Search

The study evaluated the effects of type of information naive participants received about challenging behaviour on ratings of acceptability of two multi-element treatment plans. Three groups of 20 undergraduate students with no experience of intellectual disability watched an identical 5 minute acted video of an individual with an intellectual disability engage in aggressive behaviour. Voiceover on the video differed: one group was exposed to information derived from a functional assessment, one to causal information that reflected personality and emotional factors, and the third to no causal information. Participants then rated two multielement treatment plans: one based upon functional assessment, and the other upon general non-aversive interventions. Results indicate that all groups were more accepting of the functional plan. However, individuals exposed to information derived from functional assessment were less accepting of non-functional treatment plans. Results have implications for staff cultures and the explanations for challenging behaviours that these cultures endorse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

This article discusses what arguments best support universal health care (UHC), with a focus on Norman Daniels' equality of opportunity account. This justification for UHC hinges on the assumption of a close relationship between health care and health. But in light of empirical research that suggests that health outcomes are shaped to a large extent by factors other than health care, such as income, education, housing, and working conditions, the question arises to what extent health care is really necessary to protect and promote health, and thereby opportunity. The author argues that, although this challenge to the equality of opportunity rationale is legitimate, it is not sufficiently specified to allow us to adequately assess the extent to which universal health succeeds in protecting equality of opportunity. The article concludes by outlining a more promising strategy for developing a viable rationale for UHC.

A grandfather clause is a provision whereby an old rule continues to apply to some existing situation while a new rule applies to all future cases. This paper focuses on the use of grandfather clauses in health technology appraisals (HTAs) issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. NICE provides evidence-based guidance on healthcare technologies and public health interventions that influence resource allocation decisions in the National Health Service (NHS) and the broader public sector in England and Wales. In this context, a grandfather clause is included when NICE does not recommend treatment with a given technology. The grandfather clause provides an exemption from the general recommendation for patients who have already started treatment with the technology in question, before the publication of the NICE guidance. In this paper we first lay out the contexts in which grandfather clauses occur in NICE guidance, and then consider ethical arguments against and in support of grandfather clauses and the continuation of treatment. We argue that NICE's current practice of automatic inclusion of a grandfather clause is ethically problematic and unfair. While the inclusion of a grandfather clause may be appropriate and justified in specific cases, we argue that inclusion of such a clause should be considered as part and parcel of the decision making process on a case by case basis, rather than adopted as the default., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: After radiation therapy for painful bone metastases, up to 44% of patients report a pain flare (PF). Our study compared 2 dose schedules of dexamethasone versus placebo to prevent PF., Methods and Materials: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial allocated patients with painful bone metastases from solid tumors randomly to receive 8 mg dexamethasone before radiation therapy followed by 3 daily doses (group A), 8 mg dexamethasone followed by 3 doses of placebo (group B), or 4 doses of placebo (group C). Patients reported worst pain scores, study medication side effects, and opioid intake before treatment and thereafter daily for 14 days and on day 28. PF was defined as at least a 2-point increase on a 0 to 10 pain scale with no decrease in opioid intake or a 25% or greater increase in opioid intake with no decrease in pain score, followed by a return to baseline or lower. The primary analysis was by intention to treat with patients who had missing data classified as having a PF., Results: From January 2012 to April 2016, 295 patients were randomized. PF incidence was 38% for group A, 27% for group B, and 39% for group C (P = .07). Although patients in group B had the lowest PF incidence, a relatively high percentage did not return to baseline pain levels, indicating pain progression. The mean duration of PF was 2.1 days for group A, 4.5 days for group B, and 3.3 days for group C (P = .0567). Dexamethasone postponed PF occurrence; in group A 52% occurred on days 2 to 5 versus 73% in group B and 99% in group C (P = .02). Patients in group A reported lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5 than those in group B or C (P < .001). Side effects were similar., Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence that dexamethasone reduced the incidence of radiation-induced PF. However, dexamethasone postponed the occurrence of PF and led to lower mean pain scores on days 2 to 5., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Reducing inequalities in health and the determinants of health is a widely acknowledged health policy goal, and methods for measuring inequalities and inequities in health are well developed. Yet, the evidence base is weak for how to achieve these goals. There is a lack of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting impact on the distribution of health and non-health benefits and lack of methodological rigour in how to design, power, measure, analyse and interpret distributional impact in RCTs. Our overarching aim in this paper is to contribute to the emerging effort to improve transparency and coherence in the theoretical and conceptual basis for RCTs on effective interventions to reduce health inequity. We endeavour to achieve this aim by pursuing two more specific objectives. First, we propose an overview of three broader health equity frameworks and clarify their implications for the measurement of health inequality in RCTs. Second, we seek to clarify the relationship between theory and translational challenges that researchers would need to attend to, in order to ensure that equity-relevant RCTs are coherently grounded in theory., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is considered standard of care for patients with multiple brain metastases or unfit for radical treatment modalities. Recent studies raised discussion about the expected survival after WBRT. Therefore, we analysed survival after WBRT for brain metastases 'in daily practice' in a large nationwide multicentre retrospective cohort., Methods: Between 2000 and 2014, 6325 patients had WBRT (20 Gy in 4 Gy fractions) for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 4363 patients) or breast cancer (BC; 1962 patients); patients were treated in 15 out of 21 Dutch radiotherapy centres. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method from the first day of WBRT until death as recorded in local hospital data registration or the Dutch Municipal Personal Records Database., Findings: The median survival was 2.7 months for NSCLC and 3.7 months for BC patients (p < .001). For NSCLC patients aged <50, 50-60, 60-70 and >70 years, survival was 4.0, 3.0, 2.8 and 2.1 months, respectively (p < .001). For BC patients, survival was 4.5, 3.8, 3.2 and 2.9 months, respectively (p = .047). In multivariable analyses, higher age was related to poorer survival with hazard ratios (HR) for patients aged 50-60, 60-70 and >70 years being 1.05, 1.19 and 1.34, respectively. Primary BC (HR: 0.83) and female sex (HR: 0.85) were related to better survival (p < .001)., Interpretation: The survival of patients after WBRT for brain metastases from NSCLC treated in Dutch 'common radiotherapy practice' is poor, in breast cancer and younger patients it is disappointingly little better. These results are in line with the results presented in the QUARTZ trial and we advocate a much more restrictive use of WBRT. In patients with a more favourable prognosis the optimal treatment strategy remains to be determined. Prospective randomized trials and individualized prognostic models are needed to identify these patients and to tailor treatment.

Different countries have adopted different strategies for tackling the challenge of allocating scarce health care resources fairly. Norway is one of the countries that has pioneered the effort to resolve priority setting by using a core set of priority-setting criteria. While the criteria themselves have been subject to extensive debate and numerous revisions, the question of how the criteria have been applied in practice has received less attention. In this paper, we examine how the criteria feature in the decisions and justifications of the Norwegian National Council for Priority Setting in Health Care, which has played an active role in deliberating about health care provision and coverage in Norway. We conducted a comprehensive document analysis, looking at the Council's decisions about health care allocation as well as the reasons they had provided to justify their decisions. We found that although the Council often made use of the official priority-setting criteria, they did so in an unsystematic and inconsistent manner.

Background: Variation in intensive care unit (ICU) readmissions and in-hospital mortality after ICU discharge may indicate potential for improvement and could be explained by ICU discharge practices. Our objective was threefold: (1) describe variation in rates of ICU readmissions within 48 h and post-ICU in-hospital mortality, (2) describe ICU discharge practices in Dutch hospitals, and (3) study the association between rates of ICU readmissions within 48 h and post-ICU in-hospital mortality and ICU discharge practices., Methods: We analysed data on 42,040 admissions to 82 (91.1%) Dutch ICUs in 2011 from the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry to describe variation in standardized ICU readmission and post-ICU mortality rates using funnel-plots. We send a questionnaire to all Dutch ICUs. 75 ICUs responded and their questionnaire data could be linked to 38,498 admissions in the NICE registry. Generalized estimation equations analyses were used to study the association between ICU readmissions and post-ICU mortality rates and the identified discharge practices, i.e. (1) ICU discharge criteria; (2) bed managers; (3) early discharge planning; (4) step-down facilities; (5) medication reconciliation; (6) verbal and written handover; (7) monitoring of post-ICU patients; and (8) consulting ICU nurses. In all analyses, the outcomes were corrected for patient-related confounding factors., Results: The standardized rate of ICU readmissions varied between 0.14 and 2.67 and 20.8% of the hospitals fell outside the 95% control limits and 3.6% outside the 99.8% control limits. The standardized rate of post-ICU mortality varied between 0.07 and 2.07 and 17.1% of the hospitals fell outside the 95% control limits and 4.9% outside the 99.8% control limits. We could not demonstrate an association between the eight ICU discharge practices and rates of ICU readmissions or post-ICU in-hospital mortality. Implementing a higher number of ICU discharge practices was also not associated with better patient outcomes., Conclusions: We found both variation in patient outcomes and variation in ICU discharge practices between ICUs. However, we found no association between discharge practices and rates of ICU readmissions or post-ICU mortality. Further research is necessary to find factors, which may influence these patient outcomes, in order to improve quality of care.