Search

Background: Whenever possible, a person should die where they feel it is the right place to be. There is substantial global variation in home death percentages but it is unclear whether these differences reflect preferences, and there are major limitations in how the place of death is classified and compared across countries. Objectives: EOLinPLACE is an international interdisciplinary research project funded by the European Research Council aiming to create a solid base for a ground-breaking international classification tool that will enable the mapping of preferred and actual places towards death. Design: Mixed-methods observational research. Methods and analysis: We combine classic methods of developing health classifications with a bottom-up participatory research approach, working with international organizations representing patients and informal carers [International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO) and Eurocarers]. First, we will conduct an international comparative analysis of existing classification systems and routinely collected death certificate data on place of death. Secondly, we will conduct a mixed-methods study (ethnography followed by longitudinal quantitative study) in four countries (the Netherlands, Portugal, Uganda and the United States), to compare the preferences and experiences of patients with life-threatening conditions and their families. Thirdly, based on the generated evidence, we will build a contemporary classification of dying places; assess its content validity through focus groups with patients, carers and other stakeholders; and evaluate it in a psychometric study to examine construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, data quality and interpretability. Ethics: Approved by the ethics committee of the University of Coimbra, Faculty of Medicine (CE-068-2022) and committees in each of the participating countries. Discussion: The findings will provide a deeper understanding of the diversity in individual end-of-life pathways. They will enable key developments such as measurement of progress towards achievement of preferences when care can be planned. The project will open new directions in how to care for the dying. Trial registration: Research Registry UIN 9213.

Understanding health as a human right creates a legal obligation on countries to ensure access to timely, acceptable, and affordable health care. We highlight the importance of a meaningful role for civil society in improving access to well-regulated quality medical products in Africa; to support and be part of a regional social contract approach following the access issues that have been particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that African communities have a clear participatory role as important stakeholders in the regulatory lifecycle. Solidarity is important for a cohesive approach as formal government healthcare infrastructure may be minimal for some countries, with little training of communities available for disease management and insufficient money to fund people to organise and deliver health care. Some of the issues for civil society engagement with multi-stakeholders, and possible mitigating strategies, are tabulated to initiate discussion on facilitators and concerns of governments and other stakeholders for meaningful participation by patients, communities and civil society within a regional regulatory lifecycle approach. Solidarity is called for to address issues of equity, ethics and morality, stigmatisation and mutual empowerment – to sustainably support the region and national governments to develop greater self-sufficiency throughout the regulatory lifecycle. By creating a participatory space, patients, communities and civil society can be invited in with clear missions and supported by well-defined guidance to create a true sense of solidarity and social cohesion. Strong leadership coupled with the political will to share responsibilities in all aspects of this work is key.

Abstract Background There are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors. Methods To avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P–compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool. Results All nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly. Conclusions Based on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications.

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted global knowledge about, but lack of equitable access to, life-changing medicines, and other innovative medical products by populations in African low and middle income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) and other international non-profit foundations and organizations are constantly striving to address inequity. In the 1970s, WHO initiated a regularly updated essential medicines list, together with the concept of national medicines policies (NMPs) to ensure access and availability, affordability, rational, and effective use of medicines which are considered essential in addressing predominant population health issues and disease burden. We studied the NMPs of Ghana, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe to highlight some of the important issues that these countries experience in the safe and effective use of medical products. Thailand is an example of how health technology assessment (HTA) can provide a country with an internationally supported, clearly defined and transparent process to broaden access to medicines and services. These medical services can add considerable value in accordance with local values and priorities. Involvement of civil society adds democratic legitimacy to such processes. Community health workers and patient advocacy groups are important in raising awareness and knowledge of safety issues and the effective use of quality medicines. They can apply pressure for increased funding to improve access to healthcare. Medicines and services that contribute to supported self-care are of benefit in any setting. Joint efforts across African countries such as with the African Medicines Agency are important in addressing some of the major health issues.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a continuous and robust impact on world health. The resulting COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating physical, mental and fiscal impact on the millions of people living with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). In addition to older age, people living with CVD, stroke, obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and hypertension are at a particularly greater risk for severe forms of COVID-19 and its consequences. Meta-analysis indicates that hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and thrombotic complications have been observed as both the most prevalent and most dangerous co-morbidities in COVID-19 patients. And despite the nearly incalculable physical, mental, emotional, and economic toll of this pandemic, forthcoming public health figures continue to place cardiovascular disease as the number one cause of death across the globe in the year 2020. The world simply cannot wait for the next pandemic to invest in NCDs. Social determinants of health cannot be addressed only through the healthcare system, but a more holistic multisectoral approach with at its basis the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is needed to truly address social and economic inequalities and build more resilient systems. Yet there is reason for hope: the 2019 UN Political Declaration on UHC provides a strong framework for building more resilient health systems, with explicit calls for investment in NCDs and references to fiscal policies that put such investment firmly within reach. By further cementing the importance of addressing circulatory health in a future Framework Convention on Emergency Preparedness, WHO Member States can take concrete steps towards a pandemic-free future. As the chief representatives of the global circulatory health community and patients, the Global Coalition for Circulatory Health calls for increased support for the healthcare workforce, global vaccine equity, embracing new models of care and digital health solutions, as well as fiscal policies on unhealthy commodities to support these investments.