Development of the national bariatric prioritization tool in Aotearoa New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is a proven effective method of reducing obesity and reversing or preventing obesity-related comorbidities. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool to assist with the prioritization of patients with obesity for bariatric surgery. The tool would meet the criteria for being evidence-based, fair, implementable and transparent. METHODS: The development of the tool involved a validated step-by-step process based on the consensus of clinical judgement of the New Zealand Ministry of Health working party. The process involved elicitation of criteria, clinical ranking of vignettes and creation of weightings using the 1000Minds® tool. The concurrent validity was tested by comparing tool rankings of vignettes to clinical judgement rankings. RESULTS: Four major criteria (impact on life, likelihood of achieving maximum benefit with respect to control of diabetes, duration of benefit and surgical risk) are used to characterize the need and potential to benefit. The impact on life criterion has the largest weighting (up to 44.3%). There was good concurrent validity with a correlation coefficient r = 0.67. CONCLUSION: The tool as presented is evidence-based, transparent and internally valid. The next step is to assess the predictive validity of the tool using real patient data to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool and determine what modifications may be required.

Australia's overseas development aid commitment to health through the sustainable development goals: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Australian Government, through a Senate-led Parliamentary Inquiry, sought the views of diverse stakeholders on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation both domestically and as part of Australia's Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) program. One hundred and sixty-four written submissions were received. The submissions offered perspective and guidance from a rich cross-section of those involved, and with keen interest in, Australia's ODA-SDG commitment. This article identifies and explores the submissions to that Inquiry which placed impetus on Australia's ODA-SDG and health and development nexus. It then compares how the synthesized views, concerns and priorities of selected Inquiry stakeholders align with and reflect the Australian Government's treatment of SDG 3 in its SDG Voluntary National Review (VNR), as well as with the final Inquiry report summarizing submission content. RESULTS: Four key themes were synthesized and drawn from the thirty-one stakeholder submissions included in our analysis. Disconnect was then found to exist between the selected stakeholder views and the Australian Government's SDG-VNR's treatment of SDG 3, as well as with the content of the Parliamentary Inquiry's final report with respect to the ODA-SDG and health and development nexus. CONCLUSIONS: We situate the findings of our analysis within the wider strategic context of the Australian Government's policy commitment to "step up" in the Pacific region. This research provides an insight into both multi-stakeholder and Federal Government views on ODA in the Indo-Pacific region, especially at a time when Australia's Pacific engagement has come to the forefront of both foreign and security policy. We conclude that the SDG agenda, including the SDG health and development agenda, could offer a unique vehicle for enabling a paradigm shift in the Australian Government's development approach toward the Pacific region and its diverse peoples. This potential is strongly reflected in stakeholder perspectives included in our analysis. However, study findings remind that the political determinants of health, and overlapping political determinants of SDG achievement, will be instrumental in the coming decade, and that stakeholders from different sectors need to be genuinely engaged in SDG-ODA policy-related decision-making and planning by governments in both developed and developing countries alike.

Do modern spectacles endanger surgeons? The Waikato Eye Protection Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite documented cases of infectious disease transmission to medical staff via conjunctival contamination and widespread recommendation of protective eyewear use during surgical procedures, a large number of surgeons rely on their prescription spectacles as sole eye protection. Modern fashion spectacles, being of increasingly slim design, may no longer be adequate in this role. METHODS: A survey was conducted among the surgeons at Waikato Hospital from December 7, 2004 to February 1, 2005, to assess current operating theater eyewear practices and attitudes. Those who wore prescription spectacles were asked to assume a standardized "operating position" from which anatomic measurements were obtained. These data were mathematically analyzed to determine the degree of palebral fissure protection conferred by their spectacles. RESULTS: Of 71 surgical practitioners surveyed, 45.1% required prescription lenses for operating, the mean spectacle age being 2.45 years; 84.5% had experienced prior periorbital blood splashes; 2.8% had previously contracted an illness attributed to such an event; 78.8% participants routinely used eye protection, but of the 27 requiring spectacles, 68.0% used these as their sole eye protection. Chief complaints about safety glasses and facial shields were of fogging, poor comfort, inability to wear spectacles underneath, and unavailability. Our model predicted that 100%, 92.6%, 77.8%, and 0% of our population were protected by their spectacles laterally, medially, inferiorly, and superiorly, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription spectacles of contemporary styling do not provide adequate protection against conjunctival blood splash injuries. Our model predicts the design adequacy of currently available purpose-designed protective eyewear, which should be used routinely.