New roles for community pharmacists in modern health care systems: a challenge for pharmacy education and research.

The academic activities led by the Unit of Community Pharmacy can be classified as translational. Our group is interested in person-centered pharmaceutical services aimed at a more responsible use of drugs (effectiveness, safety, efficiency) in collaboration with physicians and other health care professionals in a primary care setting. The following domains of education and research are high priorities for our group: medication therapy management, medication adherence, integrated care, individualization of therapies, care management for the elderly and e-health.

Beyond the insiders' circle: disseminating the results of adolescent health surveys.

Adolescent health surveys, like those for other segments of the population, tend to remain in the hands of researchers, where they can have no real impact on the way critical health issues are dealt with by policy makers or other professionals directly connected to young people in their everyday work. This paper reviews important issues concerning the dissemination of survey results among professionals from various fields. The content, length and wording of the messages should be tailored to the audience one wants to reach as well as the type of channels used for their diffusion. Survey data sets can be used to select priorities for interventions: ad hoc presentations, attractive summaries and brochures, or even films expressing young peoples' opinions have been used by European public health professionals to make data sets usable in various local, regional and national contexts. CONCLUSION: The impact of these diffusion strategies is, however, difficult to assess and needs to be refined. The adequate delivery of survey findings as well as advocacy and lobbying activities require specific skills which can be endorsed by specialized professionals. Ultimately, it is the researchers' responsibility to ensure that such tasks are effectively performed.

Research priorities for nursing care of infants, children and adolescents: a West Australian Delphi study.

This paper describes a study that aimed to identify research priorities for the care of infants, children and adolescents at the sole tertiary referral hospital for children in Western Australia. The secondary aim was to stimulate nurses to explore clinical problems that would require further inquiry. Background. Planning for research is an essential stage of research development; involving clinicians in this exercise is likely to foster research partnerships that are pertinent to clinical practice. Nursing research priorities for the paediatric population have not previously been reported in Australia. Design. Delphi study. Method. Over 12 months in 2005-2006, a three-round questionnaire, using the Delphi technique, was sent to a randomly selected sample of registered nurses. This method was used to identify and prioritise nursing research topics relevant to the patient and the family. Content analysis was used to analyse Round I data and descriptive statistics for Round II and III data. Results. In Round I, 280 statements were identified and reduced to 37 research priorities. Analysis of data in subsequent rounds identified the top two priority research areas as (1) identification of strategies to reduce medication incidents (Mean = 6 center dot 47; SD 0 center dot 88) and (2) improvement in pain assessment and management (Mean = 6; SD 1 center dot 38). Additional comments indicated few nurses access the scientific literature or use research findings because of a lack of time or electronic access. Conclusions. Thirty-seven research priorities were identified. The identification of research priorities by nurses provided research direction for the health service and potentially other similar health institutions for children and adolescents in Australia and internationally. Relevance to clinical practice. The nurse participants showed concern about the safety of care and the well-being of children and their families. This study also enabled the identification of potential collaborative research and development of pain management improvement initiatives.

The Georgian adolescent health survey: methodological and strategic issues.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a national survey on adolescent health and lifestyles in Georgia and to thus set up a database on adolescent. METHODS: A two-stage cluster sample of around 8000-10000 in-school 15-18 years adolescents are being reached through a random selection of classes in Georgia. The sample has been stratified by age, region, type of school and language. A self-administered questionnaire of 87 questions has been developed and translated into the four main languages used in Georgia. RESULTS: Up to June 2004, the researchers have reached 511 classes (9306 pupils). In total, 8039 questionnaires have been considered valid. The main concerns encountered for this survey are linked with acceptance of the survey, cross-cultural issues, political and strategic problems as well as inadequate physical environmental support. CONCLUSION: Despite Georgia's unfavourable economical and political situation, it has been possible to run a national survey on the health of adolescents, according to the usual standards used in the field. This survey should allow for 1) the identification of priorities in the field of health care and health promotion 2) the monitoring of adolescent health in the future.

Impact of engineered nanomaterials on health : considerations for benefit-risk assessment

Nanotechnology encompasses the design, characterisation, production and application of materials and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanoscale (nanometres). Nanomaterials may differ from other materials because of their relatively large specific surface area, such that surface properties become particularly important. There has been rapid growth in investment in nanotechnology by both the public and private sectors worldwide. In the EU, nanotechnology is expected to become an important strategic contributor to achieving economic gain and societal and individual benefits. At the same time there is continuing scientific uncertainty and controversy about the safety of nanomaterials. It is important to ensure that timely policy development takes this into consideration. Uncertainty about safety may lead to polarised public debate and to business unwillingness to invest further. A clear regulatory framework to address potential health and environmental impacts, within the wider context of evaluating and communicating the benefit-risk balance, must be a core part of Europe's integrated efforts for nanotechnology innovation. While a number of studies have been carried out on the effect of environmental nanoparticles, e.g. from combustion processes, on human health, there is yet no generally acceptable paradigm for safety assessment of nanomaterials in consumer and other products. Therefore, a working group was established to consider issues for the possible impact of nanomaterials on human health focussing specifically on engineered nanomaterials. This represents the first joint initiative between EASAC and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The working group was given the remit to describe the state of the art of benefits and potential risks, current methods for safety assessment, and to evaluate their relevance, identify knowledge gaps in studying the safety of current nanomaterials, and recommend on priorities for nanomaterial research and the regulatory framework. This report focuses on key principles and issues, cross-referencing other sources for detailed information, rather than attempting a comprehensive account of the science. The focus is on human health although environmental effects are also discussed when directly relevant to health

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. METHODS: Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. RESULTS: The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

Epilepsy priorities in Europe: A report of the ILAE-IBE Epilepsy Advocacy Europe Task Force.

The European Forum on Epilepsy Research (ERF2013), which took place in Dublin, Ireland, on May 26-29, 2013, was designed to appraise epilepsy research priorities in Europe through consultation with clinical and basic scientists as well as representatives of lay organizations and health care providers. The ultimate goal was to provide a platform to improve the lives of persons with epilepsy by influencing the political agenda of the EU. The Forum highlighted the epidemiologic, medical, and social importance of epilepsy in Europe, and addressed three separate but closely related concepts. First, possibilities were explored as to how the stigma and social burden associated with epilepsy could be reduced through targeted initiatives at EU national and regional levels. Second, ways to ensure optimal standards of care throughout Europe were specifically discussed. Finally, a need for further funding in epilepsy research within the European Horizon 2020 funding programme was communicated to politicians and policymakers participating to the forum. Research topics discussed specifically included (1) epilepsy in the developing brain; (2) novel targets for innovative diagnostics and treatment of epilepsy; (3) what is required for prevention and cure of epilepsy; and (4) epilepsy and comorbidities, with a special focus on aging and mental health. This report provides a summary of recommendations that emerged at ERF2013 about how to (1) strengthen epilepsy research, (2) reduce the treatment gap, and (3) reduce the burden and stigma associated with epilepsy. Half of the 6 million European citizens with epilepsy feel stigmatized and experience social exclusion, stressing the need for funding trans-European awareness campaigns and monitoring their impact on stigma, in line with the global commitment of the European Commission and with the recommendations made in the 2011 Written Declaration on Epilepsy. Epilepsy care has high rates of misdiagnosis and considerable variability in organization and quality across European countries, translating into huge societal cost (0.2% GDP) and stressing the need for cost-effective programs of harmonization and optimization of epilepsy care throughout Europe. There is currently no cure or prevention for epilepsy, and 30% of affected persons are not controlled by current treatments, stressing the need for pursuing research efforts in the field within Horizon 2020. Priorities should include (1) development of innovative biomarkers and therapeutic targets and strategies, from gene and cell-based therapies to technologically advanced surgical treatment; (2) addressing issues raised by pediatric and aging populations, as well as by specific etiologies and comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cognitive dysfunction, toward more personalized medicine and prevention; and (3) translational studies and clinical trials built upon well-established European consortia.

Towards actionable international comparisons of health system performance: expert revision of the OECD framework and quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To review and update the conceptual framework, indicator content and research priorities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Health Care Quality Indicators (HCQI) project, after a decade of collaborative work. DESIGN: A structured assessment was carried out using a modified Delphi approach, followed by a consensus meeting, to assess the suite of HCQI for international comparisons, agree on revisions to the original framework and set priorities for research and development. SETTING: International group of countries participating to OECD projects. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the OECD HCQI expert group. RESULTS: A reference matrix, based on a revised performance framework, was used to map and assess all seventy HCQI routinely calculated by the OECD expert group. A total of 21 indicators were agreed to be excluded, due to the following concerns: (i) relevance, (ii) international comparability, particularly where heterogeneous coding practices might induce bias, (iii) feasibility, when the number of countries able to report was limited and the added value did not justify sustained effort and (iv) actionability, for indicators that were unlikely to improve on the basis of targeted policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The revised OECD framework for HCQI represents a new milestone of a long-standing international collaboration among a group of countries committed to building common ground for performance measurement. The expert group believes that the continuation of this work is paramount to provide decision makers with a validated toolbox to directly act on quality improvement strategies.