The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) provides advice on which new medicines should be accepted for routine use by the NHS in Scotland. To help increase the accessibility of the advice, SMC produces public information summaries, which have been published on the SMC website since 2018. We conducted an evaluation to investigate if the public summaries are achieving their purpose and subsequently help inform improvements from a user perspective. The objectives were to determine how the public summaries are being used; what users like and what could be improved; and if they have achieved a greater understanding of decisions.

The first stage of the evaluation involved surveying patient groups (organizations that represent the interests of patients, families and carers) to investigate how they use the public summaries. We then conducted workshops with patient groups and Public Partners (members of the public that volunteer with Healthcare Improvement Scotland) to gather perspectives on the content, language and layout of a selection of public summaries.

The survey responses (n = 14) illustrate that the public summaries are being used in a variety of ways. The majority (n = 10) of patient groups reported using the public summaries to help explain SMC decisions to the people they support.

The workshops highlighted that participants found the public summaries clear and helpful. In general, patient groups felt the level of detail and language used in the public summaries improved their understanding of SMC decisions compared to other sources of information, such as the press release or Detailed Advice Document.

There were a number of suggested improvements, including changing the layout (so the SMC decision appears first) and providing definitions for some technical terms. Where actionable, these recommendations have been implemented.

Working in partnership with patient groups and Public Partners has enabled SMC to further strengthen public summaries, and patient engagement more broadly. Improvements have ensured that SMC's decisions are communicated clearly, helping to increase accessibility.

The use of mobile applications in the treatment of health issues is more frequently becoming common practice. Apps are fast, versatile, and manageable tools that allow the empowerment of patients and professionals, and can reduce the possible stigmatization suffered by some patients, mainly in mental health. There are more than 325,000 health apps on the market, but their impact remains unclear. There are several initiatives to define how health applications should be assessed, however, all of them address only partial aspects of the evaluation. The theoretical frameworks existing to date highlight the need to develop new tools and methodologies to assess mobile applications whose objective is the management of specific pathologies.

The primary goal of the EvalDepApps project is to develop and pilot an assessment tool for mobile applications whose main objectives are the treatment, monitoring or social support of people suffering from depression. The project is inspired by the results and lessons learnt from a previous project, EVALAPPS, whose central aim was to develop a tool to assess health apps targeted toward the management of overweight and obesity. The first steps of the EvalDepApps project are: (i) to explore and characterize the current landscape of mobile applications available in the market to treat depression through a systematic appraisal, and (ii) to review the existing evidence about the effectiveness and safety of these applications through systematic research of the existing evidence.

Preliminary results show that all the depression management studies were by design based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions (n=17) and the main management tools included in the services (web or apps) are psychoeducation and coaching (14), together with self-monitoring and feedback messaging (13).

Moreover, although health apps seem to be an interesting strategy to treat depression, there are very few apps available on the markets (30) and the supporting evidence is very limited. This result uncovers a need for further systematic and clinically oriented validation and testing of such apps.

Registration of trial protocols has become increasingly important in recent years. In the context of systematic reviews, published trial protocols facilitate the identification of studies. Data recorded in trials registers requires standardization to assist with ease of identification, and availability of the most current protocol version. Searching sources of trial protocols, for example trials registers, has issues relating to currency, coverage, functionality and indexing. An empirical study was conducted in the context of a funded systematic review, to establish; the proportion of trial protocols retrievable, the most effective retrieval methods, barriers to retrieving protocols, and whether the most easily retrieved protocol copy remains the document of record.

In a systematic review of primary care interventions for medically unexplained symptoms, seventy-four trials were identified as potential included studies. To search for the seventy-four trial protocols, multiple sources and methods were utilized to identify the the differential coverage of sources and the relative efficiency of retrieval methods. Retrieval methods included searching trials registers and bibliographic databases, internet searching, checking journal websites and contacting authors.

Results included; (i) number of trial protocols that were referenced in the corresponding study publication(s), (ii) percentage of protocols indexed in each checked source, including MEDLINE and various trials registers, (iii) number of authors that responded to email contact, (iv) number of authors that provided a reference to, or copy of, the protocol. Information on when the trial protocol was published, funding sources, and trial registration, was also recorded.

Conclusions are made regarding the coverage of different sources of trial protocols. This will enable Information Specialists to prioritize retrieval methods for identifying trial protocols to inform future search methods guidance. The main barriers to retrieving protocols are discussed together with recommendations for future empirical studies.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and innovative technology offer opportunities for enhanced health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Populations living in low-income countries do not have access to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for COVID-19 and, thus, depend on the scarce resources of their health system. In this context, an automated screening system for COVID-19 based on AI for a telemedicine platform could be directed towards alleviating the current lack of trained radiologists who can interpret computed tomography images at countryside hospitals.

This descriptive study was carried out in Paraguay by the Telemedicine Unit of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare in collaboration with the Department of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging of the Health Science Research Institute and the University of the Basque Country. The utility of the screening system for COVID-19 was analyzed by dividing the results from two tailored AI systems implemented in 14 public hospitals into four likelihood levels for COVID-19.

Between March and October 2020, 911 COVID-19 diagnoses were performed in 14 regional hospitals (62.6% were men and 37.4% were women). The average age of the patients diagnosed with COVID-19 was 50.7 years; 59.1% were aged 19 to 59 years. The two AI systems used have different background information for detecting COVID-19. The most common findings were severe pneumonia and bilateral pneumonia with pleural effusions. The role of computed tomography was to find lesions and evaluate the effects of treatment. The sensitivity of AI for detecting COVID-19 was 93%.

AI technology could help in developing a screening system for COVID-19 and other respiratory pathologies. It could speed up medical imaging diagnosis at regional hospitals for patients with suspected infection during the COVID-19 pandemic and rationalize scarce RT-PCR and specialized human resources in low-income countries. These results must be contextualized with the local or regional epidemiological profile before widespread implementation.

El reciente desarrollo de marcos de valor responde a una demanda por hacer más explícito e inclusivo el proceso de toma de decisiones sobre asignación de recursos sanitarios. El objetivo del Foro de Políticas en Latino América 2018 de Health Technology Assessment International fue explorar las experiencias internacionales y discutir la potencial aplicación de marcos de valor en la región.

Este manuscrito está basado en un documento base y en las presentaciones y discusiones mantenidas por los miembros del Foro (43 participantes, 12 países) durante el Foro del 2018.

Los participantes coincidieron en que un proceso de evaluación y toma de decisión basado en marcos de valor más inclusivos y abarcativos podría mejorar la efectividad, eficiencia, sustentabilidad y equidad; promover la transparencia y una evaluación más completa de las tecnologías, mejorar la rendición de cuentas de las decisiones y la participación de actores. Se identificaron como criterios esenciales para ser incluidos en marcos de valor en la región a la carga de enfermedad y severidad de la condición, la efectividad y seguridad de la tecnología, la calidad de la evidencia, la costo-efectividad e impacto presupuestario. Los potenciales desafíos para su implementación identificados incluyeron la escasez de recursos humanos y las demoras en el proceso de evaluación que se podrían producir.

Los participantes remarcaron que los próximos pasos deberían ser identificar procesos y metodologías apropiadas, adaptadas al contexto de cada país, para facilitar la aplicación de marcos de valor y mejorar el vínculo entre la evaluación y la toma de decisiones.

The elevated costs with biologic products threaten the sustainability of health services, and, therefore, the access to these medicines in the perspectives of user, health professional, health manager and system. The entry of biosimilar products in the market could be an option to subsidize the search for solutions to those problems.

We conducted a rapid review using the databases Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library and CRD. The eligibility criteria were HTAs, systematic reviews and cross-sectional studies.

Literature search retrieved 640 registries and, after duplicate removal, screening of titles and abstracts and full text reading, nine cross-sectional studies were selected. From a user's point of view, the following barriers were identified: lack of knowledge about the medicine, distance between the place of living and the health service (especially in the rural area), long waiting periods for service, passivity in regard to treatment. From a health professional's point of view the barriers were: acceptability of the expert in regard to treatment, interchangeability and substitution, the perception of lack of data showing efficacy and safety. Finally, from the payer's (or health manager) point of view, the barriers were: high cost of medicine, problems with reimbursement and bureaucracy. We did not retrieve any barriers from the health system's perspective from the selected studies.

The entry of biosimilar medicines in the market can induce competition and, therefore, reduce prices of biologic treatments. It is necessary to search for potential solutions to the access barriers identified in this rapid review.

Digital medication health service (DMHS) platforms are increasingly used by pharmaceutical companies to provide direct medication health services through digital methods like apps, hotlines, and web services, etcetera. However, the implications of such platforms in supporting health technology assessment (HTA) are rarely discussed in the literature. This presentation sets out the opportunities for using the DMHS platforms of pharmaceutical companies as real-world data sources for HTA.

A mixed-method qualitative study combining literature review and case study was conducted. Relevant literature was identified by searching the Web of Science and PubMed databases. A case study on current DMHS platforms in China was carried out using an inductive approach to identify the key elements emerging from these platforms.

DMHS platforms of pharmaceutical companies can identify multiple attributes of medication information needs regarding medical products, including effectiveness, safety, and economic factors. The platforms can respond to different stakeholders, including patients and their carers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etcetera. As one kind of interactive process, DMHS platforms can provide further services, including patient education, consultation, and evaluation, follow-up visits, chronic disease management, promotion of the rational use of drugs, therapeutic drug monitoring, and adverse drug reaction surveillance and reporting.

The DMHS platforms of pharmaceutical companies provide a unique and valuable real-world data source for HTA. These types of self-reported outcomes have not gained enough attention in HTA. Collective efforts by HTA agencies and pharmaceutical companies are needed to set strategies for integrating DMHS platforms into HTA.

Limited public money is available for funding research and the majority of clinical research undertaken is funded by industry. Mechanisms to regulate conflicts of interest within the research process have been implemented. However, these policies by themselves do not protect against potential sponsorship bias that would affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of RCTs.

This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of RCTs included in meta-analyses of physical therapy (PT) area were identified. Data extraction including assessments of appropriate influence of funders was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to sponsorship biases and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach.

We analysed 393 trials included in forty-three meta-analyses. The most common sources of sponsorship for this sample of PT trials were government (n = 205, 52.16 percent) followed by academic (n = 44, 11.2 percent), and industry (n = 39, 10 percent). The funding was not declared in a high percentage of the trials (n = 85, 22 percent). The influence of the trial sponsor was assessed as being appropriate in 246 trials (63 percent) and considered inappropriate/unclear in 147 (37 percent) of them. There was a significant difference in effects estimates between trials with appropriate and inappropriate influence of funders (ES= 0.15; 95% CI -0.03, 0.33;). Trials with inappropriate/unclear influence of funders tended to have on average a larger effect size than those with appropriate influence of funding

Treatment effect size estimates were 0.15 larger in trials with lack of appropriate influence of funders. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analyses based on appropriateness of influence of sponsorship in included trials.