Search

Background: This protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health. Methods: We will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author's name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs. Discussion: The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/3jmsa). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While processes of adoption and the impacts of various health technologies have been extensively studied by health services and policy researchers, the influence of policy makers' governing styles on these processes have been largely neglected. Through a comparative analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, this article examines how decisions about this technology were shaped by contrasting political ideologies, resulting in vastly different innovation and adoption strategies and outcomes. Methods: A comparative qualitative investigation comprising of a document analysis followed by semi-structured interviews with key informants. Interview participants were researchers, clinicians, and private sector medical laboratory employees based in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. Interviews were conducted both in person and virtually– owing partly to the COVID-19 pandemic – to garner perspectives regarding the adoption and innovation processes surrounding non-invasive prenatal testing in both provinces. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Through an analysis of 21 in-depth interview transcripts and key documents, the research team identified three central themes: 1) health officials in each province demonstrated a unique approach to using the existing scholarly literature on NIPT; 2) each provincial government demonstrated its own preference for service delivery, with Ontario preferring private and Quebec preferring public; and finally, 3) both Ontario and Quebec's strategies to NIPT adoption and innovation was contextualized within each province's unique financial positioning and concerns. These findings illustrate how both Quebec's nationalist focus and use of industrial policy and Ontario's 'New Public Management' style had implications for how this emerging healthcare technology was made available within each province's publicly-financed health system. Conclusions: Our study reveals how these governments' differing approaches to using data and research, public versus private service delivery, and financial goals and concerns resulted in distinct testing technologies, access, and timelines for NIPT adoption. Our analysis demonstrates the need for health policy researchers, policy makers, and others to move beyond analyses solely considering clinical and health economic evidence to understand the impact of political ideologies and governing styles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering that public engagement is pivotal to the mission of Responsible Research and Innovation, this article’s aim is to examine how members of the public conceive of the relationship between responsibility and prospective health technologies. We organized four face-to-face deliberative workshops and an online forum wherein participants were invited to comment on scenarios involving three fictional technologies in 2030 and 2040. Our analyses describe how participants anticipated these technologies’ impacts and formulated two conditions for their use: they should (1) be embedded within professional care and services and (2) include social protection of individual freedom and privacy. By clarifying what technological direction shall be avoided and who shall act responsibly, these conditions emphasize our participants’ understanding of society as much as their understanding of science. For new technologies to be deployed in socially responsible ways, public engagement methods should be developed alongside public governance and regulatory strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on institutional theory, this article articulates qualitative insights from a program of research on Canadian health technology-based ventures to examine the rules that characterize economic policy, capital investment, and regulatory approval as well as the way these institutions enable and constrain the development of ventures at an early stage. Our findings clarify how economic policy integrates these ventures into the entrepreneurial domain, how capital investment configures them for economic value extraction, and how regulatory approval fully releases their market value. These findings help to revisit current policy modernization initiatives by calling attention to the convergence among the three institutions. Rather than operating solely as a source of constraints, these institutions provide a highly integrated market-oriented space for health technology-based entrepreneurial activities to unfold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New technologies constitute an important cost-driver in healthcare, but the dynamics that lead to their emergence remains poorly understood from a health policy standpoint. The goal of this paper is to clarify how entrepreneurs, investors, and regulatory agencies influence the value of emerging health technologies. Methods: Our 5-year qualitative research program examined the processes through which new health technologies were envisioned, financed, developed and commercialized by entrepreneurial clinical teams operating in Quebec's (Canada) publicly funded healthcare system. Results: Entrepreneurs have a direct influence over a new technology's value proposition, but investors actively transform this value. Investors support a technology that can find a market, no matter its intrinsic value for clinical practice or healthcare systems. Regulatory agencies reinforce the "double" value of a new technology --as a health intervention and as an economic commodity-- and provide economic worth to the venture that is bringing the technology to market. Conclusion: Policy-oriented initiatives such as early health technology assessment (HTA) and coverage with evidence may provide technology developers with useful input regarding the decisions they make at an early stage. But to foster technologies that bring more value to healthcare systems, policy-makers must actively support the consideration of health policy issues in innovation policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To describe insulin pump use by youth since introduction of universal funding in Ontario, Canada and to explore the relationship between pump use and pediatric diabetes center characteristics and the relationship between discontinuation and center and patient characteristics. Research Design and Methods Observational, population-based cohort study of youth with type 1 diabetes (<19 yr) who received pump funding from 2006 to 2013 (n = 3700). We linked 2012 survey data from 33 pediatric diabetes centers to health administrative databases. We tested the relationship between center-level pump uptake and center characteristics (center type, physician model, and availability of 24-h support) using an adjusted negative binomial model; we studied center- and patient-level factors (socioeconomic status and baseline glycemic control) associated with discontinuation using a Cox proportional hazards model with generalized estimating equations. Results Pump users were more likely to be in the highest income quintile than non-pump users (29.6 vs. 19.1%, p < 0.0001). In 2012, mean percent pump use was 38.0% with variability across centers. There was no association between uptake and center characteristics. Discontinuation was low (0.42/100 person-yr) and was associated with being followed at a small community center [hazard ratio ( HR): 2.24 (1.05-4.76)] and being more deprived [ HR: 2.36 (1.14-1.48)]. Older age was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation [ HR: 0.31 (0.14-0.66)]. Conclusions Rates of pump use have increased since 2006 and discontinuation is rare. Large variation in uptake across centers was not explained by the factors we examined but may reflect variation in patient populations or practice patterns, and should be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: The future clinical applications of whole genome sequencing come with speculation and enthusiasm but require careful consideration of the true system costs and health benefits of the clinical uses of this exciting technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay is based on the recognition that the current 'downstream' health services research and policy approach to innovation misses the mark on one crucial point. It has not addressed how to promote the design of innovations that are likely to be more valuable than others. Re-visiting the ways in which health services research could inform innovation processes, this paper suggests that three attributes make innovations especially compelling from a health care system perspective: relevance; usability; and sustainability. These could be used as a starting point for outlining a policy-oriented research agenda that could bridge upstream design processes, and downstream needs and priorities. Given the pace at which innovations come about and the complexity of health care systems, we believe that both research and policy should be able to contribute significantly to the shaping of socially valuable technological change in health care. Recognizing that such a long-term goal cannot be reached through a linear, rationalistic process, our paper offers preliminary arguments to start to reconcile the health policy and innovation agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Growth in genetic medicine has provoked debate about how new and emerging genetic services should be provided, and specifically, what roles non-genetic clinicians should assume. We address this question through a qualitative interview based case study of the program in genetic testing for the hereditary cancer syndromes (breast/ovarian and colorectal) in Ontario, Canada. We argue that two communities offer parallel visions of cancer genetic care: one “genetic,” the other “oncologic.” Both communities argue from precedent that cancer genetics is a natural extension of their work: it is “what we do.” Both communities also highlight the importance of their own expertise in providing core elements of cancer genetic care: it requires “what we know.” Further, both communities perceive the need for leadership by their own (or a related) community as genetic medicine expands to include a broader array of more common and complex diseases: it is expanding “where we''re leading.” Yet, the “we''s” articulating these visions are not reducible to professional identity; rather, both represent distinctive “communities of practice and discourse” that are constructed in relation to institutionalized professional roles, and interactions with the genetic technologies (both tests and counselling) themselves. Available literature on the role of diverse health care professionals in the provision of genetic health care presumes a fixed identity and set of approaches for each professional group that might play a role. Further, existing models tend to assume that genetic technologies are given as tools, and that service organization concerns primarily questions of who will have access to these tools and their powers, as well as the consequent professional and ethical responsibilities. Yet questions about who will control genetic technologies are not simply turf battles between the professions: they are also inescapably questions about what the genetic technologies should and will accomplish clinically. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The challenge of novel and high cost health technologies has encouraged the growth of regulatory agencies such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations and Group Procurement Organizations (GPO). Yet the existence of several agencies in the same polycentric regulatory regime raises questions about whether and how their work can be coordinated. Drawing on a case study of GPOs and HTA agencies across four provinces in Canada, involving document review and key informant interviews (n = 44) conducted between 2013 and 2016, we explore the separate evolution of these agencies, emerging connections between them for non-drug technologies, and the organizational processes and evaluative judgments that underpin coordination efforts. HTA agencies and GPOs developed separately; connections emerged recently in three provinces and suggest four modes of coordination. One mode aligns most closely with that recommended by health economists and HTA practitioners, whereby HTA precedes procurement, with coverage decisions informing technology acquisition. The second mode is a version of the first, where procurement refers cases to HTA for coverage or technology management support; unlike the first, it recognizes procurement's evaluative strengths. Yet both the first and second modes focus on exceptional cases and will be infrequent. The third mode is more systemic, reflecting a generalized complementary of purpose as public agencies. HTA could support GPOs in contested technology acquisition efforts through timely and responsive input, while procurement could expand HTA's impact and inform HTA's growing interest in responsible innovation and environmental sustainability. The final mode is non-coordination, reflecting the potential for agencies to occupy quite distinct regulatory niches within the same regime. We conclude that consistency and convergence around a single model of resource allocation is not inevitable; nor is it necessary for coordinated effort. Thus, where differences in regulatory practice and epistemology persist, mutual accommodation and shared learning may prove most productive. • Regulatory agencies to manage technology adoption have grown internationally. • HTA agencies and Group Procurement Organizations now exist in the same regime. • We identify four "modes of coordination" in the regime, including no coordination. • Only one mode aligns with the assumption of shared problem solving, guided by HTA. • Mutual learning is needed given differences in regulatory practice & epistemology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]