We employed nominal group technique to select four low-value care vignettes. Prompted by these vignettes, we conducted individual interviews with residents. We analyzed the qualitative data thematically using an inductive-deductive approach, guided by Bronfenbrenner's social-ecological framework. This framework provided guidance to 'context' in terms of sociopolitical, environmental, organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels.

Results: In 2022, we interviewed 19 residents from a Dutch university medical center. We identified 33 contextual factors influencing residents' decision-making, either encouraging or discouraging low-value care. The contextual factors resided in the following levels with corresponding categories: (1) environmental and sociopolitical: society, professional medical association, and governance; (2) organizational: facility characteristics, social infrastructure, and work infrastructure; (3) interpersonal: resident-patient, resident-supervising physician, and resident-others; and (4) individual: personal attributes and work structure.

Conclusion: This paper describes 33 contextual factors influencing residents' decision-making concerning low-value care. Residents are particularly influenced by factors related to interactions with patients and supervisors. Furthermore, organizational factors and the broader environment set margins within which residents make decisions. While acknowledging that a multi(faceted)-intervention approach targeting all contextual factors to discourage low-value care delivery may be warranted, improving communication skills in the resident-patient dynamics to recognize and explain low-value care seems a particular point of interest over which residents can exercise an influence themselves.

Pakistan developed an essential package of health services at the primary health care level as a key component of health reforms aiming to achieve universal health coverage. This supplement describes the methods and processes adopted for evidence-informed prioritization of services, policy decisions adopted, and the lessons learned in package design as well as in the transition to effective rollout. The papers conclude that evidenceinformed deliberative processes can be effectively applied to design affordable packages of services that represent good value for money and address a major part of the disease burden. Transition to implementation requires a comprehensive assessment of health system gaps, strong engagement of the planning and financing sectors, serious involvement of key national stakeholders and the private health sector, capacity building, and institutionalization of technical and managerial skills. Pakistan's experience highlights the need for updating the evidence and model packages of the Disease Control Priorities 3 initiative and reinforcing international collaboration to support technical guidance to countries in priority setting and UHC reforms.

Background: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made.

Methods: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness.

Results: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion.

Conclusion: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

Background: Interventions are needed to prevent and mitigate unhealthy commodity industry (UCI) influence on public health policy. Whilst literature on interventions is emerging, current conceptualisations remain incomplete as they lack considerations of the wider systemic complexities surrounding UCI influence, which may limit intervention effectiveness. This study applies systems thinking as a theoretical lens to help identify and explore how possible interventions relate to one another in the systems in which they are embedded. Related challenges to addressing UCI influence on policy, and actions to support interventions, were also explored.

Methods: Online participatory workshops were conducted with stakeholders with expertise in UCIs. A systems map, depicting five pathways to UCI influence, and the Action Scales Model were used to help participants identify interventions and guide discussions. Codebook thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results: Fifty-two stakeholders participated in 23 workshops. Participants identified 27 diverse, interconnected and interdependent interventions corresponding to the systems map's pathways that reduce the ability of UCIs to influence policy, e.g., reform policy financing; regulate public-private partnerships; reform science governance and funding; frame and reframe the narrative, challenge neoliberalism and GDP growth; leverage human rights; change practices on multistakeholder governance; and reform policy consultation and deliberation processes. Participants also identified four potential key challenges to interventions (i.e., difficult to implement or achieve; partially formulated; exploited or misused; requires tailoring for context), and four key actions to help support intervention delivery (i.e., coordinate and cooperate with stakeholders; invest in civil society; create a social movement; nurture leadership).

Conclusion: A systems thinking lens revealed the theoretical interdependence between disparate and heterogenous interventions. This suggests that to be effective, interventions need to align, work collectively, and be applied to different parts of the system synchronously. Importantly, these interventions need to be supported by intermediary actions to be achieved. Urgent action is now required to strengthen healthy alliances and implement interventions.

Background: High-cost patients account for most healthcare costs and are highly heterogeneous. This study aims to classify high-cost patients into clinically homogeneous subgroups, describe healthcare utilization patterns of subgroups, and identify subgroups with relatively high preventable inpatient cost (PIC) in rural China.

Methods: A population-based retrospective study was performed using claims data in Xi County, Henan Province. 32,108 high-cost patients, representing the top 10% of individuals with the highest total spending, were identified. A density-based clustering algorithm combined with expert opinions were used to group high-cost patients. Healthcare utilization (including admissions, length of stay and outpatient visits) and spending characteristics (including total spending, and the proportion of PIC, inpatient and out-of-pocket spending on total spending) were described among subgroups. PIC was calculated based on potentially preventable hospitalizations which were identified according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Prevention Quality Indicators algorithm.

Results: High-cost patients were more likely to be older (M=51.87, SD=22.28), male (49.03%) and from poverty-stricken families (37.67%) than non-high-cost patients, with 2.49 (SD=2.47) admissions and 3.25 (SD=4.52) outpatient visits annually. Fourteen subgroups of high-cost patients were identified: chronic disease, non-trauma diseases which need surgery, female disease, cancer, eye disease, respiratory infection/inflammation, skin disease, fracture, liver disease, vertigo syndrome and cerebral infarction, mental disease, arthritis, renal failure, other neurological disorders. The annual admissions ranged from 1.83 (SD=1.23, fracture) to 12.21 (SD=9.26, renal failure), and the average length of stay ranged from 6.61 (SD=10.00, eye disease) to 32.11 (SD=28.78, mental disease) days among subgroups. The chronic disease subgroup showed the largest proportion of PIC on total spending (10.57%).

Conclusion: High-cost patients were classified into 14 clinically distinct subgroups which had different healthcare utilization and spending characteristics. Different targeted strategies may be needed for subgroups to reduce preventable hospitalizations. Priority should be given to high-cost patients with chronic diseases.