Search results for: bibliographic citation

Authors: Tessa Heeren

Abstract:

The following proposal pertains to the complex process of successfully implementing health policies that are based on public health research. A systematic review was conducted by myself and faculty at the Cluj School of Public Health in Romania. The reviewed articles covered a wide range of topics, such as barriers and facilitators to multi-sector collaboration, differences in professional cultures, and systemic obstacles. The reviewed literature identified communication, collaboration, user-friendly dissemination, and documentation of processes in the execution of applied research as important themes for the promotion of evidence in the public health decision-making process. This proposal fits into the Academy Health National Health Policy conference because it identifies and examines differences between the worlds of research and politics. Implications and new insights for federal and/or state health policy: Recommendations made based on the findings of this research include using politically relevant levers to promote research (e.g. campaign donors, lobbies, established parties, etc.), modernizing dissemination practices, and reforms in which the involvement of external stakeholders is facilitated without relying on invitations from individual policy makers. Description of how evidence and/or data was or could be used: The reviewed articles illustrated shortcomings and areas for improvement in policy research processes and collaborative development. In general, the evidence base in the field of integrating research into policy lacks critical details of the actual process of developing evidence based policy. This shortcoming in logistical details creates a barrier for potential replication of collaborative efforts described in studies. Potential impact of the presentation for health policy: The reviewed articles focused on identifying barriers and facilitators that arise in cross sector collaboration, rather than the process and impact of integrating evidence into policy. In addition, the type of evidence used in policy was rarely specified, and widely varying interpretations of the definition of evidence complicated overall conclusions. Background: Using evidence to inform public health decision making processes has been proven effective; however, it is not clear how research is applied in practice. Aims: The objectives of the current study were to assess the extent to which evidence is used in public health decision-making process. Methods: To identify eligible studies, seven bibliographic databases, specifically, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, Health and Safety Science Abstract were screened (search dates: 1990 – September 2015); a general internet search was also conducted. Primary research and systematic reviews about the use of evidence in public health policy in Europe were included. The studies considered for inclusion were assessed by two reviewers, along with extracted data on objective, methods, population, and results. Data were synthetized as a narrative review. Results: Of 2564 articles initially identified, 2525 titles and abstracts were screened. Ultimately, 30 articles fit the research criteria by describing how or why evidence is used/not used in public health policy. The majority of included studies involved interviews and surveys (N=17). Study participants were policy makers, health care professionals, researchers, community members, service users, experts in public health.

Keywords: cross-sector, dissemination, health policy, policy implementation

Procedia PDF Downloads 206

Authors: Hilary Modir, Kyle Dutton, Michelle Swab, Shabnam Asghari

Abstract:

Since its emergence, the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 have been documented in the literature. However, the majority are case reports with significant limitations in appraisal quality, thus leaving the role of dermatological manifestations of COVID-19 erroneously underexplored. The primary aim of this review was to systematically examine clinical patterns of dermatological manifestations as reported in the literature. This study was designed as a systematic review of case reports. The inclusion criteria consisted of all published reports and articles regarding COVID-19 in English, from September 1st, 2019, until June 22nd, 2020. The population consisted of confirmed cases of COVID-19 with associated cutaneous signs and symptoms. Exclusion criteria included research in planning stages, protocols, book reviews, news articles, review studies, and policy analyses. With the collaboration of a librarian, a search strategy was created consisting of a mixture of keyword terms and controlled vocabulary. Electronic databases searched were MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, PsycINFO, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, Prospero, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, U.S. Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, AAD Registry, OSF preprints, SSRN, MedRxiV and BioRxiV. The study selection featured an initial pre-screening of titles and abstracts by one independent reviewer. Results were verified by re-examining a random sample of 1% of excluded articles. Eligible studies progressed for full-text review by two calibrated independent reviewers. Covidence was used to store and extract data, such as citation information and findings pertaining to COVID-19 and cutaneous signs and symptoms. Data analysis and summarization methodology reflect the framework proposed by PRISMA and recommendations set out by Cochrane and Joanna Brigg’s Institute for conducting systematic reviews. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s level of evidence was used to appraise the quality of individual studies. The literature search revealed a total of 1221 articles. After the abstract and full-text screening, only 95 studies met the eligibility criteria, proceeding to data extraction. Studies were divided into 58% case reports and 42% series. A total of 833 manifestations were reported in 723 confirmed COVID-19 cases. The most frequent lesions were 23% maculopapular, 15% urticarial and 13% pseudo-chilblains, with 46% of lesions reporting pruritus, 16% erythema, 14% pain, 12% burning sensation, and 4% edema. The most common lesion locations were 20% trunk, 19.5% lower limbs, and 17.7% upper limbs. The time to resolution of lesions was between one and twenty-one days. In conclusion, over half of the reported cutaneous presentations in COVID-19 positive patients were maculopapular, urticarial and pseudo-chilblains, with the majority of lesions distributed to the extremities and trunk. As this review’s sample size only contained COVID-19 confirmed cases with skin presentations, it becomes difficult to deduce the direct relationship between skin findings and COVID-19. However, it can be correlated that acute onset of skin lesions, such as chilblains-like, may be associated with or may warrant consideration of COVID-19 as part of the differential diagnosis.

Keywords: COVID-19, cutaneous manifestations, cutaneous signs, general dermatology, medical dermatology, Sars-Cov-2, skin and infectious disease, skin findings, skin manifestations

Procedia PDF Downloads 165