Project description:An exponential rise in the number of older prisoners is creating new and costly challenges for the criminal justice system, state economies, and communities to which older former prisoners return. We convened a meeting of 29 national experts in correctional health care, academic medicine, nursing, and civil rights to identify knowledge gaps and to propose a policy agenda to improve the care of older prisoners. The group identified 9 priority areas to be addressed: definition of the older prisoner, correctional staff training, definition of functional impairment in prison, recognition and assessment of dementia, recognition of the special needs of older women prisoners, geriatric housing units, issues for older adults upon release, medical early release, and prison-based palliative medicine programs.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Competing priorities in health systems necessitate difficult choices on which health actions and investments to fund: decisions that are complex, value-based, and highly political. In light of the centrality of universal health coverage (UHC) in driving current health policy, we sought to examine the value interests that influence agenda setting in the country's health financing space. Given the plurality of Kenya's health policy levers, we aimed to examine how the perspectives of stakeholders involved in policy decision-making and implementation shape discussions on health financing within the UHC framework. METHODS:A series of in-depth key informant interviews were conducted at national and county level (n?=?13) between April and May 2018. Final thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted to identify similarities and differences amongst stakeholders on the challenges hindering Kenya's achievement of UHC in terms of its the optimisation of health service coverage; expansion of the population that benefits from essential healthcare services; and the minimisation of out-of-pocket costs associated with health-seeking behaviour. RESULTS:Our findings indicate that the perceived lack of strategic leadership from Kenya's national government has led to a lack of agreement on stakeholders' interpretation of what is to be understood by UHC, its contextual values and priorities. We observe material differences between and within policy networks on the country's priorities for population coverage, healthcare service provision, and cost-sharing under the UHC dispensation. In spite of this, we note that progressive universalism is considered as the preferred approach towards UHC in Kenya, with most interviewees prioritising an equity-based approach that prioritises better access to healthcare services and financial risk protection. However, the conflicting priorities of key stakeholders risk derailing progress towards the expansion of access to health services and financial risk protection. CONCLUSIONS:This study adds to existing knowledge of UHC in Kenya by contextualising the competing and evolving priorities that should be taken into consideration as the country strategises over its UHC process. We suggest that clear policy action is required from national government and county governments in order to develop a logical and consistent approach towards UHC in Kenya.
Project description:Are legislators responsive to the priorities of the public? Research demonstrates a strong correspondence between the issues about which the public cares and the issues addressed by politicians, but conclusive evidence about who leads whom in setting the political agenda has yet to be uncovered. We answer this question with fine-grained temporal analyses of Twitter messages by legislators and the public during the 113th US Congress. After employing an unsupervised method that classifies tweets sent by legislators and citizens into topics, we use vector autoregression models to explore whose priorities more strongly predict the relationship between citizens and politicians. We find that legislators are more likely to follow, than to lead, discussion of public issues, results that hold even after controlling for the agenda-setting effects of the media. We also find, however, that legislators are more likely to be responsive to their supporters than to the general public.
Project description:To describe the two-stage prioritization process being used by the UK National Institute for Health Research's Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South-West Peninsula (or PenCLAHRC) - a joint health service and university partnership and reflect on implications for the wider context of priority setting in health-care research.PenCLAHRC's process establishes the priorities of Stakeholders including service users across a regional health system for locally relevant health services research and implementation. Health research questions are collected from clinicians, academics and service users in Devon and Cornwall (UK) using a web-based question formulation tool. There is a two-stage prioritization process which uses explicit criteria and a wide Stakeholder group, including service users to identify important research questions relevant to the south-west peninsula locality.To date, a wide variety of health research topics have been prioritized by the PenCLAHRC Stakeholders. The research agenda reflects the interests of academics, clinicians and service users in the local area. Potential challenges to implementation of the process include time constraints, variable quality of questions (including the language of research) and initiating and maintaining engagement in the process. Shared prioritization of local health research needs can be achieved between Stakeholders from a wide range of perspectives.The processes developed have been successful and, with minor changes, will continue to be used during subsequent rounds of prioritization. Engagement of Stakeholders in establishing a research agenda encourages the most relevant health questions to be asked and may improve implementation of research findings and take up by service users.
Project description:Access to paid family and medical leave ("paid leave") has bipartisan support among lawmakers in the United States, but the issue remains stalled on the public policy agenda. The U.S. does not currently have a federal paid leave policy, and unpaid leave-guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993-is all that is available to the majority of workers. In this study, we examine the content of local television news as representations of, and potential influence on, paid leave policy agendas. To do so, we analyze the extent to which local television news coverage describes the problem of lack of employment leave, and whether coverage highlights public policy as a solution. We use data from local television stations affiliated with the four major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) in all 210 media markets in the U.S. during a period pre-pandemic, from October 2018 until July 2019. We find that 64% of local television news coverage related to paid leave discussed the issue in the context of public policy. Coverage more often cited early-stage policy actions such as a policy idea - reflected in 40% of stories discussing stages of public policymaking - or the introduction of a bill - detailed in 22% of these stories. This coverage aligns with actual policy activity at the state-level during the same time period. News coverage infrequently included elements that could shape public understanding of paid leave as a population health issue, such as including health-related sources of providers or researchers. Policymakers, advocates, and researchers looking to advance public support for paid leave should consider efforts to use local television news as a vehicle to present health and policy-relevant information to broad segments of the public and set the agenda for policy reform.
Project description:Many studies have been conducted to assess the health effects of climate change in Korea. However, there has been a lack of consideration regarding how the results of these studies can be applied to relevant policies. The current study aims to examine research trends at the agenda-setting stage and to review future ways in which health-related adaptation to climate change can be addressed within national public health policy. A systematic review of previous studies of the health effects of climate change in Korea was conducted. Many studies have evaluated the effect of ambient temperature on health. A large number of studies have examined the effects on deaths and cardio-cerebrovascular diseases, but a limitation of these studies is that it is difficult to apply their findings to climate change adaptation policy in the health sector. Many infectious disease studies were also identified, but these mainly focused on malaria. Regarding climate change-related factors other than ambient temperature, studies of the health effects of these factors (with the exception of air pollution) are limited. In Korea, it can be concluded that studies conducted as part of the agenda-setting stage are insufficient, both because studies on the health effects of climate change have not ventured beyond defining the problem and because health adaptation to climate change has not been set as an important agenda item. In the future, the sharing and development of relevant databases is necessary. In addition, the priority of agenda items should be determined as part of a government initiative.
Project description:The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n = 13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research-policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research-policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.
Project description:IntroductionWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on cigar research on youth to identify potential future research agenda to generate evidence to inform cigar regulations to prevent cigar use among youth.MethodsWe searched articles on Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO in April 2017 to identify articles relevant to cigars and adolescents. Two independent coders examined 48 articles to determine eligibility: (1) published between 2000-April 2017; (2) published in English; (3) conducted in the United States; (4) published in a peer-review journal; (5) examined cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars; (6) included youth (12-18 years old); and (7) included empirical data. Three independent coders reviewed the included articles (n = 48) to identify whether the studies addressed FDA's Research Priorities.ResultsThe studies addressed FDA's Research Priorities of "behavior" (n = 48), "communications" (n = 4), "marketing influences" (n = 1), and "impact analysis" (n = 1). Studies on "behavior" underscored the need for improvements in measurement, such as using brand names and distinguishing cigar products. The review revealed the need for restrictions on cigar flavors, development of media campaigns and interventions, increasing the cost (via taxation), and evaluating the impact of cigar policies.ConclusionsThe studies mostly focused on surveillance of behaviors and use patterns, which revealed cigar specific issues to address in policies to decrease cigar use among youth. The lack of studies addressing other FDA's research priorities highlighted the critical need for future studies that inform prevention of youth cigar use.
Project description:BackgroundProlonged grief disorder is proposed for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), though it was rejected as a diagnosis for DSM-5.ObjectiveThis review outlines findings and defines important areas for future research viewed from a lifespan perspective.ResultsThe development and psychometric evaluation of measures for the new diagnosis is paramount, specifically for children and adolescents. Treatments need to be adapted for specific subgroups and research findings have to be disseminated into various professional settings.
Project description:The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.