Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Reduce Overweight and Obesity in Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), which can lead to weight gain, is rising in middle-income countries (MICs). Taxing SSBs may help address this challenge. Systematic reviews focused on high-income countries indicate that taxing SSBs may reduce SSB consumption. Responsiveness to price changes may differ in MICs, where governments are considering the tax. To help inform their policy decisions, this review compiles evidence from MICs, assessing post-tax price increases (objective 1), changes in demand for SSBs and other products, overall and by socio-economic groups (objective 2), and effects on overweight and obesity prevalence (objective 3). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review on the effectiveness of SSB taxation in MICs (1990-2016) and identified nine studies from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Mexico, Peru, and South Africa. Estimates for own-price elasticity ranged from -0.6 to -1.2, and decreases in SSB consumption ranged from 5 to 39 kilojoules per person per day given a 10% increase in SSB prices. The review found that milk is a likely substitute, and foods prepared away from home, snacks, and candy are likely complements to SSBs. A quasi-experimental study and two modeling studies also found a negative relationship between SSB prices and obesity outcomes after accounting for substitution effects. Estimates are consistent despite variation in baseline obesity prevalence and per person per day consumption of SSBs across countries studied. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicates that taxing SSBs will increase the prices of SSBs, especially sugary soda, in markets with few producers. Taxing SSBs will also reduce net energy intake by enough to prevent further growth in obesity prevalence, but not to reduce population weight permanently. Additional research using better survey data and stronger study designs is needed to ascertain the long-term effectiveness of an SSB tax on obesity prevalence in MICs.

Factors affecting adoption and implementation of AHRQ health literacy tools in pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacies are key sources of medication information for patients, yet few effectively serve patients with low health literacy. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) supported the development of four health literacy tools for pharmacists to address this problem, and to help assess and improve pharmacies' health literacy practices. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the facilitators and barriers to the adoption and implementation of AHRQ's health literacy tools, particularly a tool to assess a pharmacy's health literacy practices. METHODS: We conducted a comparative, multiple-case study of eight pharmacies, guided by an adaptation of Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations model. Data were collected and triangulated through interviews, site visit observations, and the review of documents, and analyzed on the factors affecting pharmacies' adoption decisions and implementation of the tools. RESULTS: Factors important to pharmacies' decision to adopt the health literacy tools included awareness of health literacy; a culture of innovation; a change champion; the relative advantage and compatibility of the tools; and an invitation to utilize and receive support to use the tools. The barriers included a lack of leadership support, limited staff time, and a perception of the tools as complex with limited value. For implementation, the primary facilitators were buy-in from leadership, qualified staff, college-affiliated change champions, the adaptability and organization of the tool, and support. Barriers to implementation were limited leadership buy-in, prioritization of other activities, lack of qualified staff, and tool complexity. CONCLUSIONS: If pharmacists are provided tools that could ultimately improve their health literacy practices and patient-centered services; and the tools have a clear relative advantage, are simple as well adaptable, and the pharmacists are supported in their efforts - either by colleagues or by collaborating with colleges of pharmacy-then there could be important progress toward achieving the goals of the National Action Plan for Health Literacy.

Reduction in medication errors in hospitals due to adoption of computerized provider order entry systems.

OBJECTIVE: Medication errors in hospitals are common, expensive, and sometimes harmful to patients. This study's objective was to derive a nationally representative estimate of medication error reduction in hospitals attributable to electronic prescribing through computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review and applied random-effects meta-analytic techniques to derive a summary estimate of the effect of CPOE on medication errors. This pooled estimate was combined with data from the 2006 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Annual Survey, the 2007 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and the latter's 2008 Electronic Health Record Adoption Database supplement to estimate the percentage and absolute reduction in medication errors attributable to CPOE. RESULTS: Processing a prescription drug order through a CPOE system decreases the likelihood of error on that order by 48% (95% CI 41% to 55%). Given this effect size, and the degree of CPOE adoption and use in hospitals in 2008, we estimate a 12.5% reduction in medication errors, or ∼17.4 million medication errors averted in the USA in 1 year. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that CPOE can substantially reduce the frequency of medication errors in inpatient acute-care settings; however, it is unclear whether this translates into reduced harm for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite CPOE systems' effectiveness at preventing medication errors, adoption and use in US hospitals remain modest. Current policies to increase CPOE adoption and use will likely prevent millions of additional medication errors each year. Further research is needed to better characterize links to patient harm.

Disenrollment information and Medicare plan choice: is more information better?

To help Medicare beneficiaries and their intermediaries select the best health plan, CMS publicly reports comparative plan information. Using a laboratory version of Medicare Health Plan Compare that involved a simulated plan choice by 359 Medicare intermediaries, we experimentally investigated plan recommendations with and without disenrollment information and time constraints for viewing materials. Results indicated that the presence of disenrollment information reduced time spent on other measures of plan performance. It also reduced decision quality for less educated intermediaries. Designers and sponsors of consumer-oriented materials should recognize that more information is not always better.

Patients' preferences for technical versus interpersonal quality when selecting a primary care physician.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' use of and preferences for information about technical and interpersonal quality when using simulated, computerized health care report cards to select a primary care provider (PCP). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary data collected from 304 adult consumers living in Los Angeles County in January and February 2003. STUDY DESIGN/DATA COLLECTION: We constructed computerized report cards for seven pairs of hypothetical individual PCPs (two internal validity check pairs included). Participants selected the physician that they preferred. A questionnaire collected demographic information and assessed participant attitudes towards different sources of report card information. The relationship between patient characteristics and number of times the participant selected the physician who excelled in technical quality are estimated using an ordered logit model. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Ninety percent of the sample selected the dominant physician for both validity checks, indicating a level of attention to task comparable with prior studies. When presented with pairs of physicians who varied in technical and interpersonal quality, two-thirds of the sample (95 percent CI: 62, 72 percent) chose the physician who was higher in technical quality at least three out of five times (one-sample binomial test of proportion). Age, gender, and ethnicity were not significant predictors of choosing the physician who was higher in technical quality. CONCLUSIONS: These participants showed a strong preference for physicians of high technical quality when forced to make tradeoffs, but a substantial proportion of the sample preferred physicians of high interpersonal quality. Individual physician report cards should contain ample information in both domains to be most useful to patients.

Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines.

Preference for natural refers to the fact that in a number of domains, especially food, people prefer natural entities to those which have been produced with human intervention. Two studies with undergraduate students and representative American adults indicate that the preference for natural is substantial, and stronger for foods than for medicines. Although healthfulness is often given as a reason for preferring natural foods, even when healthfulness or effectiveness (for medicines) of the natural and artificial exemplars is specified as equivalent, the great majority of people who demonstrate a preference for natural continue to prefer natural. In addition, when the natural and artificial exemplars are specified to be chemically identical, a majority of people who prefer natural continue to prefer it. This suggests that a substantial part of the motivation for preferring natural is ideational (moral or aesthetic), as opposed to instrumental (healthiness/effectiveness or superior sensory properties).

Reporting about health care quality: a guide to the galaxy.

A review of research on the reporting of health care quality information and related fields in applied social and cognitive science led to identification of seven basic principles that should be followed when planning to report health care quality information to consumers or other audiences: (a) know the audience: who they are, what they care about, and what actions they can take; (b) identify constraints that limit what is feasible; (c) consider barriers and facilitators to achieving objectives; (d) identify specific behaviors to target for change, and prioritize objectives; (e) design a report that specifically incorporates priorities and reflects trade-offs; (f) develop a plan for promotion and dissemination from the beginning; and (g) build in ongoing testing and evaluation to identify successes and areas needing improvement. Case studies provide many examples of unsuccessful reporting efforts that might have succeeded had these guiding principles been followed.