Enteric nervous system and intestinal epithelial regulation of the gut-brain axis.

The gut-brain axis describes a bidirectional interplay within the enteric environment between the intestinal epithelium, the mucosal immune system, and the microbiota with the enteric nervous system. This interplay provides a link between exogenous environmental stimuli such as nutrient sensing, and nervous system function, as well as a mechanism of feedback from cortical and sensory centers of the brain to enteric activities. The intestinal epithelium is one of the human body's largest sources of hormones and neurotransmitters, which have critical effects on neuronal function. The influence of the gut microbiota on these processes appears to be profound; yet to date, it has been insufficiently explored. Disruption of the intestinal microbiota is linked not only to diseases in the gut but also to brain symptomatology, including neurodegenerative and behavioral disorders (Parkinson disease, Alzheimer disease, autism, and anxiety and/or depression). In this review we discuss the cellular wiring of the gut-brain axis, with a particular focus on the epithelial and neuronal interaction, the evidence that has led to our current understanding of the intestinal role in neurologic function, and future directions of research to unravel this important interaction in both health and allergic disease.

Defects in NLRP6, autophagy and goblet cell homeostasis are associated with reduced duodenal CRH receptor 2 expression in patients with functional dyspepsia.

Functional dyspepsia (FD) affects up to 15% of the population and is characterised by recurring upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms occurring in the absence of clinically identifiable pathology. Psychological stress is a key factor associated with the onset of FD and locally acting hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis hormones have been implicated in GI motility and barrier dysfunction. Recent pre-clinical work has identified mechanistic pathways linking corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) with the innate epithelial immune protein NLRP6, an inflammasome that has been shown to regulate GI mucus secretion. We recruited twelve FD patients and twelve healthy individuals to examine whether dysregulation of hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis hormones and altered NLRP6 pathways were evident in the duodenal mucosa. Protein expression was assessed by immunoblot and immunohistochemistry in D2 duodenal biopsies. Plasma HPA axis hormones were assayed by ELISA and enteroid and colorectal cancer cell line cultures were used to verify function. FD patients exhibited reduced duodenal CRH-receptor 2, compared to non-GI disease controls, indicating a dysregulation of duodenal HPA signalling. The loss of CRH-receptor 2 correlated with reduced NLRP6 expression and autophagy function, processes critical for maintaining goblet cell homeostasis. In accordance, duodenal goblet cell numbers and mucin exocytosis was reduced in FD patients compared to controls. In vitro studies demonstrated that CRH could reduce NLRP6 in duodenal spheroids and promote mucus secretion in the HT29-MTX-E12 cell line. In conclusion, FD patients exhibit defects in the NLRP6-autophagy axis with decreased goblet cell function that may drive symptoms of disease. These features correlated with loss of CRH receptor 2 and may be driven by dysregulation of HPA signalling in the duodenum of FD patients.

Sharpening the focus: differentiating between focus groups for patient engagement vs. qualitative research.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patient engagement is an opportunity for people with experience of a health-related issue to contribute to research on that issue. The Canadian Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) highlights patient engagement as an important part of health research. Patient engagement, however, is a new concept for many researchers and research ethics boards, and it can be difficult to understand the differences between patient engagement activities and research activities. Focus groups are one example of how research and patient engagement activities are often confused.We distinguish these two types of activities by using different terms for each. We use focus groups to refer to research activities, and discussion groups to refer to patient engagement activities. In focus groups, researchers collect data by speaking with a group of research subjects about their experiences. Researchers use this information to answer research questions and share their findings in academic journals and gatherings. In patient engagement, discussion groups are a way for patients to help plan research projects. Their contributions are not treated as research data, but instead they help make decisions that shape the research process. We have found that using different language to refer to each type of activity has led to improved clarity in research planning and research ethics submissions. ABSTRACT: Background In patient-oriented research (POR), focus groups can be used as a method in both qualitative research and in patient engagement. Canadian health systems researchers and research ethics boards (REBs), however, are often unaware of the key differences to consider when using focus groups for these two distinct purposes. Furthermore, no one has clearly established how using focus groups for these two purposes should be differentiated in the context of Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), which emphasizes appropriate patient engagement as a fundamental component of POR. Body Researchers and staff in the Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit refer to focus groups in patient engagement as discussion groups for clarity, and have developed internal guidelines to encourage their appropriate use. In this paper, the guidelines comparing and contrasting the design and conduct of focus groups and of discussion groups is described, including: the theoretical framework for each; the need for research ethics board review approval; identifying participants; collecting and analyzing data; ensuring rigour; and disseminating results. Conclusion The MSSU guidelines address an important and current methodological challenge in patient-oriented research, which will benefit Canadian and international health systems researchers, patients, and institutional REBs.

A Qualitative Evaluation of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis in a Canadian Pediatric Tertiary Care Institution.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals in Canada are being asked by governments to improve efficiency and do more with fewer resources. Healthcare decision makers are thus driven to find better ways to manage budgets and deliver on their mission. Formal processes of priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) are one means to this end. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports an evaluation of one such approach, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), as applied at a children and women's tertiary care facility in Nova Scotia, Canada. A brief evaluation conducted immediately after the conclusion of the PBMA process was supplemented with a larger retrospective evaluation. METHODS: The retrospective evaluation included 26 face-to-face individual interviews with senior and middle managers who took part in PBMA. Interview transcripts were analyzed against a template consisting of 19 elements of structure, process, attitudes, and outcomes associated with high performance in PSRA. RESULTS: Respondents had a good experience with the implementation of PBMA, and considered it an improvement over past practice. Success was attributed to effective leadership, and substantial efforts to engage staff members. Understanding of economic and ethical principles of decision making was reportedly increased. Areas for improvement included ensuring that everyone participated in good faith, better communication of final results, and stronger follow-through to determine if anticipated changes and benefits in fact occurred. CONCLUSION: The evaluation framework employed here proved useful in assessing the quality of this resource allocation exercise. The results are directly useful to local decision makers, and the identified strengths and weaknesses are broadly consistent with those reported in studies of other organizations.

Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory.

BACKGROUND: In this article, we analyze one case instance of how proposals for change to the priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) processes at a Canadian healthcare institution reached the decision agenda of the organization's senior leadership. We adopt key concepts from an established policy studies framework - Kingdon's multiple streams theory - to inform our analysis. METHODS: Twenty-six individual interviews were conducted at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, NS, Canada. Participants were asked to reflect upon the reasons leading up to the implementation of a formal priority setting process - Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) - in the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Responses were analyzed qualitatively using Kingdon's model as a template. RESULTS: The introduction of PBMA can be understood as the opening of a policy window. A problem stream - defined as lack of broad engagement and information sharing across service lines in past practice - converged with a known policy solution, PBMA, which addressed the identified problems and was perceived as easy to use and with an evidence-base from past applications across Canada and elsewhere. Conditions in the political realm allowed for this intervention to proceed, but also constrained its potential outcomes. CONCLUSION: Understanding in a theoretically-informed way how change occurs in healthcare management practices can provide useful lessons to researchers and decision-makers whose aim is to help health systems achieve the most effective use of available financial resources.

Olly Olly Oxen Free (or Ally Ally in Free): Playing Hide and Seek in Allocating Resources for Child and Youth Health.

There are powerful arguments for increased investment in child and youth health. But the extent to which these benefits can be realized is shaped by health institutions' priority setting processes. We asked, "What are the unique features of a pediatric care setting that should influence choice and implementation of a formal priority setting and resource allocation process?" Based on multiple sources of data, we created a "made-for-child-health" lens containing three foci reflective of the distinct features of pediatric care settings: the diversity of child and youth populations, the challenges in measuring outcomes and the complexity of patient and public engagement.

Take charge of revenue opportunities.

Accurately capturing charges for supplies and procedures can provide opportunities for revenue enhancement. Hospitals need to adopt appropriate policies and monitor their effectiveness. Clinicians and financial managers need to work together to help make sure chargeable items are accessible to order entry personnel and are captured on the patient's bill.