Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime.

The challenge of novel and high cost health technologies has encouraged the growth of regulatory agencies such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations and Group Procurement Organizations (GPO). Yet the existence of several agencies in the same polycentric regulatory regime raises questions about whether and how their work can be coordinated. Drawing on a case study of GPOs and HTA agencies across four provinces in Canada, involving document review and key informant interviews (n = 44) conducted between 2013 and 2016, we explore the separate evolution of these agencies, emerging connections between them for non-drug technologies, and the organizational processes and evaluative judgments that underpin coordination efforts. HTA agencies and GPOs developed separately; connections emerged recently in three provinces and suggest four modes of coordination. One mode aligns most closely with that recommended by health economists and HTA practitioners, whereby HTA precedes procurement, with coverage decisions informing technology acquisition. The second mode is a version of the first, where procurement refers cases to HTA for coverage or technology management support; unlike the first, it recognizes procurement's evaluative strengths. Yet both the first and second modes focus on exceptional cases and will be infrequent. The third mode is more systemic, reflecting a generalized complementary of purpose as public agencies. HTA could support GPOs in contested technology acquisition efforts through timely and responsive input, while procurement could expand HTA's impact and inform HTA's growing interest in responsible innovation and environmental sustainability. The final mode is non-coordination, reflecting the potential for agencies to occupy quite distinct regulatory niches within the same regime. We conclude that consistency and convergence around a single model of resource allocation is not inevitable; nor is it necessary for coordinated effort. Thus, where differences in regulatory practice and epistemology persist, mutual accommodation and shared learning may prove most productive.

Interoperable Electronic Health Records and Health Information Exchanges: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: As the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use. RESULTS: We included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact. CONCLUSIONS: This review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.

How Procurement Judges The Value of Medical Technologies: A Review of Healthcare Tenders.

OBJECTIVES: Procurement's important role in healthcare decision making has encouraged criticism and calls for greater collaboration with health technology assessment (HTA), and necessitates detailed analysis of how procurement approaches the decision task. METHODS: We reviewed tender documents that solicit medical technologies for patient care in Canada, focusing on request for proposal (RFP) tenders that assess quality and cost, supplemented by a census of all tender types. We extracted data to assess (i) use of group purchasing organizations (GPOs) as buyers, (ii) evaluation criteria and rubrics, and (iii) contract terms, as indicators of supplier type and market conditions. RESULTS: GPOs were dominant buyers for RFPs (54/97) and all tender types (120/226), and RFPs were the most common tender (92/226), with few price-only tenders (11/226). Evaluation criteria for quality were technical, including clinical or material specifications, as well as vendor experience and qualifications; "total cost" was frequently referenced (83/97), but inconsistently used. The most common (47/97) evaluative rubric was summed scores, or summed scores after excluding those below a mandatory minimum (22/97), with majority weight (64.1 percent, 62.9 percent) assigned to quality criteria. Where specified, expected contract lengths with successful suppliers were high (mean, 3.93 years; average renewal, 2.14 years), and most buyers (37/42) expected to award to a single supplier. CONCLUSIONS: Procurement's evaluative approach is distinctive. While aiming to go beyond price in the acquisition of most medical technologies, it adopts a narrow approach to assessing quality and costs, but also attends to factors little considered by HTA, suggesting opportunities for mutual lesson learning.

Psychosocial Response to Uncertain Newborn Screening Results for Cystic Fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the psychosocial implications of diagnostic uncertainty that result from inconclusive results generated by newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF). STUDY DESIGN: Using a mixed methods prospective cohort study of children who received NBS for CF, we compared psychosocial outcomes of parents whose children who received persistently inconclusive results with those whose children received true positive or screen-negative results. RESULTS: Mothers of infants who received inconclusive results (n = 17), diagnoses of CF (n = 15), and screen-negative results (n = 411) were surveyed; 23 parent interviews were completed. Compared with mothers of infants with true positive/screen-negative results, mothers of infants with inconclusive results reported greater perceived uncertainty (P < .006) but no differences in anxiety or vulnerability (P > .05). Qualitatively, parents valued being connected to experts but struggled with the meaning of an uncertain diagnosis, worried about their infant's health-related vulnerability, and had mixed views about surveillance. CONCLUSION: Inconclusive CF NBS results were not associated with anxiety or vulnerability but led to health-related uncertainty and qualitative concerns. Findings should be considered alongside efforts to optimize protocols for CF screening and surveillance. Educational and psychosocial supports are warranted for these families.

A scoping review of online repositories of quality improvement projects, interventions and initiatives in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) is becoming an important focal point for health systems. There is increasing interest among health system stakeholders to learn from and share experiences on the use of QI methods and approaches in their work. Yet there are few easily accessible, online repositories dedicated to documenting QI activity. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of publicly available, web-based QI repositories to (i) identify current approaches to sharing information on QI practices; (ii) categorise these approaches based on hosting, scope and size, content acquisition and eligibility, content format and search, and evaluation and engagement characteristics; and (iii) review evaluations of the design, usefulness and impact of their online QI practice repositories. The search strategy consisted of traditional database and grey literature searches, as well as expert consultation, with the ultimate aim of identifying and describing QI repositories of practices undertaken in a healthcare context. RESULTS: We identified 13 QI repositories and found substantial variation across the five categories. The QI repositories used different terminology (eg, practices vs case studies) and approaches to content acquisition, and varied in terms of primary areas of focus. All provided some means for organising content according to categories or themes and most provided at least rudimentary keyword search functionality. Notably, none of the QI repositories included evaluations of their impact. DISCUSSION: With growing interest in sharing and spreading best practices and increasing reliance on QI as a key contributor to health system performance, the role of QI repositories is likely to expand. Designing future QI repositories based on knowledge of the range and type of features available is an important starting point for improving their usefulness and impact.

Parent Experience With False-Positive Newborn Screening Results for Cystic Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The risk of psychosocial harm in families of infants with false-positive (FP) newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results for cystic fibrosis (CF) is a longstanding concern. Whether well designed retrieval and confirmatory testing systems can mitigate risks remains unknown. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods cohort design, we obtained prospective self-report data from mothers of infants with FP CF NBS results 2 to 3 months after confirmatory testing at Ontario's largest follow-up center, and from a randomly selected control sample of mothers of screen negative infants from the same region. Mothers completed a questionnaire assessing experience and psychosocial response. A sample of mothers of FP infants completed qualitative interviews. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four mothers of FP infants (response rate, 55%) and 411 controls (response rate, 47%) completed questionnaires; 54 mothers of FP infants were interviewed. Selected psychosocial response measures did not detect psychosocial distress in newborns or 1 year later (P > .05). Mothers recalled distress during notification of the positive result and in the follow-up testing period related to fear of chronic illness, but valued the screening system of care in mitigating concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Although immediate distress was reported among mothers of FP infants, selected psychometric tools did not detect these concerns. The NBS center from which mothers were recruited minimizes delay between notification and confirmatory testing and ensures trained professionals are communicating results and facilitating follow-up. These factors may explain the presence of minimal psychosocial burden. The screening system reflected herein may be a model for NBS programs working to minimize FP-related psychosocial harm.

Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care.

Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.

Primary care role in expanded newborn screening: After the heel prick test.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of primary care providers in informing and supporting families who receive positive screening results. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians, pediatricians, and midwives involved in newborn care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Beliefs, practices, and barriers related to providing information to families who receive positive screening results for their newborns. RESULTS: A total of 819 providers participated (adjusted response rate of 60.9%). Of the respondents, 67.4% to 81.0% agreed that it was their responsibility to provide care to families of newborns who received positive screening results, and 64.2% to 84.8% agreed they should provide brochures or engage in general discussions about the identified conditions. Of the pediatricians, 67.3% endorsed having detailed discussions with families, but only 24.1% of family physicians and 27.6% of midwives endorsed this practice. All provider groups reported less involvement in information provision than they believed they should have. This discrepancy was most evident for family physicians: most stated that they should provide brochures (64.2%) or engage in general discussions (73.5%), but only a minority did so (15.3% and 27.7%, respectively). Family physicians reported insufficient time (42.2%), compensation (52.2%), and training (72.3%) to play this role, and only a minority agreed they were up to date (18.5%) or confident (16.5%) regarding newborn screening. CONCLUSION: Providers of primary newborn care see an information-provision role for themselves in caring for families who receive positive newborn screening results. Efforts to further define the scope of this role combined with efforts to mitigate existing barriers are warranted.

Does a duty of disclosure foster special treatment of genetic research participants?

The principle that research participants not receive enhanced care compared to non-participants may be challenged by a duty to disclose genetic research results, especially where care is otherwise inaccessible. Autism researchers' attitudes toward providing enhanced care to study participants were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive and multivariate analyses of survey data and qualitatively through thematic analysis of interview data. Approximately half of survey respondents (n = 168, RR = 44 %) agreed they should provide additional knowledge (52 %) or services (48 %) to study participants that may not be available to non-participants. Qualitatively (n = 23), respondents were motivated by the notion of reciprocity but highlighted tensions when research enables access to expertise and therapeutic resources that are otherwise difficult to obtain. For researchers, feeling obliged to report research results may be in conflict with the obligation to avoid special treatment of research participants; this may in turn threaten principles of voluntariness, autonomy, and justice.

Do canadian researchers and the lay public prioritize biomedical research outcomes equally? A choice experiment.

PURPOSE: To quantify and compare the preferences of researchers and laypeople in Canada regarding the outcomes of basic biomedical research. METHOD: In autumn 2010, the authors conducted a cross-sectional, national survey of basic biomedical researchers funded by Canada's national health research agency and a representative sample of Canadian citizens to assess preferences for research outcomes across five attributes using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes included advancing scientific knowledge (assessed by published papers); building research capacity (assessed by trainees); informing decisions in the health products industry (assessed by patents); targeting economic, health, or scientific priorities; and cost. The authors reduced a fractional factorial design (18 pairwise choices plus an opt-out option) to three blocks of six. They also computed part worth utilities, differences in predicted probabilities, and willingness-to-pay values using nested logit models. RESULTS: Of 3,260 potential researchers, 1,749 (53.65% response rate) completed the questionnaire, along with 1,002 citizens. Researchers and citizens prioritized high-quality scientific outcomes (papers, trainees) over other attributes. Both groups disvalued research targeted at economic priorities relative to health priorities. Researchers granted a premium to proposals targeting scientific priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Citizens and researchers fundamentally prioritized the same outcomes for basic biomedical research. Notably, they prioritized traditional scientific outcomes and disvalued the pursuit of economic returns. These findings have implications for how academic medicine assigns incentives and value to basic health research and how biomedical researchers and the public may jointly contribute to setting the future research agenda.

Citizens' values regarding research with stored samples from newborn screening in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Newborn screening (NBS) programs may store bloodspot samples and use them for secondary purposes. Recent public controversies and lawsuits over storage and secondary uses underscore the need to engage the public on these issues. We explored Canadian values regarding storage and use of NBS samples for various purposes and the forms of parental choice for anonymous research with NBS samples. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods, public engagement study comprising 8 focus groups (n = 60), an educational component, deliberative discussion, and pre- and post-questionnaires assessing knowledge and values toward storage and parental choice. RESULTS: Canadian citizens supported the storage of NBS samples for quality control, confirmatory diagnosis, and future anonymous research (>90%). There was broad support for use of NBS samples for anonymous research; however, opinions were split about the extent of parental decision-making. Support for a "routinized" approach rested on trust in authorities, lack of concern for harms, and an assertion that the population's interest took priority over the interests of individuals. Discomfort stemmed from distrust in authorities, concern for harms, and prioritizing individual interests, which supported more substantive parental choice. Consensus emerged regarding the need for greater transparency about the storage and secondary use of samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides novel insights into the values that underpin citizens' acceptance and discomfort with routine storage of NBS samples for research, and supports the need to develop well-designed methods of public education and civic discourse on the risks and benefits of the retention and secondary use of NBS samples.

Health-care providers' views on pursuing reproductive benefit through newborn screening: the case of sickle cell disorders.

Newborn screening (NBS) programs aim to identify affected infants before the onset of treatable disorders. Historically, benefits to the family and society were considered secondary to this clinical benefit; yet, recent discourse defending expanded NBS has argued that screening can in part be justified by secondary benefits, such as learning reproductive risk information to support family planning ('reproductive benefit'). Despite increased attention to these secondary benefits of NBS, stakeholders' values remain unknown. We report a mixed methods study that included an examination of providers' views toward the pursuit of reproductive risk information through NBS, using sickle cell disorder carrier status as an example. We surveyed a stratified random sample of 1615 providers in Ontario, and interviewed 42 providers across 7 disciplines. A majority endorsed the identification of reproductive risks as a goal of NBS (74-77%). Providers' dominant rationale was that knowledge of carrier status is an important and inherent benefit of NBS as it allows people to make reproductive choices, which is consistent with the goals of disease prevention. However, some challenged its appropriateness, questioning its logic, timing and impact on disease prevention. Others were sensitive to intruding on individuals' choices or children's independent rights. While the dominant view is consistent with discourse defending expanded NBS, it deviates from the traditional screening principles that underpin most public health interventions. Broader discussion of the balance between benefits to screened individuals and those to families and societies, in the context of public health programs, is needed.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received. METHODS: Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected. RESULTS: Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results. CONCLUSIONS: The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

Understanding sickle cell carrier status identified through newborn screening: a qualitative study.

The expansion of newborn screening (NBS) is increasing the generation of incidental results, notably carrier results. Although carrier status is generally understood to be clinically benign, concerns persist that parents may misunderstand its meaning, with deleterious effects on children and their families. Expansion of the NBS panel in Ontario, Canada in 2006 to include sickle cell disorders drew attention to the policy challenge of incidental carrier results. We conducted a study of consumer and provider attitudes to inform policy on disclosure. In this paper, we report the results of (i) qualitative interviews with health-care providers, advocates and parents of carrier infants and (ii) focus groups with new parents and individuals active with the sickle cell community. Lay and provider participants generally believed that carrier results were clinically insignificant. However, some uncertainty persisted among lay consumers in the form of conjecture or doubt. In addition, consumers and advocates who were most informed about the disease articulated insistent yet dissonant claims of clinical significance. Meanwhile, providers referenced research knowledge to offer an equivocal assessment of the possibility and significance of clinically symptomatic carrier status. We conclude that many interpretations of carrier status are in circulation, failing to fit neatly into the categories of 'clinically significant' or 'benign.' This creates challenges for communicating clearly with parents - challenges exacerbated by inconsistent messages from screening programs regarding the significance of sickle cell carrier status. Disclosure policy related to incidentally generated infant carrier results needs to account for these complex realities.

Informing parents about expanded newborn screening: influences on provider involvement.

OBJECTIVE: Expanded newborn screening (NBS) identifies some disorders for which clinical benefit is uncertain, as well as "incidental" findings (eg, carrier status), thus enhancing the need to inform parents about NBS before sample collection. METHODS: A self-complete survey was sent to a cross-sectional, stratified, random sample of 5 provider groups in Ontario (obstetricians, midwives, family physicians, pediatricians, and nurses). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the effects of core beliefs, perceived barriers, and demographic characteristics on the reported frequency of informing parents about NBS before sample collection. RESULTS: Virtually all of the midwives and almost half of the nurses reported discussing NBS with parents, whereas less than one sixth of the physicians did so. Providers who perceived a responsibility to inform parents were 3 times more likely to report doing so than those who did not perceive this responsibility (odds ratio: 2.9 [95% confidence interval: 2.1-4.1]). Those who lacked confidence to inform parents were 70% less likely to discuss NBS with parents compared with those who did not experience this cognitive barrier (odds ratio: 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]). Controlling for these covariates, family physicians and obstetricians were more likely than pediatricians to inform parents. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide guidance for capacity building among providers who are positioned to inform parents about NBS before sample collection. Our findings call for targeted educational interventions that consider patterns of provider practice related to prenatal and NBS care, seek to redress confidence limitations, and engage key provider groups in the importance of this professional responsibility.