Dataset Information

Targeting TB or MRSA in Norwegian municipalities during 'the refugee crisis' of 2015: a framework for priority setting in screening.

ABSTRACT: IntroductionIn 2015, there was an increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in Europe. Like in other countries, deciding screening priorities for tuberculosis (TB) and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was a challenge. At least five of 428 municipalities chose to screen asylum seekers for MRSA before TB; the Norwegian Institute for Public Health advised against this.AimTo evaluate the MRSA/TB screening results from 2014 to 2016 and create a generalised framework for screening prioritisation in Norway through simulation modelling.MethodsThis is a register-based cohort study of asylum seekers using data from the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases from 2014 to 2016. We used survey data from municipalities that screened all asylum seekers for MRSA and denominator data from the Directorate of Immigration. A comparative risk assessment model was built to investigate the outcomes of prioritising between TB and MRSA in screening regimes.ResultsOf 46,090 asylum seekers, 137 (0.30%) were diagnosed with active TB (notification rate: 300/100,000 person-years). In the municipalities that screened all asylum seekers for MRSA, 13 of 1,768 (0.74%) were found to be infected with MRSA. The model estimated that screening for MRSA would prevent eight MRSA infections while prioritising TB screening would prevent 24 cases of active TB and one death.ConclusionOur findings support the decision to advise against screening for MRSA before TB among newly arrived asylum seekers. The model was an effective tool for comparing screening priorities and can be applied to other scenarios in other countries.

SUBMITTER: Danielsen AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6761574 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Targeting TB or MRSA in Norwegian municipalities during 'the refugee crisis' of 2015: a framework for priority setting in screening.

Danielsen Anders Skyrud AS Elstrøm Petter P Arnesen Trude Margrete TM Gopinathan Unni U Kacelnik Oliver O

Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 20190901 38

IntroductionIn 2015, there was an increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in Europe. Like in other countries, deciding screening priorities for tuberculosis (TB) and meticillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) was a challenge. At least five of 428 municipalities chose to screen asylum seekers for MRSA before TB; the Norwegian Institute for Public Health advised against this.AimTo evaluate the MRSA/TB screening results from 2014 to 2016 and create a generalised framework fo ...[more]

PMID: 31552819

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, strong measures were taken to avoid anticipated pressure on health care, and this involved new priorities between patient groups and changing working conditions for clinical personnel. We studied how doctors experienced this situation. Our focus was their knowledge about and adherence to general and COVID-19 specific guidelines and regulations on priority setting, and whether actual priorities were considered acceptable.MethodsIn December 2020, 2 316 members of a representative panel of doctors practicing in Norway received a questionnaire. The questions were designed to consider a set of hypotheses about priority setting and guidelines. The focus was on the period between March and December 2020. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses.ResultsIn total, 1 617 (70%) responded. A majority were familiar with the priority criteria, though not the legislation on priority setting. A majority had not used guidelines for priority setting in the first period of the pandemic. 60.5% reported that some of their patients were deprioritized for treatment. Of these, 47.5% considered it medically indefensible to some/a large extent. Although general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors experienced deprioritizations equally often, more GPs considered it medically indefensible. More doctors in managerial positions were familiar with the guidelines.ConclusionsMost doctors did not use priority guidelines in this period. They experienced, however, that some of their patients were deprioritized, which was considered medically indefensible by many. This might be explained by a negative reaction to the externally imposed requirements for rationing, while observing that vulnerable patients were deprioritized. Another interpretation is that they judged the rationing to have gone too far, or that they found it hard to accept rationing of care in general. Priority guidelines can be useful measures for securing fair and reasonable priorities. However, if the priority setting in clinical practice is to proceed in accordance with priority-setting principles and guidelines, the guidelines must be translated into a clinically relevant context and doctors' familiarity with them must improve.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an international move towards greater integration of health and social care to cope with the increasing demand on services.. In Scotland, legislation was passed in 2014 to integrate adult health and social care services resulting in the formation of 31 Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs). Greater integration does not eliminate resource scarcity and the requirement to make (resource) allocation decisions to meet the needs of local populations. There are different perspectives on how to facilitate and improve priority setting in health and social care organisations with limited resources, but structured processes at the local level are still not widely implemented. This paper reports on work with new HSCPs in Scotland to develop a combined multi-disciplinary priority setting and resource allocation framework.MethodsTo develop the combined framework, a scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the key principles and approaches to priority setting from economics, decision-analysis, ethics and law, and attempts to combine such approaches. Co-production of the combined framework involved a multi-disciplinary workshop including local, and national-level stakeholders and academics to discuss and gather their views.ResultsThe key findings from the literature review and the stakeholder workshop were taken to produce a final combined framework for priority setting and resource allocation. This is underpinned by principles from economics (opportunity cost), decision science (good decisions), ethics (justice) and law (fair procedures). It outlines key stages in the priority setting process, including: framing the question, looking at current use of resources, defining options and criteria, evaluating options and criteria, and reviewing each stage. Each of these has further sub-stages and includes a focus on how the combined framework interacts with the consultation and involvement of patients, public and the wider staff.ConclusionsThe integration agenda for health and social care is an opportunity to develop and implement a combined framework for setting priorities and allocating resources fairly to meet the needs of the population. A key aim of both integration and the combined framework is to facilitate the shifting of resources from acute services to the community.

Project description:IntroductionOne of the challenges faced by hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is resource shortages in intensive care units (ICUs). In times of scarcity, patient prioritization based on non-medical considerations might be necessary.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to pilot test a survey to elicit public opinions on the relative importance of non-medical considerations in priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU in times of crisis.MethodsA discrete-choice experiment was used to collect social preferences for priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. The six attributes were patient age, profession, guardianship, risk-conscious behavior on a societal level, health-conscious behavior, and expected ICU length of stay. The data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model. Interactions between the age and profession of the respondents and the age and profession of the patient profiles were considered.ResultsThe mean (± standard deviation) age of respondents was 35.9 ± 14.5 years. In all, 70% of respondents indicated that medical and/or non-medical considerations should play a role in prioritizing patients for the ICU, whereas 15% agreed with a "first come, first served" strategy and the remaining 15% had no opinion. Respondents deemed risk-conscious behavior on a societal level to be the most important non-medical factor that should be used to prioritize patients in phase three of the framework, garnering an attribute importance (AI) of 31.2%, followed by patient age (AI 16.3%) and health-conscious behavior (AI 16.0%). ICU length of stay had the lowest impact on patient prioritization for ICU admittance (AI 10.9%). Younger and older respondents attached more importance to age than respondents in the middle age group and indicated a stronger preference to prioritize patients in their own age group (p = 0.042).ConclusionThe results of our study demonstrate the relative importance members of the public attach to responsible societal behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the next phase of the study, we will elicit the perspectives of a representative sample of the Dutch population. Changes to the task design and attribute operationalization could improve the external validity of the study findings, and optimization of the experimental design will improve the internal validity of the study.

Project description:BackgroundPriority-setting for health research in low-income countries remains a major challenge. While there have been efforts to systematise and improve the processes, most of the initiatives have ended up being a one-off exercise and are yet to be institutionalised. This could, in part, be attributed to the limited capacity for the priority-setting institutions to identify and fund their own research priorities, since most of the priority-setting initiatives are driven by experts. This paper reports findings from a pilot project whose aim was to develop a systematic process to identify components of a locally desirable and feasible health research priority-setting approach and to contribute to capacity strengthening for the Zambia National Health Research Authority.MethodsSynthesis of the current literature on the approaches to health research prioritisations. The results of the synthesis were presented and discussed with a sample of Zambian researchers and decision-makers who are involved in health research priority-setting. The ultimate aim was for them to explore the different approaches available for guiding health research priority-setting and to identify an approach that would be relevant and feasible to implement and sustain within the Zambian context.ResultsBased on the evidence that was presented, the participants were unable to identify one approach that met the criteria. They identified attributes from the different approaches that they thought would be most appropriate and proposed a process that they deemed feasible within the Zambian context.ConclusionWhile it is easier to implement prioritisation based on one approach that the initiator might be interested in, researchers interested in capacity-building for health research priority-setting organisations should expose the low-income country participants to all approaches. Researchers ought to be aware that sometimes one shoe may not fit all, as in the case of Zambia, instead of choosing one approach, the stakeholders may select desirable attributes from the different approaches and piece together an approach that would be feasible and acceptable within their context. An approach that builds on the decision-makers' understanding of their contexts and their input to its development would foster local ownership and has a greater potential for sustainability.

Dataset Information

Targeting TB or MRSA in Norwegian municipalities during 'the refugee crisis' of 2015: a framework for priority setting in screening.

Publications

Targeting TB or MRSA in Norwegian municipalities during 'the refugee crisis' of 2015: a framework for priority setting in screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets