[Implementation of a routine gradual psycho-diagnostic programme in somatic rehabilitation centres - results of a pilot study]

STUDY AIM: A pilot study was conducted to implement and evaluate a routine gradual psycho-diagnostic programme to improve diagnostics and treatment of mental disorders in somatic rehabilitation centres. First of all, implementation strategies were acquired in trainings together with psychologists and physicians. The psycho-diagnostic programme consists of a screening instrument (PHQ-9) designed to permit time-effective detection of comorbid mental disorders. Besides evaluation of the training, the aim of the study was to analyze the extent to which it is possible to implement the routine gradual psycho-diagnostic programme in practice. Additionally, it was intended to identify beneficial and obstructive conditions for implementation. METHODOLOGY: The pilot study was conducted in two orthopaedic and one cardiological rehabilitation centre. The training was evaluated directly after its completion using a questionnaire. Three months after its implementation, the introduction of the psycho-diagnostic programme was evaluated using interviews with n=11 physicians and psychologists. RESULTS: The training was rated positively by the participants . Implementation of the entire gradual psycho-diagnostic programme was possible in one centre and to some degree in the other two. Beneficial for implementation were a frank organisational climate, sufficient time resources, and physicians' biopsychosocial understanding of disease. A dismissive attitude towards psycho-diagnostics, little communication between staff members, little perceived advantage for one's own work and fear to stigmatise patients by psychiatric diagnoses were obstructive. CONCLUSION: Essential for a successful implementation are sufficient time and personal resources, a motivation for change in staff and centre management, and a positive attitude regarding psycho-diagnostics in clinic staff. Furthermore, flexibility in implementation strategies and the opportunity to participate in the implementation process are important.

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS): Experience with a transdisciplinary tool in the NCCR North-South programme

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are small transdisciplinary projects which bring scientific research insights from the NCCR North-South into policy and practice. They are implemented by researchers from different disciplines in collaboration with non-scientific actors. PAMS aim to implement and test approaches, methods and tools developed in research, in order to identify promising strategies and potentials for sustainable development. In this sense, they are solution-oriented. This paper will provide insights into our experience with PAMS, with a special focus on the implementation of transdisciplinarity and its outcomes. From 2001 to 2010, 77 PAMS were implemented in Africa, Asia and Latin America. An internal evaluation of the first 55 projects was conducted in 2006. Results of this evaluation led to a refinement and improvement of the tool. A second internal evaluation is currently underway in the NCCR North-South. This evaluation will provide an overview of 22 new PAMS. We will look at partners involved, project beneficiaries, activities implemented, outcomes achieved, and lessons learnt. In the first evaluation, transdisciplinarity was considered as “a form of collaboration within scientific fields … and as a form of continuous dialogue between research and society” (Messerli et al., 2007). The evaluation report concluded that this understanding of transdisciplinarity was not satisfactorily applied in the 55 projects. Only about half of the PAMS addressed mutual exchange between researchers and society. Some involved only one specific field of research and clearly lacked interdisciplinary co-operation, and most often knowledge was transferred mainly unilaterally from the scientific community to society, without society having any effect on science. It was therefore recommended to address transdisciplinarity more carefully in Phase 2 PAMS. The second evaluation, which is currently under way, is analysing whether and how this recommendation has been met, based on criteria defined in the NCCR North-South’s Outcome Monitoring Strategy. The analysis is focusing on partners with whom researchers interact and investigating whether practices have changed both in research and society. We are also exploring the role of researchers in PAMS. Preliminary results show that researchers can assume different roles, from direct implementation, mediation, and promotion of social learning between different actors, to giving advice as neutral outsiders.

Cancer screening - principles, evaluation and implementation

Screening for malignant disease aims to reduce the population risk of impaired health due to the tumor in question. Screening does not only entail testing but covers all steps required to achieve the intended reduction in risk, from the appropriate information of the population to a suitable therapy. Screening tests are performed in individuals free or unaware of any symptoms associated with the tumor. An essential condition is a recognizable pathological abnormality, which occurs without symptoms and represents a pre-clinical, early stage of the tumor. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment have only recently been recognized as important problems of screening for malignant disease. Overdiagnosis is defined as a screening-detected tumor that would never have led to symptoms. In prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer 50 % - 70 % of screening-detected cancers represent such overdiagnoses. Similarly, in the case of mammography screening 20 % - 30 % of screening-detected breast cancers are overdiagnoses. The evaluation of screening interventions is often affected by biases such as healthy screenee effects or length and lead time bias. Randomized controlled trials are therefore needed to examine the efficacy and effectiveness of screening interventions and to define the rate of adverse outcomes such as unnecessary diagnostic evaluations, overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Unfortunately there is no independent Swiss body comparable to the National Screening Committee in the United Kingdom or the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which examines screening tests and programs and develops recommendations. Clearly defined goals, a central organization responsible for inviting eligible individuals, documentation and quality assurance and balanced information of the public are important attributes of successful screening programs. In Switzerland the establishment of such programs is hampered by the highly fragmented, Federal health system which allows patients to access specialists directly.