What is the degree of innovation routinely implemented in Dutch radiotherapy centres? A multicentre cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To study the implementation of innovation activities in Dutch radiotherapy (RT) centres in a broad sense (product, technological, market and organizational innovations). METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 15 Dutch RT centres. A list of innovations implemented from 2011 to 2013 was drawn up for each centre using semi-structured interviews. These innovations were classified into innovation categories according to previously defined innovation indicators. Where applicable, each innovation was rated by each centre on the effort required to implement it and on its expected effects, to get an impression of how far reaching and radical the innovations were and to be able to compare the number of innovations between centres. RESULTS: The participating RT centres in the Netherlands implemented 12 innovations per year on average (range 5-25); this number was not significantly different for academic (n = 13) or non-academic centres (n = 10). Several centres were dealing with the same innovations at the same time. The average required effort and expected output did not differ significantly between product, technological and organizational innovation or between academic and non-academic centres. CONCLUSION: The number of innovations observed per centre varied across a large range, with a large overlap in terms of the type of innovations that were implemented. Registering innovations using the innovation indicators applied in our study would make it possible to improve collaboration between centres, e.g. with common training modules, to avoid duplication of work. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first of its kind investigating innovation implementation in RT in a broad sense.

Increase in Ticks and Lyme Borreliosis, Yet Research into Its Prevention on the Wane.

There is increased concern about the upward incidence of Lyme Borreliosis (LB) in Europe, the United States, Asia, and Northern Africa. However, effective measures to control tick populations or vaccines for LB are not yet available. Therefore, behavioral measures including avoidance of areas inhabited by ticks, performing routine body checks, using protective clothing, and the application of tick repellents are of great importance. Unfortunately, acceptance and uptake of many of these preventive behaviors are currently low. Hence, effective health education and public health communication aimed at promoting the uptake of preventive behaviors regarding tick bites and LB are urgently needed. In 2012, Mowbray recommended to conduct more research aimed at improving evidence-based insights regarding the promotion of preventive behaviors among the general public when exposed to the risk of LB. We fully agree with Mowbray and repeated her systematic review in May 2015 covering the period 1995-May 2015. Unfortunately, our review yielded exactly the same studies as already included in the review by Mowbray. Therefore, we again sound the alarm bell, just as Mowbray did a few years ago. As long as there are no effective measures for controlling tick populations and there is no vaccine available, we rely solely on health education and communication efforts to prevent tick bites and LB. We call on researchers and funders to prioritize research in the field of public health interventions for tick bites and LB because, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."