Health Policy Research Research Articles

Insights on health policies from a political philosophy perspective

Health policies play a crucial role in shaping people’s well-being. While public health often relies on evidence-based policy to improve health outcomes, many non-scientific factors determine the health policy-making process....

Bridging Public Health Research and State-Level Policy: The Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration Project.

Significant barriers to the implementation of evidence-based policy exist. Establishing an infrastructure and resources to support this process at the state level can accelerate the translation of research into practice. This study describes the adaptation and initial evaluation of the Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration (TX RPC) Project, focusing on the adaptation process, legislative public health policy priorities, and baseline researcher policy knowledge and self-efficacy. The federal Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) method was adapted to the Texas legislative process in 2020. Policymakers and public health researchers were recruited using direct outreach and referrals. Legislators or their aides were interviewed to determine health policy needs, which directed the development of legislator resources, webinars, and recruitment of additional public health researchers with specific expertise. Researchers were trained to facilitate communication with policymakers, and TX RPC Project staff facilitated legislator and researcher meetings to provide data and policy input. Baseline surveys were completed with legislators to assess the use of health researchers in policy. Surveys were also administered before training to researchers assessing self-efficacy, knowledge, and training needs. Qualitative data from the legislator interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for scales and individual survey items. Legislative offices (n = 21) identified health care access, mental health, and health disparities as key health issues. Legislators reported that health data were important but did not actively involve researchers in legislation. Researchers (n = 73) reported that policy informed their work but had low engagement with legislators. Researcher training surveys indicated lower policy self-efficacy and knowledge and the need for additional training. Adaptation of the RPC model for state-level health policy is feasible but necessitates logistical changes based on the unique legislative body. Researchers need training and resources to engage with policymakers.

9.Q. Round table: Strengthening public health law for public health professionals

Abstract Law is a tool that public health experts can use to improve population health. Generally, law offers a range of opportunities: it can encourage healthy and safe behaviours; it can change and shape the physical and social environments; influence the social determinants of health, as well as structure the public health system. Law can also compel or restrict, and legal systems can provide accountability and oversight. ‘Public health law’ stands at the intersection of public health and law, and offers a range of powerful tools for improving health (Burris et al, 2018). While public health law is an important field for public health professionals, there is a lack of knowledge about this field, and a lack of interaction between public health professionals and law professionals. There is also a need to understand the ways law might challenge public health goals. For example, law can be used to promote goals which do not improve public health, or public health concerns can be sidelined, and law can be a tool for challenging specific public health interventions. The focus of this roundtable will be on identifying and building necessary capacities for using law by public health professionals. End-goal is to identify new initiatives to consolidate and to strengthen public health law as an important field for public health professionals. To achieve these aims, we have set three practical steps for the roundtable to embark on: 1) strengthening collaboration; 2) identifying knowledge gaps and opportunities; and 3) starting new initiatives: 1) Strengthening the collaboration and building new partnerships: we bring together experts from law and public health to identify the gaps and opportunities when it comes to implementing law by public health professionals. The roundtable will foster new collaborations and partnerships between law and public health professionals. 2) Identifying gaps and opportunities: there is a need to identify deficiencies in health policy research and how to use scientific legal research methods to overcome these problems. Relatedly, to share experiences and best practices when it comes to teaching public health law. Opportunities include the transdisciplinary model and legal epidemiology; a focus on the commercial determinants; and applying a human rights lens. Panelists - in an interaction with the audience - will identify key opportunities and discuss ways to implement them. 3) Starting new initiatives: panelists will be asked to concretize existing initiatives and discuss with the audience how they can be integrated in the field, based on our new partnerships. New collaborations will be identified. This may vary from building a new network, applying for a joint research grant or for strengthening or complementing existing teaching modules. Altogether, this roundtable aims to strengthen our understanding of existing efforts and of the various ways in which public health expertise can be integrated in better law making. Key messages • Drafting of sound laws that improve health is a joint practice of various professionals, including legal and public health professionals. • We need to strengthen existing capacities and build new ones for using law by public health professionals. Speakers/Panelists Timo Clemens Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands Regien Biesma UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands Edward Kirton-Darling University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Scott Burris Temple University, Philadelphia, USA Dominique Mollet Joint Research Council EU, Ispra, Italy

An Irish public health policy research team: impact and lessons learned, one year on

Abstract Issue In 2023, in Ireland, a public health policy research team was established in the Health Information and Quality Authority to conduct evidence syntheses and provide evidence-based advice to inform national decision-making, at the request of the Department of Health. One year on, we reflect on the impact of this team and outline lessons learned. These findings may support other countries in creating and developing public health policy research teams. Description of the problem We aim to answer the following questions: What impact can a public health policy research team have and what are the lessons learned, one year on? Projects completed by the team in 2023 were reviewed for stakeholder engagement (such as expert and public and patient involvement) and impact (feedback from policymakers, resulting public health actions or policies and online report downloads). Results Seven public health projects were completed in 2023, in areas including: Long COVID, public health reform, rapid multiplex testing, and medical countermeasure stockpiling. National and international stakeholders were engaged with via expert advisory group membership, document review and project presentations. Patient representatives were included from Long COVID Advocacy Ireland and Rare Diseases Ireland. Project reports were downloaded a total of 281 times. Positive feedback was received from all stakeholders. Project findings were presented to policymakers to inform national public health and rare disease strategy development, and the Long COVID model of care in Ireland. Lessons Early and ongoing stakeholder engagement is key when translating research to practice, via policy. Innovative methods of engagement, including public and patient involvement, can ensure meaningful collaboration. Adapting methodologies to meet stakeholder needs, such as rapid evidence synthesis, enhances impact. Lastly, research impact on policy takes time, and an understanding of national policy development is required. Key messages • A public health policy research team provides impactful evidence synthesis to advise national policymakers. • Stakeholder engagement is key to developing impactful policy advice.

Required Capabilities for Employee-Driven Innovation Emerges in Healthcare Organizations; Comment on "Employee-Driven Innovation in Health Organizations: Insights From a Scoping Review"

Employee-driven innovation (EDI) is still under-researched in health policy and system research, particularly in low and middle-income countries. EDI is recognized as a lever to improve the commitment of health workers, promote quality of care, and contribute to creating value and transforming healthcare practices, services, structures, and processes. The mechanisms underlying the emergence of EDI processes and outcomes include core capabilities to cope with complexity, building spaces for learning, fostering sense-making and sense-giving, and collective problem-solving. The development of such capabilities depends on organizational and individual conditions. Organizational capabilities include complex leadership, trust management practices, task complexity, and the availability of slack resources. Individual capabilities comprise capabilities to cope with complexity, such as sense-making, autonomy, system thinking, and adaptive learning. The sustainability of EDI depends on local ownership and frontline employees' involvement during problem definition, innovation design, and implementation.

SPINE20 Recommendations 2024 -Spinal Disability: Social Inclusion as a Key to Prevention and Management.

Spine disorders are the leading cause of disability worldwide. To promote social inclusion, it is essential to ensure that people can participate in their societies by improving their ability, opportunities, and dignity, through access to high-quality, evidence-based, and affordable spine services for all.To achieve this goal, SPINE20 recommends six actions.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries deliver evidence-based education to the community health workers and primary care clinicians to promote best practice for spine health, especially in underserved communities.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries deliver evidence-based, high-quality, cost-effective spine care interventions that are accessible, affordable and beneficial to patients.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries invest in Health Policy and System Research (HPSR) to generate evidence to develop and implement policies aimed at integrating rehabilitation in primary care to improve spine health.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries support ongoing research initiatives on digital technologies including artificial intelligence, regulate digital technologies, and promote evidence-based, ethical digital solutions in all aspects of spine care, to enrich patient care with high value and quality.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize social inclusion by promoting equitable access to comprehensive spine care through collaborations with healthcare providers, policymakers, and community organizations.- SPINE20 recommends that G20 countries prioritize spine health to improve the well-being and productivity of their populations. Government health systems are expected to create a healthier, more productive, and equitable society for all through collaborative efforts and sustained investment in evidence-based care and promotion of spine health.

Reflections on the Health System Impact Fellowship and the Future of Embedded Research; Comment on "Early Career Outcomes of Embedded Research Fellows: An Analysis of the Health System Impact Fellowship Program"

The Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program in Canada offers a transformative approach to health services and policy research (HSPR) training, preparing PhD graduates for diverse career pathways and leadership roles within learning health systems. This commentary builds on Kasaai et al.'s evaluation of the HSI Fellowship to discuss the diverse career paths of alumni and highlight the multifaceted benefits of the program. Further, we emphasize the need for future research and knowledge mobilization to better understand and evaluate embedded research roles. Developing a robust evaluation framework is essential to capture the unique impacts of embedded research, fostering a culture that prioritizes and integrates it, thereby driving the transformation towards learning health systems.

Ceftazidime with avibactam for treating severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections: technology evaluation to inform a novel subscription-style payment model.

To limit the use of antimicrobials without disincentivising the development of novel antimicrobials, there is interest in establishing innovative models that fund antimicrobials based on an evaluation of their value as opposed to the volumes used. The aim of this project was to evaluate the population-level health benefit of ceftazidime-avibactam in the NHS in England, for the treatment of severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections when used within its licensed indications. The results were used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance in support of commercial discussions regarding contract value between the manufacturer and NHS England. The health benefit of ceftazidime-avibactam was first derived for a series of high-value clinical scenarios. These represented uses that were expected to have a significant impact on patients' mortality risks and health-related quality of life. Patient-level costs and health-related quality of life of ceftazidime-avibactam under various usage scenarios compared with alternative management strategies in the high-value clinical scenarios were quantified using decision modelling. Results were reported as incremental net health effects expressed in quality-adjusted life-years, which were scaled to 20-year population in quality-adjusted life-years using infection number forecasts based on data from Public Health England. The outcomes estimated for the high-value clinical scenarios were extrapolated to other expected uses for ceftazidime-avibactam. The clinical effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam relative to its comparators was estimated by synthesising evidence on susceptibility of the pathogens of interest to the antimicrobials in a network meta-analysis. In the base case, ceftazidime-avibactam was associated with a statistically significantly higher susceptibility relative to colistin (odds ratio 7.24, 95% credible interval 2.58 to 20.94). The remainder of the treatments were associated with lower susceptibility than colistin (odds ratio < 1). The results were sensitive to the definition of resistance and the studies included in the analysis. In the base case, patient-level benefit of ceftazidime-avibactam was between 0.08 and 0.16 quality-adjusted life-years, depending on the site of infection and the usage scenario. There was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the benefits of ceftazidime-avibactam across all subgroups, and the results were sensitive to assumptions in the meta-analysis used to estimate susceptibility. There was substantial uncertainty in the number of infections that are suitable for treatment with ceftazidime-avibactam, so population-level results are presented for a range of scenarios for the current infection numbers, the expected increases in infections over time, and rates of emergence of resistance. The population-level benefit varied substantially across the scenarios, from 531 to 2342 quality-adjusted life-years over 20 years. This work has provided quantitative estimates of the value of ceftazidime-avibactam within its areas of expected usage within the NHS. Given existing evidence, the estimates of the value of ceftazidime-avibactam are highly uncertain. Future evaluations of antimicrobials would benefit from improvements to NHS data linkages, research to support appropriate synthesis of susceptibility studies, and application of routine data and decision modelling to assess enablement value. No registration of this study was undertaken. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135592), conducted through the Policy Research Unit in Economic Methods of Evaluation in Health and Social Care Interventions, PR-PRU-1217-20401, and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 73. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Essential core competencies for health policy graduates: a multi-method consensus type study

BackgroundIn light of the multi-faceted challenges confronting health systems worldwide and the imperative to advance towards development goals, the contribution of health policy graduates is of paramount importance, facilitating the attainment of health and well-being objectives. This paper delineates a set of core skills and competencies that are requisite for health policy graduates, with the objective of preparing these graduates for a spectrum of future roles, including both academic and non-academic positions.MethodsThe study was conducted in three phases: a scoping review, qualitative interviews and the validation of identified competencies through brainstorming with experts. In the initial phase, a scoping review was conducted on the databases. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar search engine. Additionally, the WebPages of universities offering health policy programmes were manually searched. In the second phase, 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with students, graduates and distinguished academics from Iran and other countries. These interviews were conducted in person or via email. In the third phase, the draft version of the competencies and their associated learning objectives, derived from the preceding stages, was subjected to independent review by an expert panel and subsequently discussed. In light of the expert panel’s findings, the authors undertook a subsequent revision of the list, leading to the finalization of the core competencies through a process of consensus.ResultsIn the scoping review phase, the analysis included six studies and nine university curricula. The results of the scoping review could be classified into five domains: health system understanding, health policy research, knowledge translation, multidisciplinary work and knowledge of public health. In the second phase, six core competencies were extracted from the interviews and combined with the results of the first phase, which were then discussed by the expert panel at the third phase. The final five core competencies, derived from the brainstorming session and presented in no particular order, encompass health policy research, policy analysis, educational competencies, decision-making and multidisciplinary work.ConclusionsIt is essential that the curriculum is appropriate and contextually tailored, as this is crucial to foster multi-dimensional competencies that complement the specific disciplines of future health policy scholars. These scholars must possess the ability to genuinely serve their health systems towards achieving health-system goals and sustainable development.

Advancing Indigenous primary health care research and education capacity: a qualitative study in Alberta, Canada

Background/Purpose The study explores the perspectives of family physicians in Alberta regarding Indigenous health research education within the framework of primary health care (PHC). Recognizing the key role of PHC in healthcare system, the research identified the preferences and needs of family physicians for relevant and accessible research skills education. To design effective research education, it is critical to understand the skills, content, and delivery methods desired by family physicians engaged in Indigenous health research. The Indigenous Primary Health Care and Policy Research (IPHCPR) Network is examined as a potential transformative platform aligned with Truth and Reconciliation Commission principles and Calls to Action. Methods Through purposive sampling, 12 family physicians practicing in Alberta were recruited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews . The study utilized a thematic content approach for data analysis. Results Four key themes emerged from the analysis: 1) Indigenous role modeling; 2) cohort-based learning; 3) relational learning; and 4) the epistemic importance of Indigenous perspectives on learning. Participants emphasized the need for mentorship, collaborative learning settings, and meaningful connections within a research network. Discussion The IPHCPR Network stands out as a pivotal platform for transformative change in healthcare research education, offering opportunities for family physicians, researchers, trainees, and communities to collaboratively improve Indigenous health outcomes. Through its inclusive practices, the network aligns with TRC principles to advance Indigenous health equity and addressing critical gaps in Indigenous primary health research and practice.

Bringing Trust Building to Life Within Health Policy-Making Comment on "Placing Trust at the Heart of Health Policy and Systems"

Public trust is crucial for health policy-making as it is closely linked to public participation and policy-makers’ legitimacy. While we have witnessed increasing interest in issues of public trust, especially since COVID-19, we argue that efforts should be made to deeply integrate the concept of public trust into health policy-making from the design to the implementation, assessment, and evaluation processes across the public health and medical domains. We propose four key aspects to consider for building public trust in the healthcare system, which have emerged from our past and ongoing health policy research on public trust: to understand trust before aiming to build trust; to provide tailored guidance on trust building in health policy; to develop trust performance indicators to assess trust interventions; and to implement targeted communication strategies.

Relationship Between Neighborhood-Level Socioeconomic Status and Functional Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy

Background: Despite the growing volume of neighborhood-level health disparity research, there remains a paucity of prospective studies investigating the relationship between Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and functional outcomes for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To investigate the relationship between neighborhood-level socioeconomic status and functional outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed on patients aged ≥18 years with minimum 1-year follow-up who underwent hip arthroscopy for the treatment of symptomatic labral tears. The study population was divided into ADILow and ADIHigh cohorts according to ADI score: a validated measurement of neighborhood-level socioeconomic status standardized to yield a score between 1 and 100. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale, 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool, visual analog scale for pain, and patient satisfaction. Results: A total of 228 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. After patients were stratified by ADI score (mean ± SD), the ADILow cohort (n = 113; 5.8 ± 3.0; range, 1-12) and ADIHigh cohort (n = 115; 28.0 ± 14.5; range, 13-97) had no differences in baseline patient demographics. The ADIHigh cohort had significantly worse preoperative baseline scores for all 5 PROMs; however, these differences were not present by 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts achieved similar rates of the minimal clinically important difference for all 5 PROMs and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for 4 PROMs. When controlling for patient demographics, patients with higher ADI scores had greater odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference for all PROMs except the 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool. Conclusion: Although hip arthroscopy patients experiencing a greater neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage exhibited significantly lower preoperative baseline PROM scores, this disparity resolved at 1-year follow-up. In fact, when adjusting for patient characteristics including ADI score, more disadvantaged patients achieved greater odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference. The present study is merely a first step toward understanding health inequities among patients seeking orthopaedic care. Further development of clinical guidelines and health policy research is necessary to advance care for patients from disadvantaged communities.

Bridging the gap and developing a home-based palliative care model for cancer patients

ObjectiveEarly integration of palliative care into home health care services is essential for cancer patients to improve their Quality of Life and reduce their health care costs. Thus, this study aimed to develop a home-based palliative care model for adult cancer patients in Iran. MethodsThis is a health policy and systems research based on the World Health Organization guide. It consists of four phases; an integrative review, a qualitative study through individual semi-structured interviews (n ​= ​37), and one focus group interview (n ​= ​8), integrating these results in the third phase and generating model indicators. In the last phase, the evaluation of the importance of the indicators and the validation of the model were carried out during four classic Delphi rounds. ResultsBarriers to home-based palliative care were extracted from the first phase, and then 22 categories in eight pillars emerged from the qualitative phase. The indicators created for the model from two phases were integrated in the third phase (n ​= ​118). After the four-round of the Delphi, a conceptual model for home-based palliative care in cancer patients, including 92 indicators within eight pillars was created. ConclusionsAlthough this model was designed for our society, it can be utilized as a useful guide in other similar societies to design practical models and innovative programs to provide home-based palliative care in cancer patients. The application of the model in predicting different outcomes should be investigated in future trials.

Clinician Wellbeing and Mental Health Assessment Across Two Acute Care Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The purposes of this study were to determine whether positive work environments affect clinician wellbeing and mental health, and to identify participants' priority interventions to improve clinician wellbeing. This study was designed to determine the potential benefit of modifying the aforementioned factors for clinicians and hospitals to impact positive patient outcomes. The SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic has become one of the leading causes of death in the United States and worldwide, and has exacerbated widespread burnout among health care professionals. This has resulted in negative collateral implications for the stability of the clinician workforce. A Clinician Wellbeing study (CWS) was launched in two Magnet®-designated hospitals in the southeast. The CWS was part of a multi-site collaborative research project led by the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research (CHOPR) at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. A cross-sectional observational study design was implemented. Data were collected through anonymous surveys of 708 registered nurses (RNs) and advanced practice providers (APPs) working in two Magnet hospitals in the southeastern United States. Each participant completed 8 surveys. Clinicians' self-reported level of burnout was higher for both RNs and APPs at Emory University Hospital than Emory Saint Joseph's Hospital including intent to leave and dissatisfaction with their jobs. RNs and APPs self-reported their overall health to be good or excellent and they reported sleep quality as fair. Both groups in both hospitals indicated that they experienced anxiety, depression, and stress. The APPs reported a higher percent that their work did not leave enough time for personal and family life. Data also indicated that the primary work environment concern was related to inadequate nurse staffing. The data illuminated opportunities for the two hospitals to employ continuous improvement interventions to positively transform the work environment.

Health policy and systems research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia: a collaborative approach

IntroductionHealth policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary approach of generating health system and policy-level evidence. Setting HPSR agendas is considered as an efficient strategy to map and identify policy and cost-effective research topics, but its practice in developing countries is limited. This paper aimed to conduct a collaborative health policy and system research priority-setting exercise in Ethiopia.MethodThe WHO’s plan, implement, publish, and evaluate (PIPE) framework and the Delphi technique were used to conduct the priority-setting exercise. The PIPE model was used to lead the priority-setting process from planning to evaluation, while the Delphi technique was used to run the rating and ranking exercise with the aim of reaching a consensus. Two rounds of expert panel workshops supplemented with an online survey were used for the HPSR agenda setting, rating and ranking purposes. Groups were formed using the WHO health system building blocks as a base framework to identify and prioritize the HPSR topics.ResultUnder 8 themes, 32 sub-themes and 182 HPSR topics were identified. The identified research themes include leadership management and governance, health policy, health information system, healthcare financing, human resource for health, medical products and supply, service delivery and cross-cutting issues.ConclusionsPriority HPSR topics focussing on national health priority issues were identified. The identified topics were shared with policymakers and academic and research institutions. Evidence generation on the identified priority topics will guide future research endeavours and improve evidence-informed decision-making practice, health system performance and national health goals and targets.

Exploring the road to public healthcare accessibility: a qualitative study to understand healthcare utilization among hard-to-reach groups in Kerala, India

BackgroundKerala, a southern state in India, is known to be atypical due to its high literacy rate and advanced social development indicators. Facing competition from a dominant private healthcare system, recent government health system reforms have focused on providing free, high-quality universal healthcare in the public sector. We carried out an analysis to ascertain the initial impacts of these measures among ‘hard to reach groups’ as part of a larger health policy and systems research study, with a focus on public sector health service utilisation.MethodsWe conducted Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) among identified vulnerable groups across four districts of Kerala between March and August of 2022. The FGDs explored community perspectives on the use of public healthcare facilities including enablers and barriers to healthcare access. Transliterated English transcripts were coded using ATLAS.ti software and thematically analyzed using the AAAQ framework, supplemented with inductive code generation.ResultsA total of 34 FGDs were conducted. Availability and cost-effectiveness were major reasons for choosing public healthcare, with the availability of public insurance in inpatient facilities influencing this preference. However, accessibility of public sector facilities posed challenges due to long journeys and queues. Uneven roads and the non-availability of public transport further restricted access. Gaps in acceptability were also observed: participants noted the need for the availability of special treatments available, reduced waiting times for special groups like those from tribal communities or the elderly mindful of their relatively greater travel and need for prompt care. Although quality improvements resulting from health reform measures were acknowledged, participants articulated the need for further enhancements in the availability and accessibility of services so as to make public healthcare systems truly acceptable.ConclusionThe ‘Kerala Model of Development’ has been applauded internationally for its success in recent years. However, this has not inured the state from the typical barriers to public sector health care use articulated by participants in the study, which match global evidence. In order to deepen the impact of public sector reforms, the state must try to meet service user expectations– especially among those left behind. This requires attention to quality, timeliness, outreach and physical access. Longer term impacts of these reforms – as we move to a post-COVID scenario - should also be evaluated.

Exploring Cancer Incidence Trends by Age and Sex Among 14.14 Million Individuals in China From 2007 to 2021: Population-Based Study.

Sex is a crucial factor in the development, progression, and treatment of cancer, making it vital to examine cancer incidence trends by sex for effective prevention strategies. This study aimed to assess the incidence of cancer in China between 2007 and 2021, with a focus on sex-based trends. A population-based cancer registry comprising 14.14 million individuals was maintained between 2007 and 2021 by the Beijing Municipal Health Big Data and Policy Research Center. The age-standardized rates (ASRs) of cancers were calculated using the Segi population. The average annual percentage of change (AAPC) was evaluated using the joinpoint regression model, while the Bayesian age-period-cohort model was used to predict cancer incidence in the next 10 years. From 2007 to 2021, the study included 651,342 incident patients with cancer, of whom 51.2% (n=333,577) were women. The incidence indicated by the ASR for all cancers combined was 200.8 per 100,000 for women and 184.4 per 100,000 for men. The increase in incidence indicated by AAPC for all malignancies combined significantly increased in women between 2007 and 2021 (AAPC=3.1%; P<.001), whereas it remained constant in men (AAPC=0.3%; P=.30). Although the overall incidence of all cancers indicated by AAPC increased in young men (AAPC=3.2%; P=.01), the greatest increase was observed among young women (AAPC=6.1%; P<.001). The incidence rate ratio for cancer in women increased among subsequent younger generations compared with patients born in the 1962-1966 cohort. The ASR in women will increase 1.6-fold over the next 10 years, with women having twice the incidence rate of men by 2031. The rising incidence of cancer among women in China has become a growing concern, emphasizing the need for increased efforts in cancer prevention and early screening, especially among young women.

A conceptual framework from the Philippines to analyse organizational capacities for health policy and systems research.

Organizations that perform Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) need robust capacities, but it remains unclear what these organizations should look like in practice. We sought to define 'HPSRIs' (pronounced as 'hip-srees', i.e. 'Health Policy and Systems Research Institutions') as organizational models and developed a conceptual framework for assessing their capacities based on a set of attributes. We implemented a multi-method study in the Philippines that comprised: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from 33 stakeholders in the HPSR ecosystem on the functions, strengths and challenges of HPSRIs; a workshop with 17 multi-sectoral representatives who collectively developed a conceptual framework for assessing organizational capacities for HPSRIs based on organizational attributes; and a survey instrument development process that determined indicators for assessing these attributes. We defined HPSRIs to be formally constituted organizations (or institutions) with the minimum essential function of research. Beyond the research function, our framework outlined eight organizational attributes of well-performing HPSRIs that were grouped into four domains, namely: 'research expertise' (1) excellent research, (2) capacity-building driven; 'leadership and management' (3) efficient administration, (4) financially sustainable; 'policy translation' (5) policy orientation, (6) effective communication; and 'networking' (7) participatory approach, (8) convening influence. We developed a self-assessment instrument around these attributes that HPSRIs could use to inform their respective organizational development and collectively discuss their shared challenges. In addition to developing the framework, the workshop also analysed the positionality of HPSRIs and their interactions with other institutional actors in the HPSR ecosystem, and recommends the importance of enhancing these interactions and assigning responsibility to a national/regional authority that will foster the community of HPSRIs. When tailored to their context, HPSRIs that function at the nexus of research, management, policy and networks help achieve the main purpose of HPSR, which is to 'achieve collective health goals and contribute to policy outcomes'.

From mono to multi-causality: Towards a comprehensive perspective on understanding death

Cause-of-death statistics are an age-old source of information for health policy and medical research. In these statistics, the presentation of data is based on the idea of an underlying cause of death, i.e. one (“the”) cause of death per deceased. This idea reflects an 18th Century causal thinking and is less and less applicable to contemporary patterns of dying in high income countries with an aging population suffering from chronic diseases and multi- or comorbidity at the end of life. Therefore, today's clinical reality calls for an innovation of cause-of-death statistics. For this, I will consider contemporary philosophical ideas on causality and their application to death. I will argue multi-causality is a more comprehensive way to understand death than mono-causality, implying a change of perspective with regard to current cause-of-death statistics.

Machine Learning Model Construction and Testing: Anticipating Cancer Incidence and Mortality.

In recent years, the escalating environmental challenges have contributed to a rising incidence of cancer. The precise anticipation of cancer incidence and mortality rates has emerged as a pivotal focus in scientific inquiry, exerting a profound impact on the formulation of public health policies. This investigation adopts a pioneering machine learning framework to address this critical issue, utilizing a dataset encompassing 72,591 comprehensive records that include essential variables such as age, case count, population size, race, gender, site, and year of diagnosis. Diverse machine learning algorithms, including decision trees, random forests, logistic regression, support vector machines, and neural networks, were employed in this study. The ensuing analysis revealed testing accuracies of 62.17%, 61.92%, 54.53%, 55.72%, and 62.30% for the respective models. This state-of-the-art model not only enhances our understanding of cancer dynamics but also equips researchers and policymakers with the capability of making meticulous projections concerning forthcoming cancer incidence and mortality rates. Considering sustainability, the application of this advanced machine learning framework emphasizes the importance of judiciously utilizing extensive and intricate databases. By doing so, it facilitates a more sustainable approach to healthcare planning, allowing for informed decision-making that takes into account the long-term ecological and societal impacts of cancer-related policies. This integrative perspective underscores the broader commitment to sustainable practices in both health research and public policy formulation.