OHE Lunchtime Seminar with Associate Professor Paula Lorgelly, Deputy Director, Office of Health Economics
From the Antipodes to the Motherland: reflections on HTA decision makers as budget takers and budget makers
The world of Regulatory convergence: an Australian reflectionTGA Australia
This presentation provides an overview on recent advances and initiatives on regulatory convergence and the impact on Australian, European and international regulation of therapeutic goods.
Professor Liam Smeeth: Big Data, 30 June 2014Nuffield Trust
In this slideshow, Liam Smeeth, Deputy Director and Head of Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine discusses big data, e-health and the Farr Institute.
Liam Smeeth spoke at the Nuffield Trust event: The future of the hospital, in June 2014.
OHE Lunchtime Seminar with Associate Professor Paula Lorgelly, Deputy Director, Office of Health Economics
From the Antipodes to the Motherland: reflections on HTA decision makers as budget takers and budget makers
The world of Regulatory convergence: an Australian reflectionTGA Australia
This presentation provides an overview on recent advances and initiatives on regulatory convergence and the impact on Australian, European and international regulation of therapeutic goods.
Professor Liam Smeeth: Big Data, 30 June 2014Nuffield Trust
In this slideshow, Liam Smeeth, Deputy Director and Head of Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine discusses big data, e-health and the Farr Institute.
Liam Smeeth spoke at the Nuffield Trust event: The future of the hospital, in June 2014.
The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools is excited to present a two-part webinar featuring the Policy Readiness Tool
Part 1: Overview of the Policy Readiness Tool
(ALSO ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/FPzViyniKDQ)
Learn how the Policy Readiness Tool was developed and how to use the tool in your practice.
(Part 2 is available here: http://www.slideshare.net/NCCMT/nccmt-webinar-policy-readiness-tool-part-2)
A summary statement of this tool developed by NCCMT is available here: http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/144.html
Presented by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) with guests:
Candace Nykiforuk, PhD, CE, Associate Professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta; CIHR/PHAC/AIHS Applied Public Health Chair
and
Kayla Atkey, MSc, Policy Analyst, Alberta Policy Coalition for Chronic Disease Prevention (APCCP)
NCCMT is one of six NCCs for Public Health in Canada. More on the NCCs at www.nccph.ca. Production of this webinar has been made possible through a financial contribution from the Public Health Agency of Canada. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Presentation in the framework of the International Conference "10th anniversary of the Spanish Network of Health Technology Assessment Agencies. Towads patient and public engagement in HTA" Zaragoza 27-28 April 2017
'Open stakeholder meeting on mHealth assessment guidelines'
presentation of the guidelines by Andrew Ruck and Charles Lowe.
For more information visit:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-stakeholder-meeting-mhealth-assessment-guidelines-presentations-and-survey
"Hi All - Please find attached all the details regarding the ILF Chronic Oedema Outcome Measure project.
The link is now live. Can you please complete and send out to all your contacts in Industry as well as HCPs. We really need a good UK representation. You can send it Internationally too. If you do have email mail shots or use social media please can you mention it,
Many thanks for your help
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CYSCKKT
Kind Regards
Melanie J Thomas
National Clinical Lead for Lymphoedema in Wales
Cimla Health and Social Care Centre
dkNET Webinar - Vivli: A Global Clinical Trials Data Sharing Platform 12/11/2020dkNET
Abstract
Vivli (https://vivli.org/) is an independent, non-profit organization that has developed a global data-sharing and analytics platform. Our focus is on sharing individual participant-level data from completed clinical trials to serve the entire the scientific community and a diverse group of stakeholders including industry, academic institutions, government and non-profits. The Vivli platform includes an independent data repository, in-depth search engine and a secure research environment. This session will explore when it is appropriate to share your data using a managed access platform such as Vivli and will show how the Vivli team can support you in this process. We will also explore what studies are available that may be of interest to the dkNET community on the platform.
The top 3 key questions that Vivli can answer:
1. Why should I share data from my completed clinical studies?
2. How can Vivli help me share my clinical study data?
3. How can I request data from other completed studies?
Presenter: Ida Sim, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of California San Francisco and Co-Founder, Vivli
dkNET Webinars Information: https://dknet.org/about/webinar
DELSA/GOV 3rd Health meeting - Barbara UBALDIOECD Governance
This presentation by Barbara UBALDI was made at the 3rd Joint DELSA/GOV Health Meeting, Paris 24-25 April 2014. Find out more at www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/3rdmeetingdelsagovnetworkfiscalsustainabilityofhealthsystems2014.htm
Health System Efficiency and Sustainability in Australia, Canada, France, Ger...Office of Health Economics
OHE Consulting was commissioned by Eli Lilly and Company’s Global Public Policy department to identify and analyse inefficiencies and bottlenecks that undermine health care system sustainability and potential policy solutions to address them. We focused on Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK.
We found that the focus of health care policy thinking is on: removing perverse incentives; filling gaps in information to payers, health care professionals and patients; more/better chronic disease management and better coordination of care, especially between primary and secondary care; and better compliance with good practice guidelines.
Our results confirm and reinforce some of the key inefficiencies that have been discussed in the literature. Some differences across countries emerge but there is considerable consensus, with a major focus on better integrated care, especially for chronic diseases. The findings imply a clear, high level health care policy agenda for tackling health system inefficiency.
Our main findings were presented as a poster at the 9th HTAi Annual Meeting, Bilbao, 25-27 June 2012. We have reproduced that poster here as a slide presentation.
Paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in LMICsReBUILD for Resilience
This presentation from Sophie Witter & Karin Diaconu of Queen Margaret University, UK outlines the findings from a Cochrane review undertaken by the team on paying for performance to improve the delivery of health interventions in low and middle-income countries.
Presented by Claudia Stein, Director, Division of Information, Evidence, Research and Innovation, WHO/Europe, at the 64th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe.
Discussion session hosted by Leonie van Drooge at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
The in-vitro approach: Qualitative methodology to explore panel based peer re...Gemma Derrick
Presentation given by Gemma Derrick and Gabby Samuel at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Multiplying method: Ethnography and the reconceptualization of evaluation stu...Gemma Derrick
Discussion session hosted by Pau Wouters and Sarah de Rijcke at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Focus! A discussion about the use of focus groups as a methodGemma Derrick
Discussion session hosted by Leonie van Drooge at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Rethinking the 'international' in the governance of scienceGemma Derrick
Presentation given by Tereza Stockelova and Sarah de Rijcke at the Workshop exploring Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Research Evaluation and Policy 2015 (QMM2015)
Intentions and strategies for evaluating the societal impact of research: Ins...Gemma Derrick
This research in progress paper describes the initial results of a long-term, large-scale analysis
of the operationalization of evaluation of the societal impact of research. Results from the
first stage of qualitative interviews are used to illustrate the strength of the methodological
design of the study.
Earliest Galaxies in the JADES Origins Field: Luminosity Function and Cosmic ...Sérgio Sacani
We characterize the earliest galaxy population in the JADES Origins Field (JOF), the deepest
imaging field observed with JWST. We make use of the ancillary Hubble optical images (5 filters
spanning 0.4−0.9µm) and novel JWST images with 14 filters spanning 0.8−5µm, including 7 mediumband filters, and reaching total exposure times of up to 46 hours per filter. We combine all our data
at > 2.3µm to construct an ultradeep image, reaching as deep as ≈ 31.4 AB mag in the stack and
30.3-31.0 AB mag (5σ, r = 0.1” circular aperture) in individual filters. We measure photometric
redshifts and use robust selection criteria to identify a sample of eight galaxy candidates at redshifts
z = 11.5 − 15. These objects show compact half-light radii of R1/2 ∼ 50 − 200pc, stellar masses of
M⋆ ∼ 107−108M⊙, and star-formation rates of SFR ∼ 0.1−1 M⊙ yr−1
. Our search finds no candidates
at 15 < z < 20, placing upper limits at these redshifts. We develop a forward modeling approach to
infer the properties of the evolving luminosity function without binning in redshift or luminosity that
marginalizes over the photometric redshift uncertainty of our candidate galaxies and incorporates the
impact of non-detections. We find a z = 12 luminosity function in good agreement with prior results,
and that the luminosity function normalization and UV luminosity density decline by a factor of ∼ 2.5
from z = 12 to z = 14. We discuss the possible implications of our results in the context of theoretical
models for evolution of the dark matter halo mass function.
Introduction:
RNA interference (RNAi) or Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing (PTGS) is an important biological process for modulating eukaryotic gene expression.
It is highly conserved process of posttranscriptional gene silencing by which double stranded RNA (dsRNA) causes sequence-specific degradation of mRNA sequences.
dsRNA-induced gene silencing (RNAi) is reported in a wide range of eukaryotes ranging from worms, insects, mammals and plants.
This process mediates resistance to both endogenous parasitic and exogenous pathogenic nucleic acids, and regulates the expression of protein-coding genes.
What are small ncRNAs?
micro RNA (miRNA)
short interfering RNA (siRNA)
Properties of small non-coding RNA:
Involved in silencing mRNA transcripts.
Called “small” because they are usually only about 21-24 nucleotides long.
Synthesized by first cutting up longer precursor sequences (like the 61nt one that Lee discovered).
Silence an mRNA by base pairing with some sequence on the mRNA.
Discovery of siRNA?
The first small RNA:
In 1993 Rosalind Lee (Victor Ambros lab) was studying a non- coding gene in C. elegans, lin-4, that was involved in silencing of another gene, lin-14, at the appropriate time in the
development of the worm C. elegans.
Two small transcripts of lin-4 (22nt and 61nt) were found to be complementary to a sequence in the 3' UTR of lin-14.
Because lin-4 encoded no protein, she deduced that it must be these transcripts that are causing the silencing by RNA-RNA interactions.
Types of RNAi ( non coding RNA)
MiRNA
Length (23-25 nt)
Trans acting
Binds with target MRNA in mismatch
Translation inhibition
Si RNA
Length 21 nt.
Cis acting
Bind with target Mrna in perfect complementary sequence
Piwi-RNA
Length ; 25 to 36 nt.
Expressed in Germ Cells
Regulates trnasposomes activity
MECHANISM OF RNAI:
First the double-stranded RNA teams up with a protein complex named Dicer, which cuts the long RNA into short pieces.
Then another protein complex called RISC (RNA-induced silencing complex) discards one of the two RNA strands.
The RISC-docked, single-stranded RNA then pairs with the homologous mRNA and destroys it.
THE RISC COMPLEX:
RISC is large(>500kD) RNA multi- protein Binding complex which triggers MRNA degradation in response to MRNA
Unwinding of double stranded Si RNA by ATP independent Helicase
Active component of RISC is Ago proteins( ENDONUCLEASE) which cleave target MRNA.
DICER: endonuclease (RNase Family III)
Argonaute: Central Component of the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC)
One strand of the dsRNA produced by Dicer is retained in the RISC complex in association with Argonaute
ARGONAUTE PROTEIN :
1.PAZ(PIWI/Argonaute/ Zwille)- Recognition of target MRNA
2.PIWI (p-element induced wimpy Testis)- breaks Phosphodiester bond of mRNA.)RNAse H activity.
MiRNA:
The Double-stranded RNAs are naturally produced in eukaryotic cells during development, and they have a key role in regulating gene expression .
Richard's entangled aventures in wonderlandRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
Nutraceutical market, scope and growth: Herbal drug technologyLokesh Patil
As consumer awareness of health and wellness rises, the nutraceutical market—which includes goods like functional meals, drinks, and dietary supplements that provide health advantages beyond basic nutrition—is growing significantly. As healthcare expenses rise, the population ages, and people want natural and preventative health solutions more and more, this industry is increasing quickly. Further driving market expansion are product formulation innovations and the use of cutting-edge technology for customized nutrition. With its worldwide reach, the nutraceutical industry is expected to keep growing and provide significant chances for research and investment in a number of categories, including vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and herbal supplements.
This pdf is about the Schizophrenia.
For more details visit on YouTube; @SELF-EXPLANATORY;
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAiarMZDNhe1A3Rnpr_WkzA/videos
Thanks...!
Exploring stakeholders' views in the context of collaborative, public health research: A mixed methods approach
1. Exploring stakeholders’
views in the context of
collaborative, public health
research:
a mixed methods
approach
Teresa Jones on behalf of
the EQUIPT consortium
Please treat this presentation as
confidential as the work is still in
progress.
2. Overview
• Summary
• Background to the EQUIPT project
Aims of the UK mixed methods study
• Methods used
• Results – Qualitative & Quantitative
• What would we have missed by not using a
mixed methods approach?
• Conclusions
08 October 2015 T Jones Brunel University London 2
3. Summary
EQUIPT - The development of a viable, practical, decision-support
aid for use by decision makers across five European countries and
investigation of its transferability beyond those countries. The
inclusion of stakeholders’ views is considered to be a very
important aspect of the project.
Mixed methods study – to explore the additional information
obtained by including both quantitative and qualitative findings
from the UK stakeholder interviews
Funding: We have received funding from the European Community’s
Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 602270
(EQUIPT)
Ethics approval was received from Brunel University London Research
Ethics Committee
4. Background:
the EQUIPT project
• Development of a decision-support aid to
inform decisions on tobacco control spending
• For use initially in five European countries –
Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain & UK
• To investigate the transferability of economic
evaluations beyond those five countries to
other Central and Eastern European countries
08 October 2015 4
5. Background:
aims of the mixed methods study
• To investigate the UK stakeholders’ needs for, and
views of, the proposed decision aid
• To conduct a quantitative analysis to provide the
overall picture of stakeholders’ perspectives and
also those of the UK stakeholders
• To collect qualitative data to help understand the
context for UK stakeholders
• Merging of results to provide enriched detail to
help understanding and enable creation of more
effective, country specific, bespoke decision aid.
08 October 2015 5
6. Method
08 October 2015 6
Quantitative & Qualitative data
collection via semi-structured face to
face interview
Quantitative data analysis Qualitative data analysis
Quantitative results Qualitative results
Merge results
Excel
SPSS
Coding
Excel
Interpretation
Double Data entry
Excel
Transcription of
audio files
7. Methods (1)
• Introduction of stakeholders to decision aid via
custom-built video
• Collection of views via questionnaire survey
• Countries: Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain
& UK
• Stakeholders (purposive sample):
– decision makers;
– purchasers of services/pharma products;
– professionals/service deliverers;
– evidence generators;
– advocates of health promotion
08 October 2015 7
8. Method (2):
Questionnaire survey
• Specifically developed by EQUIPT team
members from all 5 countries
• Initially developed in English and then
translated into the language of each country
for the survey
• Conducted generally face to face, otherwise
by Skype or telephone
• Conducted by native speaker in each country
08 October 2015 8
9. Method (3):
Questionnaire survey(contd)
Question types
Quantitative
• 7-point Likert scale
(1=strongly disagree,
7=strongly agree)
08 October 2015 9
Survey method
• Interviewee’s place of
work
• Face to face
• Paper based
• Audio recorded
Qualitative
• Open questions at the
end of each section
10. Method (4):
Questionnaire survey (contd)
Questions included:
• Basic knowledge in health economics
• Needs assessment
• Risk perception
• Advantages & disadvantages of the decision aid
• Social support
• Self-efficacy
• Intention to use the decision aid
• Availability of smoking cessation interventions
08 October 2015 10
11. Method (5):
Data collection
Quantitative
• Total for 5 countries & the UK
• Double data-entry – Excel
• Analysis – SPSS
Qualitative
• The UK
• Transcription of UK audio recordings - Word
• Transfer of relevant text extracts - Excel
08 October 2015 11
12. Results (1):
Quantitative - Stakeholders
Total (5 countries) UK
Number of stakeholders 93 14
Role of stakeholders
- Decision makers 29 9
- Purchasers of
services/pharma
7 2
-Professional/service
providers
18 1
- Evidence generators 15 1
- Advocates of health
promotion
14 1
Intenders 81% 79%
08 October 2015 12
EQUIPT WP1 stakeholder interview data
13. Results (2)
Q1a – Who would support you in using the Tobacco
ROI tool?
Quantitative (7-point Likert scale)
Total (5 countries) UK
Overall score: mean(SD) 5.26(1.98) 6.26(2.09)
Intenders: mean (SD) *5.53(0.92) 6.30(1.48)
Non-intenders (SD) *3.28(1.30) 6.08(1.08)
08 October 2015 13
*statistically significant difference
EQUIPT WP1 stakeholder interview data
14. Results (2)
Q1b – Who else would support you in using the
Tobacco ROI tool?
Qualitative (open question)
08 October 2015 14
Government organisations:
• NHS;
• NICE;
• local authority directors of public
health;
• local politicians;
• local authority elected members;
• Local Government Association ;
health service mangers;
• health & social, care board
Research:
• Wider research community;
Voluntary/advocacy:
• advocacy organisations;
• ASH;
• voluntary sector;
• Smoke Free board
Other:
• some employer organisations eg
CBI, Federations of Small
Businesses;
• the public;
• an education setting;
• patient interest groups;
• patient client organisations
15. Results (3)
Q2a – I would encounter resistance using the
Tobacco ROI tool
Quantitative (7-point Likert scale)
Total (5 countries) UK
Overall score: mean(SD) 2.93(2.08) 2.92(2.27)
Intenders: mean (SD) 2.85(2.06) 3.18(2.32)
Non-intenders (SD) 3.53(2.00) 1.50(0.71)
08 October 2015 15
EQUIPT WP1 stakeholder interview data
16. Results (3)
Q2b – Who else would not support you in using
the Tobacco ROI tool?
Qualitative (open question)
08 October 2015 16
Government organisation:
• local government associations;
• NHS beyond public health;
• people with other health priorities
eg obesity or alcohol;
• those with commissioning
priorities;
• some council members concerned
about the nanny state;
• some public health staff who are
more qualitatively stronger;
• possibly too much based on
numbers and costs for the public
health arena
Others:
• Retailers;
• licensed traders;
• smokers
17. Results (4)
Q3a – How confident are you about using
the Tobacco ROI tool?
Quantitative (7-point Likert scale)
Total (5 countries) UK
Overall score: mean(SD) 5.28(1.98) 5.42(1.53)
Intenders: mean (SD) 5.33(0.80) 5.48(1.47)
Non-intenders (SD) 5.11(0.71) 5.19(1.47)
08 October 2015 17
EQUIPT WP1 stakeholder interview data
18. Results (4)
Q3b– What other difficulties would using such a
tool have for you?
Qualitative (open question)
08 October 2015 18
Current model:
• details of how the modelling has
been put together;
• data entry;
• confidence in and access to the
service level data;
• mismatch of data;
• clarity about the underlying data
and processing;
Updating:
• certainty that the most up to
date data is used;
• inclusion of new intervention
effects;
• capacity for the inclusion of local
data;
• introduction of e-cigarettes;
Other:
• Time;
• relevance to my role;
• a contact;
• targeting of a subset of the
population
19. What would we have missed by not
using a mixed methods approach?
Quantitative only
• Specific details on support from
organisations/groups
• Some organisations have been listed as
providing support and also resistance
• Specific detail on concerns about data quality,
updating of the decision aid, etc.
08 October 2015 19
20. What would we have missed by not
using a mixed methods approach?
Qualitative only
• Opinions from a broader group
• Non-intenders (all 5 countries) had less support
• But no significant difference in the level of
resistance between intenders/non-intenders
• Overall and in the UK, stakeholders were
confident about using the decision aid
• No significant difference between intenders/non-
intenders
08 October 2015 20
21. Preliminary conclusions
Mixed methods analysis:
• Beneficial to understanding the variations in
contexts & needs of stakeholders within UK
• Provides comparisons of stakeholder views
across 5 countries
• Enables development of a more effective aid
• Provides valuable information for
transferability
08 October 2015 21
22. Next steps
• Further integration of UK data
• Potentially explore data for Germany, Hungary,
Netherlands and Spain using similar methods
• Combination of data from all 5 countries to
identify similarities and differences
• Use combined data to further inform
development of the decision aid
08 October 2015 22