Search

In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors' misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose.

Background Patient referral is a process in which a healthcare provider decides to seek assistance due to the limitations of available skills, resources and services offered locally. Paper-based referrals predominantly used in low-income countries hardly follow any procedure. This causes a major gap in communication, coordination, and continuity of care between primary and specialized levels, leading to poor access, delay, duplication and unnecessary costs. The goal of this study is to assess the formats and completeness of existing paper-based referral letters in order to improve health information exchange, coordination, and continuity of care. Methods A retrospective exploratory research was conducted in eight public and three private healthcare facilities in the city of Kigali from May to October 2021. A purposive sampling method was used to select hospitals and referral letters from patients’ files. A data capture sheet was designed according to the contents of the referral letters and the resulting responses were analyzed descriptively. Results In public hospitals, five types of updated referral letters were available, in total agreement with World Health Organization (WHO) standards of which two (neonatal transfer form and patient monitoring transfer form) were not used. There was also one old format that was used by most hospitals and another format designed and used by a district hospital (DH) separately. Three formats were designed and used by private hospitals (PH) individually. A total of 2,304 referral letters were perused and the results show that “external transfer” forms were completed at 58.8%; “antenatal, delivery, and postnatal external transfer” forms at 47.5%; “internal transfer” forms at 46.6%; “Referral/counter referral” forms at 46.0%; district hospital referrals (DH2) at 73.4%. Referrals by private hospitals (PH1, PH2 and PH3) were completed at 97.7%, 70.7%, and 0.0% respectively. The major completeness deficit was observed in counter referral information for all hospitals. Conclusion We observed inconsistencies in the format of the available referral letters used by public hospitals, moreover some of them were incompatible with WHO standards. Additionally, there were deficits in the completeness of all types of paper-based referral letters in use. There is a need for standardization and to disseminate the national patient referral guideline in public hospitals with emphasis on referral feedback, referral registry, triage, archiving and a need for regular training in all organizations.

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the “pressures to publish” hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Rapid reviews have emerged as an approach to provide contextualized evidence in a timely and efficient manner. Three rapid review centers were established in Ethiopia, Lebanon, and South Africa through the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization, to stimulate demand, engage policymakers, and produce rapid reviews to support health policy and systems decision-making. This study aimed to assess the experiences of researchers and policymakers engaged in producing and using rapid reviews for health systems strengthening and decisions towards universal health coverage (UHC). Methods Using a case study approach with qualitative research methods, experienced researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with respondents from each center (n = 16). The topics covered included the process and experience of establishing the centers, stimulating demand for rapid reviews, collaborating between researchers and policymakers, and disseminating and using rapid reviews for health policies and interventions and the potential for sustaining and institutionalizing the services. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Major themes interacted and contributed to shape the experiences of stakeholders of the rapid review centers, including the following: organizational structural arrangements of the centers, management of their processes as input factors, and the rapid reviews as the immediate policy-relevant outputs. The engagement process and the rapid review products contributed to a final theme of impact of the rapid review centers in relation to the uptake of evidence for policy and systems decision-making. Conclusions The experiences of policymakers and researchers of the rapid review centers determined the uptake of evidence. The findings of this study can inform policymakers, health system managers, and researchers on best practices for demanding, developing and using rapid reviews to support decision- and policymaking, and implementing the universal healthcare coverage agenda.

Background There is a need for easily accessible tuberculosis unit cost data, as well as an understanding of the variability of methods used and reporting standards of that data. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to descriptively review papers reporting tuberculosis unit costs from a healthcare provider perspective looking at methodological variation; to assess quality using a study quality rating system and machine learning to investigate the indicators of reporting quality; and to identify the data gaps to inform standardised tuberculosis unit cost collection and consistent principles for reporting going forward. Methods We searched grey and published literature in five sources and eight databases, respectively, using search terms linked to cost, tuberculosis and tuberculosis health services including tuberculosis treatment and prevention. For inclusion, the papers needed to contain empirical unit cost estimates for tuberculosis interventions from low- and middle-income countries, with reference years between 1990 and 2018. A total of 21,691 papers were found and screened in a phased manner. Data were extracted from the eligible papers into a detailed Microsoft Excel tool, extensively cleaned and analysed with R software (R Project, Vienna, Austria) using the user interface of RStudio. A study quality rating was applied to the reviewed papers based on the inclusion or omission of a selection of variables and their relative importance. Following this, machine learning using a recursive partitioning method was utilised to construct a classification tree to assess the reporting quality. Results This systematic review included 103 provider perspective papers with 627 unit costs (costs not presented here) for tuberculosis interventions among a total of 140 variables. The interventions covered were active, passive and intensified case finding; tuberculosis treatment; above-service costs; and tuberculosis prevention. Passive case finding is the detection of tuberculosis cases where individuals self-identify at health facilities; active case finding is detection of cases of those not in health facilities, such as through outreach; and intensified case finding is detection of cases in high-risk populations. There was heterogeneity in some of the reported methods used such cost allocation, amortisation and the use of top-down, bottom-up or mixed approaches to the costing. Uncertainty checking through sensitivity analysis was only reported on by half of the papers (54%), while purposive and convenience sampling was reported by 72% of papers. Machine learning indicated that reporting on ‘Intervention’ (in particular), ‘Urbanicity’ and ‘Site Sampling’, were the most likely indicators of quality of reporting. The largest data gap identified was for tuberculosis vaccination cost data, the Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine in particular. There is a gap in available unit costs for 12 of 30 high tuberculosis burden countries, as well as for the interventions of above-service costs, tuberculosis prevention, and active and intensified case finding. Conclusion Variability in the methods and reporting used makes comparison difficult and makes it hard for decision makers to know which unit costs they can trust. The study quality rating system used in this review as well as the classification tree enable focus on specific reporting aspects that should improve variability and increase confidence in unit costs. Researchers should endeavour to be explicit and transparent in how they cost interventions following the principles as laid out in the Global Health Cost Consortium’s Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions, which in turn will lead to repeatability, comparability and enhanced learning from others.

Despite the increasing number of potential biomarkers identified in laboratories and reported in much literature, the adoption of biomarkers routinely available in clinical practice to inform treatment decisions is very limited. Reimbursement decisions for new health technologies are often informed by economic evaluations; however, economic evaluations of diagnostics/testing technologies, such as companion biomarker tests, are far less frequently reported than drugs. Furthermore, few countries provide the health economic evaluation methods guide specific to co-dependent technologies such as companion diagnostics or precision medicines. Therefore, this paper aims to guide the process of the development of cost-effectiveness models of cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies, focusing on companion diagnostics. This tutorial paper provides practical guidance on how to conduct economic evaluations of cancer biomarkers and how to model the characteristics of the biomarker tests as part of the value for money of corresponding targeted therapies. This paper presents a brief introduction to the methods and data requirements, a step-by-step guide to constructing a health economic model of companion cancer biomarkers, and a discussion of issues that arise in their application to healthcare decision making. This practical guidance is provided in R, and worked examples are provided in this paper with R codes in the accompanying electronic supplementary material. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-021-01069-8.

BackgroundHealth information systems are crucial to provide data for decision-making and demand for data is constantly growing. However, the link between data and decisions is not always rational or linear and the management of data ends up overloading frontline health workers, which may compromise quality of healthcare delivery. Despite limited evidence, there is an increasing push for the digitalization of health information systems, which poses enormous challenges, particularly in remote, rural settings in low- and middle-income countries. Paper-based tools will continue to be used in combination with digital solutions and this calls for efforts to make them more responsive to local needs. Paper-based Health Information Systems in Comprehensive Care (PHISICC) is a transdisciplinary, multi-country research initiative to create and test innovative paper-based health information systems in three sub-Saharan African countries.Methods/DesignThe PHISICC initiative is being carried out in remote, rural settings in Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria through partnership with ministries of health and research institutions. We began with research syntheses to acquire the most up-to-date knowledge on health information systems. These were coupled with fieldwork in the three countries to understand the current design, patterns and contexts of use, and healthcare worker perspectives. Frontline health workers, with designers and researchers, used co-creation methods to produce the new PHISICC tools. This suite of tools is being tested in the three countries in three cluster-randomized controlled trials. Throughout the project, we have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and have maintained the highest scientific standards to ensure that results are relevant to the realities in the three countries.DiscussionWe have deployed a comprehensive research approach to ensure the robustness and future policy uptake of findings. Besides the innovative PHISICC paper-based tools, our process is in itself innovative. Rather than emphasizing the technical dimensions of data management, we focused instead on frontline health workers’ data use and decision-making. By tackling the whole scope of primary healthcare areas rather than a subset of them, we have developed an entirely new design and visual language for a suite of tools across healthcare areas. The initiative is being tested in remote, rural areas where the most vulnerable live.

Background A robust medical claims review system is crucial for addressing fraud and abuse and ensuring financial viability of health insurance organisations. This paper assesses claims adjustment rate of the paper- and electronic-based claims reviews of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in Ghana. Methods The study was a cross-sectional comparative assessment of paper- and electronic-based claims reviews of the NHIS. Medical claims of subscribers for the year, 2014 were requested from the claims directorate and analysed. Proportions of claims adjusted by the paper- and electronic-based claims reviews were determined for each type of healthcare facility. Bivariate analyses were also conducted to test for differences in claims adjustments between healthcare facility types, and between the two claims reviews. Results The electronic-based review made overall adjustment of 17.0% from GHS10.09 million (USD2.64 m) claims cost whilst the paper-based review adjusted 4.9% from a total of GHS57.50 million (USD15.09 m) claims cost received, and the difference was significant (p

Mumps, despite being a widely prevalent disease in the country, is considered as an insignificant public health problem mainly because of poor documentation of clinical cases and lack of published studies. In the absence of adequate published data on disease burden, Government of India has recently decided to introduce measles-rubella (MR) vaccine in its National Immunization Program and neglected mumps component.Following an IAP ACVIP meeting on December 6 and 7, 2014, a detailed review of burden of mumps in India along with vaccination strategies to control the disease was prepared. The draft was circulated amongst the members of the committee for review and approval. Revised final draft was later approved by IAP executive board in January 2015.To provide a review of community burden of mumps in India; and to discuss the vaccination strategies to impress upon policymakers to include mumps vaccination in National immunization program.A total of 14 studies and two media reports on mumps outbreak were retrieved. The outbreaks were reported from all the regions of the country. Mumps meningoencephalitis was responsible for 2.3% to 14.6% of all investigated hospitalized acute encephalitis syndrome or viral encephalitis cases in different studies. Data from Infectious Disease Surveillance (ID Surv) portal of IAP and Integrated Disease Surveillance Program (IDSP) of Government of India (GoI) were also reviewed. While a total of 1052 cases were reported by the IDSurv, IDSP had investigated 72 outbreaks with 1564 cases in 14 states during different time periods. Genotypes G (subtype G2) and C were found to be main genotypes of the mumps virus circulating in the country. Three studies studied serological status of young children and adolescents against mumps, and found susceptibility rates ranging from 32% to 80% in different age groups.Mumps poses a significant disease burden in India. This calls for inclusion of mumps vaccine in the National immunization program.

Background Social support services such as day care centres are important in post-diagnostic dementia care to enable people living with dementia stay at home for longer. Little research has addressed potential inequalities in access, with no research on variations before and since COVID-19. The aim of this study was to explore inequalities in social support service usage before and since the pandemic. Methods Unpaid carers and people living with dementia were interviewed over the phone about their experiences of accessing social support services before and since the COVID-19 pandemic. Transcripts were analysed for key themes using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Results Fifty participants (42 unpaid carers; eight people living with dementia) were interviewed, and five themes identified: (1) Service issues; (2) Access issues; (3) Relying on own initiative; (4) New inequalities due to COVID-19; and (5) Missing out on the benefits of support services. Participants reported transport, finances, and location as factors reducing their ability to access support service pre-COVID, with inequalities remaining and at times exacerbated since. Carers and people living with dementia also reported struggling with accessing basic necessities during COVID, including food and medicines. Conclusions Considering the benefits of accessing support services, resourced procedures and facilities are needed to maintain access to support services with more accessible remote support provision, enabling people from all backgrounds to access the care they need.

Research co-production is about doing research with those who use it. This approach to research has been receiving increasing attention from research funders, academic institutions, researchers and even the public as a means of optimising the relevance, usefulness, usability and use of research findings, which together, the argument goes, produces greater and more timely impact. The papers in this cross BMC journal collection raise issues about research co-production that, to date, have not been fully considered and suggest areas for future research for advancing the science and practice of research co-production. These papers address some gaps in the literature, make connections between subfields and provide varied perspectives from researchers and knowledge users.

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be.

In their letter to the Editor in this issue, Kolstoe and Carpenter challenge a core aspect of our recently published case study of research approvals [BMC Medical Ethics 20:7] by arguing that we conflate research ethics with governance and funding processes. Amongst the key concerns of the authors are: 1) that our paper exemplifies a typical conflation of concepts such as governance, integrity and ethics, with significant consequences for claims around the responsibility and accountability of the organisations involved; 2) that, as a consequence of this conflation, we misrepresent the ethics review process, including in fundamental aspects such as the ethics approval-opinion distinction; 3) that it is difficult to see scope for greater integration of processes such as applying for funding, research approvals, Patient and Public Involvement, etc., as suggested by us. Here we present an alternative point of view towards the concerns raised.

Background This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations. Methods WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010–2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines. Results For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts. Conclusions QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.

Background For disease surveillance, manual data collection using paper-based questionnaires can be time consuming and prone to errors. We introduced smartphone data collection to replace paper-based data collection for an influenza sentinel surveillance system in four hospitals in Kenya. We compared the quality, cost and timeliness of data collection between the smartphone data collection system and the paper-based system. Methods Since 2006, the Kenya Ministry of Health (MoH) with technical support from the Kenya Medical Research Institute/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KEMRI/CDC) conducted hospital-based sentinel surveillance for influenza in Kenya. In May 2011, the MOH replaced paper-based collection with an electronic data collection system using Field Adapted Survey Toolkit (FAST) on HTC Touch Pro2 smartphones at four sentinel sites. We compared 880 paper-based questionnaires dated Jan 2010-Jun 2011 and 880 smartphone questionnaires dated May 2011-Jun 2012 from the four surveillance sites. For each site, we compared the quality, cost and timeliness of each data collection system. Results Incomplete records were more likely seen in data collected using pen-and-paper compared to data collected using smartphones (adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 7, 95% CI: 4.4-10.3). Errors and inconsistent answers were also more likely to be seen in data collected using pen-and-paper compared to data collected using smartphones (aIRR: 25, 95% CI: 12.5-51.8). Smartphone data was uploaded into the database in a median time of 7 days while paper-based data took a median of 21 days to be entered (p

Health care disparities research is an exponentially growing and multi-faceted field. Our objective was to identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in health care disparities. The authors searched the Thomas Reuters Web of Science for citations of all research papers (articles) relevant to health care disparities. After analyzing search results, the number of citations, authorship, year, journal, country of publication, institution of publication, and relevant topic were recorded for each article. The most cited article was Martin's 2002 work identifying the demography of incidence and occurrence of sepsis with specific analysis of race, sex, and disposition of US patients. The second most cited article was Kamangar's 2006 paper outlining geographic patterns in cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence. The third most cited article was Williams' 1996 study determining the differences in US health patterns in populations of different races and socioeconomic statuses through a review of similar studies. The majority of articles originated in the USA (91). The journal with the most published articles was JAMA-The Journal of the American Medical Association (14). The second most cited journal was The New England Journal of Medicine (7). Most articles were published in the 2000s (84). In descending order, the 3 most common topics were (1) disparities in cancer incidence, screening, treatment, and mortality, (2) disparities in mental health treatment, and (3) physician concordance, cultural competency, and relationships with minority patients. Overall, the highly cited articles contain current advancements in the body of knowledge used to resolve health care disparities in race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, age, wealth, education level, mental health, and geography throughout the world.

Under the flag of insurance medicine, many physicians seem to do comparable work in different European countries. For a large part, their work has to do with sick leave and work disability, fields with major societal impact and implications. Unlike most clinical disciplines, insurance medicine does not have any distinct property that is valid in all countries. This hampers scientific development in insurance medicine (IM). An important difference between the judgments of treating physicians and insurance physicians and medical experts is the amount of robust evidence available to each group, their ability to access and their skills to use it.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the major morbidity and health economic factors in Europe and often associated with several co-morbidities. This paper (1) underlines the importance of highly professional AF management utilising a multi-disciplinary expertise, especially considering the role of AF regarding the stroke risk and prevention, (2) demonstrates the consolidated position of CVD professionals and (3) emphasises those research aspects that could deepen the understanding of the emergence and the treatment of AF and therefore helps to provide a personalised preventive and more effective management of AF. Specialised calls are considered for that within the new European Programme 'Horizon 2020'.

Background The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on making an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and a CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Methods We developed this guidance by examining the methods used by other GRADE approaches, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We then piloted the guidance on several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the approach. Results Confidence in the evidence is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. Creating a summary of each review finding and deciding whether or not CERQual should be used are important steps prior to assessing confidence. Confidence should be assessed for each review finding individually, based on the judgements made for each of the four CERQual components. Four levels are used to describe the overall assessment of confidence: high, moderate, low or very low. The overall CERQual assessment for each review finding should be explained in a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Conclusions Structuring and summarising review findings, assessing confidence in those findings using CERQual and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table should be essential components of undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses. This paper describes the end point of a CERQual assessment and should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series that provide information on assessing individual CERQual components. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0689-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

It has recently been pointed out that the 1989 White Paper Working for Patients, which provides the basis for the current reforms of the British National Health Service, has some common features with the 1944 White Paper A National Health Service, which was the unadopted model for the service produced by the Wartime Coalition Government. Moreover, it is likely that the Conservatives, if elected in the 1945 General Election, would have introduced a service based on a modified version of the 1944 document. We can compare these two blueprints to shed some light on Conservative thinking on health care over a period of nearly 50 years. There are some similarities in terms of the notions of purchaser and provider, contracts and pluralism. However, there are striking contrasts, notably in their attitude towards planning versus competition and local democracy versus patronage. It is claimed that the profound differences outweigh the apparent similarities and consequently the two blueprints show the discontinuity rather than the continuity of Conservative thinking on health care.

This is the first in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE). The SHARE Program is an investigation of concepts, opportunities, methods and implications for evidence-based investment and disinvestment in health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting. The papers in this series are targeted at clinicians, managers, policy makers, health service researchers and implementation scientists working in this context. This paper presents an overview of the organisation-wide, systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach taken by one Australian healthcare network and provides an introduction and guide to the suite of papers reporting the experiences and outcomes.

Background\ud \ud The MODEM project (A comprehensive approach to MODelling outcome and costs impacts of interventions for DEMentia) explores how changes in arrangements for the future treatment and care of people living with dementia, and support for family and other unpaid carers, could result in better outcomes and more efficient use of resources.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud MODEM starts with a systematic mapping of the literature on effective and (potentially) cost-effective interventions in dementia care. Those findings, as well as data from a cohort, will then be used to model the quality of life and cost impacts of making these evidence-based interventions more widely available in England over the period from now to 2040. Modelling will use a suite of models, combining microsimulation and macrosimulation methods, modelling the costs and outcomes of care, both for an individual over the life-course from the point of dementia diagnosis, and for individuals and England as a whole in a particular year.\ud \ud Project outputs will include an online Dementia Evidence Toolkit, making evidence summaries and a literature database available free to anyone, papers in academic journals and other written outputs, and a MODEM Legacy Model, which will enable local commissioners of services to apply the model to their own populations.\ud \ud Discussion\ud \ud Modelling the effects of evidence-based cost-effective interventions and making this information widely available has the potential to improve the health and quality of life both of people with dementia and their carers, while ensuring that resources are used efficiently.

The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.

In papers in areas such as engineering and the physical sciences, figures, tables and formulae are the basic elements to communicate the authors' core ideas, workings and results. As a computational text-matching tool, CrossCheck cannot work on these non-textual elements to detect plagiarism. Consequently, when comparing engineering or physical sciences papers, CrossCheck may return a low similarity index even when plagiarism has in fact taken place. A case of demonstrated plagiarism involving engineering papers with a low similarity index is discussed, and editor's experiences and suggestions are given on how to tackle this problem. The case shows a lack of understanding of plagiarism by some authors or editors, and illustrates the difficulty of getting some editors and publishers to take appropriate action. Consequently, authors, journal editors, and reviewers, as well as research institutions all are duty-bound not only to recognize the differences between ethical and unethical behavior in order to protect a healthy research environment, and also to maintain consistent ethical publishing standards.

Currently one of the main goals of editors is to attain a higher visibility for their journals. On the other hand, authors strive to publish their research in journals indexed in eminent databases such as Scopus, Thompson Reuters' Web of Science (ISI), Medline, etc. Therefore, clarifying the standards of indexing is of great importance. One of the most important issues in publication is the ethical considerations, which are mainly described by organizations, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics. In this study, we examined the ethical requirements of high impact databases for indexing journals to investigate whether they mention or mandate journals to adhere to publication ethics. We found that only Scopus mandated journals to state clear ethical policies on their website as a criterion for being indexed while Medline and Directory of Open Access Journals advised journals to adhere to ethics, not mandated, and Web of Science (ISI) and PubMed Central made no mention of ethics as a required criterion for indexing. Based on this short review, there seems to be a gap between the requirements of indexing systems and international guidelines for publication ethics. Currently, most indexing systems have only partially recommended journals to consider ethical issues. In such an atmosphere, we cannot expect journals or as a result, authors to professionally, completely, and whole heartedly implement ethical guidelines as a mandatory rule in their journals and research, when the indexing systems that most editors want to be indexed in and most authors want to be cited in do not mandate such guidelines.

Despite the best efforts by the public health community, the existence of disparity in African American infant mortality appears to be insurmountable. Eliminating this disparity is the public health challenge of the next decade. The public health community has engaged in copious activity regarding the identification and analysis of the etiology of health disparities. The resulting literature is substantial, yet, despite well-meaning interventions that have had varying degrees of success, the problem is so daunting that there has been very little progress in developing a comprehensive national plan to eradicate health disparities, in general, and, African American infant-mortality disparities, in particular. The process of identifying the causal pathways and risks of adverse African American birth outcomes could potentially impact the elimination of other health disparities since infant outcomes are the foundation for adult health. Unfortunately, as a nation, we have never deliberately invested the time and resources into developing an evidence base specific to the achievement of health equity. This endeavor will require dedicated resources, creativity, and a breadth of vision to work within, and exceed, the limits of traditional epidemiological and social science theory and methods. The literature cites various causes of overall disparities, including adverse health behaviors like smoking or drug use, poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and stress, to name a few [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants of Health considers the major contributors to health disparities to be the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age [2]. In the United States, ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, are more likely to be in socially and economically vulnerable positions. A number of studies have demonstrated that even while controlling for SES, racial and ethnic disparities are still found in health outcomes [3]. For example, African American women in Illinois at the highest education level have higher, i.e., worse low-birthweight rates than women of any other ethnicity at lower strata. The process that determines social stratification leading to poorer health outcomes is rooted in history, and while it is not about ‘‘race’’ as a risk factor, scientific investigation has resulted in a corpus of knowledge that places racism, perceived acts of racism, poverty, socialenvironment degradation, and violence into the etiological pathway [4–10]. These manifestations of ‘‘social ecology’’ are the type that WHO describes as resulting in unfair and avoidable differences in health status [2]. Some think that because racism is a causal factor, any quest for solutions may be doomed to failure, because, as one funding institution’s peer reviewer stated, ‘‘It is not a good investment of [our] dollars to study racism [as a cause of health disparities], because even if we fund something, there is nothing we can do about it’’ [11]. However, pre-term birth (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW) are the causes of firstyear mortality for African American infants. Therefore, understanding and eliminating the factors that cause high rates of PTB and LBW should remain at the forefront. V. K. Hogan (&) ! D. Rowley ! T. Bennett Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 425 Rosenau Hall, 421 Pittsboro Street, 135 Dauer Drive, Campus Box 7445, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA e-mail: vhogan@email.unc.edu

In May 2013, the WHO Member States requested the WHO to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D), as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilize resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poorest countries. The rationale for establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D is to provide a mechanism to monitor and analyse health R&D resource flows, product pipelines, and research outputs, aiming to contribute to the identification of gaps to inform priority-setting for new R&D investments to be operationalized through a new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D and utilized by all stakeholders informing health research policy decisions in countries, civil society, and the private sector. As one of the mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Observatory on Health R&D, the WHO is launching a Call for Papers to be published as a Thematic Series in Health Research Policy and Systems to contribute state-of-the-art knowledge and innovative approaches to analyse, interpret, and report on health R&D information. Further, to serve as a key resource to inform the future WHO-convened coordination mechanism, which will be utilized to generate evidence-informed priorities for new R&D investments to be financed through a proposed new global financing and coordination mechanism for health R&D. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In an attempt to address a complex disease burden, including improving progress towards MDGs 4 and 5, South Africa recently introduced a re-engineered Primary Health Care (PHC) strategy, which has led to the development of a national community health worker (CHW) programme. The present study explored the development of a cell phone-based and paper-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to support the work of the CHWs. Methods One sub-district in the North West province was identified for the evaluation. One outreach team comprising ten CHWs maintained both the paper forms and mHealth system to record household data on community-based services. A comparative analysis was done to calculate the correspondence between the paper and phone records. A focus group discussion was conducted with the CHWs. Clinical referrals, data accuracy and supervised visits were compared and analysed for the paper and phone systems. Results Compared to the mHealth system where data accuracy was assured, 40% of the CHWs showed a consistently high level (>90% correspondence) of data transfer accuracy on paper. Overall, there was an improvement over time, and by the fifth month, all CHWs achieved a correspondence of 90% or above between phone and paper data. The most common error that occurred was summing the total number of visits and/or activities across the five household activity indicators. Few supervised home visits were recorded in either system and there was no evidence of the team leader following up on the automatic notifications received on their cell phones. Conclusions The evaluation emphasizes the need for regular supervision for both systems and rigorous and ongoing assessments of data quality for the paper system. Formalization of a mHealth M&E system for PHC outreach teams delivering community based services could offer greater accuracy of M&E and enhance supervision systems for CHWs.

Background Providing patient information to physicians in usable form is of high importance. Electronic presentation of patient data may have benefits in efficiency and error rate reduction for these physician facing interfaces. Using a cancer symptom measurement tool (the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)) we assessed the usability of patient data in its raw paper form and compared that to presentation on two electronic presentation formats of different sizes. Methods In two separate experiments, undergraduates completed two identical six-part questionnaires on two twenty-patient MDASI data sets. In Experiment 1, participants completed one questionnaire using a paper packet and the other questionnaire using an in-house designed iPad application. In Experiment 2, MDASI data was evaluated using an iPad and iPod Touch. Participants assessed the usability of the devices directly after use. In a third experiment, medical professionals evaluated the paper and iPad interfaces in order to validate the findings from Experiment 1. Results Participants were faster and more accurate answering questions about patients when using the iPad. The results from the medical professionals were similar. No appreciable accuracy, task time, or usability differences were observed between the iPad and iPod Touch. Conclusions Overall, the use of our tablet interface increased the accuracy and speed that users could extract pertinent information from a multiple patient MDASI data set compared to paper. Reducing the size of the interface did not negatively affect accuracy, speed, or usability. Generalization of the results to other physician facing interfaces is discussed.

PREFACEPublic health challenges develop over time and vary across countries. Society changes as do population health threats, and public health systems accordingly attempt to adapt to change. As reflected in ASPHER's activities, public health training programmes must reflect these continuously developing changes in a dynamic way. From time to time all organisations need to revise their mission statements and the ethical context for their activities as part of the process of adaptation to change.Theodore Tulchinsky, together with Christopher Birt, Ramune Kalediene and Andre Meijer, members of the ASPHER Executive Board, prepared this Working Paper. They take a wide perspective and context for ASPHER's mission, addressing the ethics, values, vision and aims of the organisation, including some early targets for its activities.The Executive Board approved this Working Paper, under development for more than a year, as a basis for continuing discussion, so enabling the possibility for members to agree formally upon ASPHER's values, vision, mission and aims. The first opportunity for such discussion will offer itself at the Annual Conference in Valencia at the end of October this year.Suresnes, 2 October 2007Anders FoldspangPresident - ASPHERPREAMBLEThe peoples of Europe have benefited greatly from the startling successes of modern public health of the 19th and 20th centuries, which has brought sanitation, environmental and occupational health, vaccination, control of infectious diseases, safer and healthier foods, healthier mothers and babies, family planning, declining mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke, as well as from motor-vehicle crashes, and recognition of tobacco use as a major health hazard. The result is increased longevity, with improved health standards and quality of life for the peoples of the industrialized countries. But this improvement is far from uniform for all population groups and countries across Europe, with many countries in post-Soviet transition and other poor and developing countries still suffering from low health standards; in many such countries the New Public Health remains a novel and challenging concept.Public health developed on the basis of, and continues to rely upon, a wide spectrum of available social, legislative as well as biomedical and environmental interventions. Health promotion is incorporated within this increasing scope of public health, and it addresses complex public health problems that are largely influenced by social conditions as well as by individual and group knowledge, attitudes, practices, and behaviours. This complex of causation and of intervention approaches applies in prevention and control of HIV, cardiovascular diseases, motor vehicle injury, mental health, threatened pandemics, and terrorism, as well as in communicable diseases and in many other health problems facing individuals, groups and communities. European schools of Public Health, and ASPHER as their association, have a continuing role in promoting new public health policies as dictated by changing epidemiology and as enabled by new technologies.The ethical base of public health in Europe developed in the context of the 19th and early 20th century successes, and was codified following lessons learned from the corruption by dark forces, using eugenics theories to justify the killing hundreds of thousands of helpless individuals, genocide and the Holocaust, with the killing of millions in efficient systems of mass murder. The threats of genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism have departed from neither the European nor the world stages, and the utmost degree of vigilance is required to prevent their recurrence. As in the case of war, these constitute grave threats to public health and international human rights. The lessons learned from the 20th century tragedies help us today to address increasingly complex ethical issues in public health, by balancing the rights of the individual with those of the community. …

Much of health promotion is premised on the notion that health-related behaviours are under individual control, and strongly influenced by intra-psychic factors, including knowledge and attitudes. The emphasis placed on such factors has led to a neglect of the social and material context in which the individual is situated. This paper describes a number of psychological theories which have influenced health promotion, and suggests ways in which a wider set of psychological theories and methods, which take into account social and material factors, may more usefully inform health promotion initiatives.

Background Much implementation research is focused on full-scale trials with little evidence of preceding modelling work. The Medical Research Council Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions has argued for more and better theoretical and exploratory work prior to a trial as a means of improving intervention development. Intervention modelling experiments (IMEs) are a way of exploring and refining an intervention before moving to a full-scale trial. They do this by delivering key elements of the intervention in a simulation that approximates clinical practice by, for example, presenting general practitioners (GPs) with a clinical scenario about making a treatment decision. Methods The current proposal will run a full, web-based IME involving 250 GPs that will advance the methodology of IMEs by directly comparing results with an earlier paper-based IME. Moreover, the web-based IME will evaluate an intervention that can be put into a full-scale trial that aims to reduce antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in primary care. The study will also include a trial of email versus postal invitations to participate. Discussion More effective behaviour change interventions are needed and this study will develop one such intervention and a system to model and test future interventions. This system will be applicable to any situation in the National Health Service where behaviour needs to be modified, including interventions aimed directly at the public. Trial registration ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT01206738

The future clearly lies in restricting the introduction of new treatments into medical practice unless they are beneficial and an improvement over existing compounds, together with a stepwise re-evaluation of current therapies. The days of analogue development which give 10% or 15% improvement in toxicity over existing compounds are no longer acceptable, and resources should be preserved for real advances. These may require support in their development, particularly at the randomised controlled trial level, by government or research institutions in collaboration with industry. Patients in general are now better informed by their physicians, nurse specialists and self-help groups, although few regions have gone as far as Oregon in information dissemination and involvement of patients in resource allocation decisions. We should take comfort from the fact that in spite of all the difficulty, new treatments continue to be developed, reflecting a commitment from the public, government and the private sector for continued progress. The way forward may be challenging, but the medical profession has to demonstrate leadership by countering the short-sightedness and over-regulation which has resulted from the recent economic recession. We should be seen to be acting with foresight in maintaining the quest for real improvement in the best interests of patients. Governments in turn have a responsibility to ensure they maintain independent bodies of professionals who have the qualities of flexibility, critical ability and vision to ensure continued development of high quality care.

Rationing health care is not new. As governments world wide struggle to contain the costs of health care, health policy analysts debate how rationing should be done. However, they too often neglect how the mechanisms for funding and allocating health care resources are themselves vehicles for rationing treatment. In the UK, where health care rationing debates currently abound, there has been no formal evaluation of the role of the market in allocating scarce health care resources. The market in health care has increased administration, fragmented services, eroded local accountability, and decreased choice. This fragmentation, and the associated competition between purchasers and providers, means that resource allocation can no longer be monitored and evaluated in a national context. The loss of a population focus has left a vacuum in planning. Services cannot be planned rationally, and so are not able consistently to avoid duplication or to respond cogently to estimates of need. The loss of accountability means that decisions about the allocation of health care resources are no longer open to scrutiny by local people. Increasingly, especially in social and long term care the cost of care is being transferred to the individual. The new mechanisms for resource allocation are distributing resources unfairly: away from the poor, the sick and the elderly. The great myth of the market is that it has enabled decision-making to become explicit. This is not the case. To make health care resource allocation appear rational and acceptable to the public, health authorities have resorted to exercises in consumer consultation, and value laden guidelines where clinical cloaks are used to disguise political decisions on funding. In the UK, until the true role of the internal market is acknowledged, myths and subterfuge will conceal the winners and losers in the new system of rationing health care.

Like other medicine, all vaccines have some side effects or complications; in general the incidence and severity of complications is lower than for pharmaceuticals. When considered on a population basis, the incidence of serious complications of vaccination is minute, when compared with the outcome of natural infection. Enlightened governments, which promote immunisation as a means of minimising the impact of infectious diseases in their communities, also accept the responsibility for any adverse events which can be demonstrated to be vaccine related, and provide compensation and care for people who are affected.