scholarly journals Ethical Considerations for Global Health Decision-Making: Justice-Enhanced Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Technologies for Trypanosoma brucei gambiense

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria W Merritt ◽  
C Simone Sutherland ◽  
Fabrizio Tediosi
Author(s):  
Julie M. Robillard ◽  
Emily Wight

Neuroscience communication is at a turning point, with tremendous opportunity for growth and democratization. The rise of the web and social media as platforms for dissemination of research findings and stakeholder engagement presents both unique opportunities and critical ethical considerations. Online- and mobile-based information and services for brain health may enhance the autonomy of users in health decision-making. However, nonadherence to ethical norms, such as informed consent and conflict of interest by digital content creators, may lead to harm. The challenges of communicating neuroscience in the digital era will require the rejection of the traditional top-down dissemination of research findings by the science community. Communicators must embrace participatory communication models, frame science in non-sensationalized, lay-friendly terms, improve the ethics of online resources and web users’ ability to assess the quality of information and source material, and educate scientists in the importance of transparency and public engagement.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Clark ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
M Dobbins

Abstract Issue It is well accepted that public health decision makers should use the best available research evidence in their decision-making process. However, research evidence alone is insufficient to inform public health decision making. Description of the problem As new challenges to public health emerge, there can be a paucity of high quality research evidence to inform decisions on new topics. Public health decision makers must combine various sources of evidence with their public health expertise to make evidence-informed decisions. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) has developed a model which combines research evidence with other critical sources of evidence that can help guide decision makers in evidence-informed decision making. Results The NCCMT's model for evidence-informed public health combines findings from research evidence with local data and context, community and political preferences and actions and evidence on available resources. The model has been widely used across Canada and worldwide, and has been integrated into many public health organizations' decision-making processes. The model is also used for teaching an evidence-informed public health approach in Masters of Public Health programs around the globe. The model provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making. Use of the model helps ensure that important research, contextual and preference information is sought and incorporated. Lessons Next steps for the model include development of a tool to facilitate synthesis of evidence across all four domains. Although Indigenous knowledges are relevant for public health decision making and should be considered as part of a complete assessment the current model does not capture Indigenous knowledges. Key messages Decision making in public health requires integrating the best available evidence, including research findings, local data and context, community and political preferences and available resources. The NCCMT’s model for evidence-informed public health provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making.


Author(s):  
Milton C. Weinstein

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method of economic evaluation that can be used to assess the efficiency with which health care technologies use limited resources to produce health outputs. However, inconsistencies in the way that such ratios are constructed often lead to misleading conclusions when CEAs are compared. Some of these inconsistencies, such as failure to discount or to calculate incremental ratios correctly, reflect analytical errors that, if corrected, would resolve the inconsistencies. Others reflect fundamental differences in the viewpoint of the analysis. The perspectives of different decision-making entities can properly lead to different items in the numerator and denominator of the cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio. Producers and consumers of CEA need to be more conscious of the perspectives of analysis, so that C/E comparisons from a given perspective are based upon a common understanding of the elements that are properly included.


2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 797-808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Fair ◽  
Lori Wiener ◽  
Sima Zadeh ◽  
Jamie Albright ◽  
Claude Ann Mellins ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document