Search

Background: New technologies have enabled the potential for stratified medicine in psoriasis. It is important to understand patients’ preferences to enable the informed introduction of stratified medicine, which is likely to involve a number of individual tests that could be collated into a prescribing algorithm for biological drug selection to be used in clinical practice. Objectives: To quantify patient preferences for an algorithm-based approach to prescribing biologics (‘biologic calculator’) in psoriasis. Methods: An online survey comprising a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit the preferences of two purposive samples of adults living with psoriasis in the UK, identified from a psoriasis patient organization (Psoriasis Association) and an online panel provider (Dynata). Respondents chose between two biologic calculators and conventional prescribing described using five attributes: treatment delay; positive predictive value; negative predictive value; risk of infection; and cost saving to the National Health Service. Each participant selected their preferred alternative from six hypothetical choice sets. Additional data, including sociodemographic characteristics, were collected. Choice data were analysed using conditional logit and fully correlated random parameters logit models. Results: Data from 212 respondents (67 from the Psoriasis Association and 145 from Dynata) were analysed. The signs of all estimated coefficients were consistent with a priori expectations. Respondents had a strong preference for a high predictive accuracy and avoiding serious infection, but there was evidence of systematic differences in preferences between the samples. Conclusions: This study indicates that individuals with psoriasis would value a biologic calculator and suggested that such a biologic calculator should have sufficient accuracy to predict future response and risk of serious infection from the biologic.

Background Public health ethics and law (PHEL) is a core professional competency for the public health workforce. However, few data are available describing the extent to which UK public health workforce members experience ethical and legal issues or have sufficient educational and/or training background to adequately deal with such issues. Methods An anonymous online survey was developed for dissemination via member mailing lists of the: Faculty of Public Health, Royal Society of Public Health, and UK Public Health Register. Public Health England also included a link to the survey in their newsletter. The survey included questions about education, training, and experience in relation to PHEL. The survey was deployed from October 2017 to January 2018. Results The survey was completed by a diverse sample of five hundred and sixty-two individuals. The majority of respondents reported: (i) regularly encountering ethical issues, (ii) resolving ethical issues through personal reflection, (iii) having little or no education and training in PHEL, and (iv) questioning whether they have dealt with ethical issues encountered in practice in the best way. Conclusions The results suggest that there is a need to develop and support wider PHEL capacity within the UK public health workforce through the provision of PHEL education, training, guidance, and mentoring.

This article reports and reflects on an element of a recent survey of UK public health professionals, specifically in relation to the Public Health Knowledge and Skills Framework (PHSKF) and the ethical requirements that underpin public health practice. Only 38.4% of respondents reported accessing the PHKSF and a mere 13.7% reported accessing the accompanying background paper on ethical public health practice. Given that ethical practice underpins the PHSKF, it is concerning that so few respondents are familiar with the PHSKF and one of the source documents. While issuing frameworks and guidance is one way to support public health practice, there is a further need for greater integration of skills and knowledge around ethical public health practice within education and training initiatives.