Search

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. Objective: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. Methods: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. Discussion: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. Public Contribution: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of patient participation and representation during crises, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic, has been under‐researched. Existing studies paint a pessimistic picture of patient representation during the pandemic. However, there are indications that patient representatives have adapted to the new situation and can contribute to the resilience of healthcare systems. This paper aims to further explore the potential contribution of patient representatives for healthcare system resilience during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The study used a qualitative approach. We conducted a thematic analysis on the following data: interviews with client council members (n = 32) and representatives from patient organizations (n = 6) and focus groups (n = 2) to investigate patient representation on both the national policy level and organizational level in the Netherlands. Results: We identified the crisis discourse, the dependent position, the diversity of patient perspectives and the layered decision‐making structure as themes that help to understand what made patient representation in pandemic times a struggle for national and local patient representatives. The analysis of the subjects these representatives put forward during decision‐making shows that their input can play an important role in broadening discussions, challenging decisions, and suggesting alternatives during a crisis. We identified several strategies (e.g., collaborating with other actors, proactively putting subjects on the policy agenda, finding new ways of contacting their 'constituency') used by the patient representatives studied to exert influence despite the difficulties encountered. Conclusions: The struggle for patient representation during pandemic decision‐making is a missed opportunity for resilient healthcare systems as these representatives can play a role in opening up discussions and putting different perspectives to the fore. Moreover, the adaptive strategies used by representatives to influence decision‐making offer lessons for future representation activities. However, adaptations to the crisis decision‐making structure are also needed to enable patient representatives to play their role. Patient Contribution: We conducted interviews with patient representatives and discussed our preliminary findings with patient representatives during the focus groups. Zorgbelang, a patient organization supporting client councils and enabling and organizing patient participation for organizations and municipalities, was partner in this research and contributed to the interview guide, conducting interviews and focus groups. Additionally, the analysis made by the first author was discussed and refined multiple times with the partners of Zorgbelang and one of them co‐authored this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic have been widely criticized for being too delayed and indecisive. As a result, the precautionary principle has been endorsed, applauded, and proposed to guide future responses to global public health emergencies. Drawing from controversial issues in response to COVID‐19, especially in Vietnam, this paper critically discusses some key ethical and legal issues of employing the precautionary principle in public health emergencies. Engaging with discussions concerning this principle, especially in environmental law where the precautionary principle first appeared as a guiding principle with objective content(s), this paper formulates the precautionary principle as 'in dubio pro salus', which is about advising, justifying and demanding states to proactively prepare for scenarios arising out of any public health emergency. It distinguishes the precautionary principle into moderate and hard versions. A moderate version largely takes a holistic approach and fulfils a series of criteria specified in this paper, while a hard version either permits restrictive measures to be deployed primarily on a hypothetic basis or expresses an instrumental mentality. The hard version should be rejected because of the ethical and legal problems it raises, including risk‐risk tradeoffs, internal paradoxes, unjustified causing of fear and unreasonable presupposition. Ultimately, this paper defends the moderate version. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human milk provides essential nutrition for infants and holds many health benefits for infants and mothers. When a mother's own milk is not available for her infant, the World Health Organization recommends feeding donor human milk (DHM) from a human milk banking facility. DHM is human milk produced, collected then donated to a human milk bank (HMB). HMBs serve many vital functions, including screening donor mothers, then collecting, processing, storing, and allocating DHM to recipients. The first HMB opened in 1909, and today there are more than 700 HMBs globally. Unfortunately, HMB facilities are not present in all locales, with notable gaps in South Asia and Africa. Additionally, there are no global standards to guide HMB operational procedures. Even though most HMBs attempt to employ quality control systems to provide safe DHM, differences in community needs, resource availability, and a range of methods and policies to execute processes result in significant variations in DHM quality and HMB operations. Robust and collaborative systems that ensure safe and equitable access to DHM are needed. In this paper, we present a global snapshot of current human milk banking practices; review an interdisciplinary framework to guide and support HMB activities as an integrated part of health and newborn care systems; discuss factors that contribute to HMB sustainability; outline barriers to scaling HMBs worldwide; and highlight knowledge, policy, and research gaps. Developing global HMB guidance and rigorous, adaptable standards would strengthen efforts to improve newborn health. Key messages: Safe donor human milk (DHM) from a human milk bank (HMB) is a WHO recommendation when the mother's own milk is not available.Over 700 HMBs exist globally, with varying operational models and a wide range of practices due to lack of global guidelines and the current practice of adaptation to local needs and health systems.Scaling up of HMBs to meet the global demand for DHM would be facilitated by the development of global standards to guide integration with breastfeeding promotion and quality controlled processing to ensure provision of safe DHM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the legislative and operational commonalities and differences in Medical Products of Human Origin (MPHO) programs, including blood, hematopoietic cells, tissues and reproductive cells and human milk banking. The analysis includes ethical principles in donation and utilization, policies and legislation, public awareness and education, registries, guidelines in donor selection, safety and quality assurance, operational models and funding, infrastructure and human resources and biovigilance and evaluation of outcomes. Unlike other MPHO, the need for donor human milk (DHM) may be greatly reduced, that is, by ensuring optimal support for maternal lactation and breastfeeding. This should not be lost in the drive for wider and improved service provision. Nevertheless, increased overall demand for DHM is expected as a result of forthcoming international recommendations and also its increased use as the first‐choice supplement to a mother's own milk both within and beyond preterm, low‐birthweight and sick infant populations. Insight into current human milk banking highlights differences and gaps in practices that can benefit from further exploration and harmonization. Strong similarities with the ethical and operational principles underpinning donation and processing of the diverse MPHO suggest that legislating human milk banks within similar MPHO frameworks may bring additional safety and facilitate improved product quality. Moreover, that MPHO‐inspired models operating within attainable regulatory requirements may contribute to sustainable human milk banking activity and growth. Key messages: The strong similarities with the ethical, quality and safety expectations underpinning the donation and processing of the diverse Medical Products of Human Origin (MPHO) can be harnessed to provide additional safety levels and improved donor human milk (DHM) quality.MPHO‐inspired models operating within attainable regulatory requirements may contribute to sustainable human milk banking activity and growth.The need for DHM may be greatly reduced through optimal support for maternal lactation and breastfeedingCurrent global milk banking practices can benefit from expanded and harmonized, international guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, national triage guidelines were developed to address the anticipated shortage of life‐saving resources, should ICU capacities be overloaded. Rationing and triage imply that in addition to individual patient interests, interests of population health have to be integrated. The transfer of theoretical and empirical knowledge into feasible and useful practice models and their implementation in clinical settings need to be improved. This paper analyzes how triage protocols could translate abstract theories of distributive justice into concrete material and procedural criteria for rationing intensive care resources during a pandemic. We reconstruct the development and implementation of a rationing protocol at a German university hospital: describing the ethical challenge of triage, clarifying the aspirational norms, and summarizing specific norms of fair triage and allocation for developing an institutional policy and practice model and implementing it. We reflect on how critical topics are seen by clinicians and what helped manage the perceived burdens of the triage dilemma. We analyze what can be learned from this debate regarding the difficult issues around triage protocols and their potential implementation into clinical settings. Analyzing the ought‐to‐is gap of triage, integrating abstract ethical principles into practical concepts, and evaluating those should clarify the benefits and risks of different allocation options. We seek to inform debates on triage concepts and policies to ensure the best possible treatment and fair allocation of resources as well as to help protect patients and professionals in worst‐case scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]