The Organic Turn: Coping With Pandemic and Non-pandemic Challenges by Integrating Evidence-, Theory-, Experience-, and Context-Based Knowledge in Advising Health Policy

Pandemic Preparedness - A Proposal for a Research Infrastructure and its Functionalities for a Resilient Health Research System

Während einer Pandemie muss Resilienz nicht nur als Eigenschaft des Gesundheitssystems, sondern auch des umgebenden Forschungsumfelds betrachtet werden. Um verlässliche, evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen aus der Universitätsmedizin an die Gesundheitspolitik und die Entscheidungsträger bereitstellen zu können, müssen wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse schnell, integrativ und multidisziplinär generiert, synthetisiert und kommuniziert werden. Die Resilienz der öffentlichen Gesundheitssysteme und der Gesundheitsforschungssysteme sind somit eng verknüpft. Die Reaktion auf die SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland wurde jedoch durch das Fehlen einer adäquat vernetzten Gesundheitsforschungsinfrastruktur erschwert. Das Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM) wurde zu Beginn der Pandemie mit dem Ziel gegründet, Deutschland auf zukünftige Pandemien vorzubereiten. Ziel des Projektes "PREparedness and PAndemic REsponse in Deutschland (PREPARED)" ist es, ein ganzheitliches Konzept für eine kooperative, adaptierbare und nachhaltige Gesundheitsforschungsinfrastruktur innerhalb des NUM zu entwickeln und damit einen Beitrag zu einer umfassenden Pandemiebereitschaft zu leisten. Das vorgeschlagene Konzept dieser Infrastruktur vereint vier Kern- und drei Unterstützungsfunktionalitäten in vier verschiedenen Handlungsfeldern. Die Funktionalitäten gewährleisten im Falle zukünftiger Gesundheitskrisen ein effizientes Funktionieren des Gesundheitsforschungssystems und eine rasche Übertragung entsprechender Implikationen in andere Systeme. Die vier Handlungsfelder sind (a) Monitoring und Surveillance, (b) Synthese und Transfer, (c) Koordination und Organisation sowie (d) Kapazitäten und Ressourcen. Die sieben Funktionalitäten umfassen 1) eine Monitoring- und Surveillance-Einheit, 2) eine Pathogenkompetenz-Plattform, 3) Evidenzsynthese und vertrauenswürdige Empfehlungen, 4) eine Einheit zur regionalen Vernetzung und Implementierung, 5) eine Strategische Kommunikationseinheit, 6) Human Resources Management und 7) ein Rapid Reaction & Response (R3)-Cockpit. Die Governance wird als Kontroll- und Regulierungssystem eingerichtet, wobei agile Management-Methoden in interpandemischen Phasen trainiert werden, um die Reaktionsfähigkeit zu verbessern sowie die Eignung agiler Methoden für die wissenschaftliche Infrastruktur für die Pandemiebereitschaft zu untersuchen. Der Aufbau der PREPARED-Forschungsinfrastruktur muss vor der nächsten Pandemie erfolgen, da Training und regelmäßige Stresstests grundlegende Voraussetzungen für deren Funktionieren sind.During a pandemic, resilience must be considered not only as an attribute of the health care system, but also of the surrounding research environment. To provide reliable evidence-based advice from university medicine to health policy and decision makers, scientific evidence must be generated, synthesized and communicated in a rapid, integrative and multidisciplinary manner. The resilience of public health systems and the health research systems are thus closely linked. However, the response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany was hampered by the lack of an adequate health research infrastructure. The Network University Medicine (NUM) was founded at the beginning of the pandemic with the aim of preparing Germany for future pandemics. The aim of the project "PREparedness and PAndemic REsponse in Deutschland (PREPARED)" is to develop a holistic concept for a cooperative, adaptable and sustainable health research infrastructure within the NUM and thus contribute to pandemic preparedness and rapid response. The proposed concept for a health research infrastructure includes four core and three supporting functionalities in four different fields of action. The functionalities aim to ensure efficient functioning within the health research system and a rapid translation to other systems in future health crises. The four fields of action are (a) monitoring and surveillance, (b) synthesis and transfer, (c) coordination and organization, and (d) capacities and resources. The seven functionalities include 1) a monitoring and surveillance unit, 2) a pathogen competence platform, 3) evidence synthesis and trustworthy recommendations, 4) a regional networking and implementation unit, 5) a strategic communication unit, 6) human resources management, and 7) a rapid reaction and the response (R3)-cockpit. A governance will be established as a control and regulatory system for all structures and processes, testing agile management in non-pandemic times to improve responsiveness and flexibility and to investigate the suitability of the methods for scientific pandemic preparedness. The establishment of the PREPARED health research infrastructure must take place before the next pandemic, as training and regular stress tests are its fundamental prerequisites.

Shifting from Theoretical Best Evidence to Practical Best Evidence: an Approach to Overcome Structural Conservatism of Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Policy

There is disparity in the healthcare sector between the extent of innovation in medical products (e. g., drugs) and healthcare structures. The reason is not a lack of ideas, concepts, or (quasi-) experimental studies on structural innovations. Instead, we argue that the slow implementation of structural innovations has created this disparity partly because evidence-based medicine (EBM) instruments are well suited to evaluate product innovations but less suited to evaluate structural innovations. This article argues that the unintentional interplay between EBM, which has changed significantly over time to become primarily theoretical, on the one hand, and caution and inertia in health policy, on the other, has resulted in structural conservatism. Structural conservatism is present when healthcare structures persistently and essentially resist innovation. We interpret this phenomenon as an unintended consequence of deliberate EBM action. Therefore, we propose a new assessment framework to respond to structural innovations in healthcare, centered on the differentiation between the theoretical best (possible) evidence, the practical best (possible) evidence, and the best available evidence.

[Measures and Recommendations for Ensuring Adequate Inpatient Care Capacities for Pandemic Management within a Region: Results of a Hybrid Delphi Method]

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of the pandemic in spring 2020, inpatient healthcare has been under enormous burden, which is reflected especially in overworked staff, imprecise bed planning and/or data transfer. According to the recommendation of the Science Council, university clinics should play a controlling role in regional healthcare and act in conjunction with surrounding hospitals and practices.

METHODS

In September 2021, 31 representatives from 18 university hospitals were invited to a hybrid Delphi study with a total of 4 survey rounds to discuss criteria for effective inpatient care in a pandemic situation, which were extracted from previous expert interviews. Criteria that were classified as very important/relevant by≥75% of the participants in the first round of the survey (consensus definition) were then further summarized in 4 different small groups. In a third Delphi round, all participants came together again to discuss the results of the small group discussions. Subsequently, these were prioritized as Optional ("can"), Desirable ("should") or Necessary ("must") recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the invited clinical experts, 21 (67.7%) participated in at least one Delphi round. In an online survey (1st Delphi round), 233 criteria were agreed upon and reduced to 84 criteria for future pandemic management in four thematic small group discussions (2nd Delphi round) and divided into the small groups as follows: "Crisis Management and Crisis Plans" (n=20), "Human Resources Management and Internal Communication" (n=16), "Regional Integration and External Communication" (n=24) and "Capacity Management and Case & Care" (n=24). In the following group discussion (3rd Delphi round), the criteria were further modified and agreed upon by the experts, so that in the end result, there were 23 essential requirements and recommendations for effective inpatient care in a pandemic situation.

CONCLUSION

The results draw attention to key demands of clinical representatives, for example, comprehensive digitization, standardization of processes and better (supra) regional networking in order to be able to guarantee needs-based care even under pandemic conditions. The present consensus recommendations can serve as guidelines for future pandemic management in the inpatient care sector.

Reducing uncertainty in evidence-based health policy by integrating empirical and theoretical evidence: An EbM+theory approach

BACKGROUND

To reduce their decisional uncertainty, health policy decision-makers rely more often on experts or their intuition than on evidence-based knowledge, especially in times of urgency. However, this practice is unacceptable from an evidence-based medicine (EbM) perspective. Therefore, in fast-changing and complex situations, we need an approach that delivers recommendations that serve decision-makers' needs for urgent, sound and uncertainty-reducing decisions based on the principles of EbM.

AIMS

The aim of this paper is to propose an approach that serves this need by enriching EbM with theory.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We call this the EbM+theory approach, which integrates empirical and theoretical evidence in a context-sensitive way to reduce intervention and implementation uncertainty.

RESULTS

Within this framework, we propose two distinct roadmaps to decrease intervention and implementation uncertainty: one for simple and the other for complex interventions. As part of the roadmap, we present a three-step approach: applying theory (step 1), conducting mechanistic studies (EbM+; step 2) and conducting experiments (EbM; step 3).

DISCUSSION

This paper is a plea for integrating empirical and theoretical knowledge by combining EbM, EbM+ and theoretical knowledge in a common procedural framework that allows flexibility even in dynamic times. A further aim is to stimulate a discussion on using theories in health sciences, health policy, and implementation.

CONCLUSION

The main implications are that scientists and health politicians - the two main target groups of this paper-should receive more training in theoretical thinking; moreover, regulatory agencies like NICE may think about the usefulness of integrating elements of the EbM+theory approach into their considerations.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation.

METHODS

Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials.

RESULTS

The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

Prevention Aiming at Functioning-Describing Prevention in the Context of Rehabilitation: A Discussion Paper

The widely accepted model of prevention, including primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, focuses predominantly on diseases. The WHO provides a comprehensive model of health conceptualized on the basis of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). This paper develops a conceptual description of prevention aimed at functioning on the basis of the ICF model. Starting from the ICF-based conceptual descriptions of rehabilitation as a health strategy, a conceptual description of functioning prevention has been developed. Prevention aiming at functioning is the health strategy that applies approaches to avoid or reduce risks of impairing bodily functions and structures, activity limitations and participation restrictions; to strengthen the resources of the person; to optimize capacity and performance; to prevent impairments of bodily functions and structures; to prevent activity limitations and participation restrictions; to reduce contextual risk factors and barriers, including personal and environmental factors; to promote and strengthen contextual facilitators, with the goal of enabling people with impairments and people at risk of disability; and to maintain or improve the level of functioning in interactions with the environment. The proposed concept widens the scope of prevention to all aspects of functioning, including contextual factors.

Perspectives of (/memorandum for) systems thinking on COVID-19 pandemic and pathology

Is data-driven analysis sufficient for understanding the COVID-19 pandemic and for justifying public health regulations? In this paper, we argue that such analysis is insufficient. Rather what is needed is the identification and implementation of over-arching hypothesis-related and/or theory-based rationales to conduct effective SARS-CoV2/COVID-19 (Corona) research. To that end, we analyse and compare several published recommendations for conceptual and methodological frameworks in medical research (e.g., public health, preventive medicine and health promotion) to current research approaches in medical Corona research. Although there were several efforts published in the literature to develop integrative conceptual frameworks before the COVID-19 pandemic, such as social ecology for public health issues and systems thinking in health care, only a few attempts to utilize these concepts can be found in medical Corona research. For this reason, we propose nested and integrative systemic modelling approaches to understand Corona pandemic and Corona pathology. We conclude that institutional efforts for knowledge integration and systemic thinking, but also for integrated science, are urgently needed to avoid or mitigate future pandemics and to resolve infection pathology.

'Medical Corona Science': Philosophical and systemic issues: Re-thinking medicine? On the epistemology of Corona medicine

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

The disciplinary profile and the quality of production of knowledge on Corona pandemic is studied. This scientific field is called 'Medical Corona Science'.

METHODS

Criteria of analytical philosophy of science and science studies are systematically applied.

RESULTS

It is shown that mainly auxiliary medical disciplines such as virology and epidemiology but not clinical disciplines provide Corona knowledge. We see a laboratory-centered, technology- and data-driven science, largely ignoring clinical issues. Therefore we call these approaches "Medical Corona Science" (MCS). We see the need to adapt to features of a 'post-normal science', a 'mode 2 science' and of 'Integration and Implementation Science', especially as clinical knowledge must be integrated. There is also a severe lack of theoretical considerations that could help to frame the pandemic as a complex dynamic system.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest a deeper meta-scientific discussion of the epistemic value of MCS and propose the application of tools from systems science.