Search

Objective:\ud This paper explores the need for conceptual advances and practical guidance in the application of the GRADE approach within public health contexts.\ud \ud Study Design and Setting:\ud We convened an expert workshop and conducted a scoping review to identify challenges experienced by GRADE users in public health contexts. We developed this concept paper through thematic analysis and an iterative process of consultation and discussion conducted with members electronically and at three GRADE Working Group meetings.\ud \ud Results:\ud Five priority issues can pose challenges for public health guideline developers and systematic reviewers when applying GRADE: (1) incorporating the perspectives of diverse stakeholders; (2) selecting and prioritising health and ‘non-health’ outcomes; (3) interpreting outcomes and identifying a threshold for decision-making; (4) assessing certainty of evidence from diverse sources, including non-randomised studies; and (5) addressing implications for decision-makers, including concerns about conditional recommendations. We illustrate these challenges with examples from public health guidelines and systematic reviews, identifying gaps where conceptual advances may facilitate the consistent application or further development of the methodology, and provide solutions.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud The GRADE Public Health Group will respond to these challenges with solutions that are coherent with existing guidance and can be consistently implemented across public health decision-making contexts.

Additional file 2. Supplementary tables

Additional file 1. Search strategies

Background World Health Organisation recommends routine Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination for girls when its cost-effectiveness in the country or region has been duly considered. We therefore aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in Nigeria using pragmatic parameter estimates for cost and programme coverage, i.e. realistically achievable in the studied context. Methods A microsimulation frame-work was used. The natural history for cervical cancer disease was remodelled from a previous Nigerian model-based study. Costing was based on health providers’ perspective. Disability adjusted life years attributable to cervical cancer mortality served as benefit estimate. Suitable policy option was obtained by calculating the incremental costs-effectiveness ratio. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess parameter uncertainty. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to explore the robustness of the policy recommendation to key parameters alteration. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was calculated to determine the expected opportunity cost associated with choosing the optimal scenario or strategy at the maximum cost-effectiveness threshold. Results Combination of the current scenario of opportunistic screening and national HPV vaccination programme (CS + NV) was the only cost-effective and robust policy option. However, CS + NV scenario was only cost-effective so far the unit cost of HPV vaccine did not exceed $5. EVPI analysis showed that it may be worthwhile to conduct additional research to inform the decision to adopt CS + NV. Conclusions National HPV vaccination combined with opportunist cervical cancer screening is cost-effective in Nigeria. However, adoption of this strategy should depend on its relative efficiency when compared to other competing new vaccines and health interventions.

There is evidence that replacing saturated fat (SFA) with polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) lowers ischemic heart disease (IHD). In order to improve the population's diet, the World Health Organization has called for the taxation of foods that are high in SFA. We aimed to assess the potential health gains of a European fat tax by applying the SFA intake reduction that has been observed under the Danish fat tax to six other European countries. For each country, we created a fat tax scenario with a decreased SFA intake and a corresponding increase in PUFA. We compared this fat tax scenario to a reference scenario with no change in SFA intake, and to a guideline scenario with a population-wide SFA intake in line with dietary recommendations. We used DYNAMO-HIA to dynamically project the policy-attributable IHD cases of these three scenarios 10 years into the future. A fat tax would reduce prevalent IHD cases by a minimum of 500 and 300 among males and females in Denmark, respectively, up to a maximum of 5,600 and 4,000 among males and females in the UK. Thereby, the prevented IHD cases under a fat tax scenario would correspond to between 11.0% (in females in the Netherlands) and 29.5% (in females in Italy) of the prevented IHD cases under a guideline scenario, which represents the maximum preventable disease burden. Henceforth, our quantification of beneficial health impacts makes the case for the policy debate on fat taxes.

Background Influencing the life-style risk-factors alcohol, body mass index (BMI), and smoking is an European Union (EU) wide objective of public health policy. The population-level health effects of these risk-factors depend on population specific characteristics and are difficult to quantify without dynamic population health models. Methods For eleven countries—approx. 80 % of the EU-27 population—we used evidence from the publicly available DYNAMO-HIA data-set. For each country the age- and sex-specific risk-factor prevalence and the incidence, prevalence, and excess mortality of nine chronic diseases are utilized; including the corresponding relative risks linking risk-factor exposure causally to disease incidence and all-cause mortality. Applying the DYNAMO-HIA tool, we dynamically project the country-wise potential health gains and losses using feasible, i.e. observed elsewhere, risk-factor prevalence rates as benchmarks. The effects of the “worst practice”, “best practice”, and the currently observed risk-factor prevalence on population health are quantified and expected changes in life expectancy, morbidity-free life years, disease cases, and cumulative mortality are reported. Results Applying the best practice smoking prevalence yields the largest gains in life expectancy with 0.4 years for males and 0.3 year for females (approx. 332,950 and 274,200 deaths postponed, respectively) while the worst practice smoking prevalence also leads to the largest losses with 0.7 years for males and 0.9 year for females (approx. 609,400 and 710,550 lives lost, respectively). Comparing morbidity-free life years, the best practice smoking prevalence shows the highest gains for males with 0.4 years (342,800 less disease cases), whereas for females the best practice BMI prevalence yields the largest gains with 0.7 years (1,075,200 less disease cases). Conclusion Smoking is still the risk-factor with the largest potential health gains. BMI, however, has comparatively large effects on morbidity. Future research should aim to improve knowledge of how policies can influence and shape individual and aggregated life-style-related risk-factor behavior.

INTRODUCTION: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

Introduction The worldwide prevalence of overweight/obesity has continued to rise over the last decades. To reverse this trend, public health authorities are exploring cost-effective interventions, especially in high-income and middle-income countries. Community gardening offers a unique opportunity for individuals to enhance physical activity levels and improve their diet. However, synthesised evidence on the short-term or long-term effectiveness and on the costs of community gardening interventions to prevent overweight/obesity remains limited. Therefore, this review will investigate: (1) the effectiveness of voluntary participation in community gardening compared with no or a control intervention on overweight/obesity and associated health outcomes, (2) effects on different subgroups of populations and (3) the costs of community gardening interventions. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review, limited to evaluations of community gardening interventions with controlled quantitative and interrupted time series designs. To identify relevant articles, we will systematically search 12 academic and 5 grey literature databases, as well as 2 trial registers and 6 websites. Articles will then be assessed for eligibility based on a predefined set of criteria. At least two independent reviewers will assess each article for relevance, before evaluating the methodological quality and potential bias of the studies. Data relevant to the objectives of this review will be extracted and cross-validated. Any disagreements will be mediated by a third reviewer. If feasible, meta-analyses of primary outcomes (overweight/obesity, physical activity, food intake, energy intake) will be conducted. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the overall quality of evidence. Ethics and dissemination For this review, no ethical approval is required as we will only extract and analyse secondary data. We aim to submit the final review manuscript to an open access journal for publication and disseminate results via conferences and social media. Trial registration number International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)(CRD42017043696). OA gold