Research priority setting aims to gain consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society. While general principles for setting health research priorities have been suggested, there has been no critical review of the different approaches used. This review aims to: (i) examine methods, models and frameworks used to set health research priorities; (ii) identify barriers and facilitators to priority setting processes; and (iii) determine the outcomes of priority setting processes in relation to their objectives and impact on policy and practice.Medline, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1990 to March 2012. A review of grey literature was also conducted. Priority setting exercises that aimed to develop population health and health services research priorities conducted in Australia, New Zealand, North America, Europe and the UK were included. Two authors extracted data from identified studies.Eleven diverse priority setting exercises across a range of health areas were identified. Strategies including calls for submission, stakeholder surveys, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, focus groups, roundtables, the Nominal Group and Delphi technique were used to generate research priorities. Nine priority setting exercises used a core steering or advisory group to oversee and supervise the priority setting process. None of the models conducted a systematic assessment of the outcomes of the priority setting processes, or assessed the impact of the generated priorities on policy or practice. A number of barriers and facilitators to undertaking research priority setting were identified.The methods used to undertake research priority setting should be selected based upon the context of the priority setting process and time and resource constraints. Ideally, priority setting should be overseen by a multi-disciplinary advisory group, involve a broad representation of stakeholders, utilise objective and clearly defined criteria for generating priorities, and be evaluated.

Background: Helping people achieve their preferred location of care is an important indicator of quality end-of-life (EOL) care. Using a sample of Australian medical oncology outpatients, this study examined (1) their preferred location of EOL care; (2) their perceived benefits and worries of receiving care in that location; (3) the percentage who had discussed preferences with their doctor and/or support person; and (4) whether they wanted their doctor to ask them where they wanted to die. Methods: Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer were approached between September 2015 and January 2016 in the waiting room of an Australian oncology outpatient clinic. Consenting participants completed a home-based pen-and-paper survey indicating preferred location of care, perceived benefits and worries of that location, whether they had discussed preferences with their doctors, and whether they were willing to be asked about their preferences. Results: A total of 203 patients returned the survey (47% of those eligible). Less than half preferred to be cared for at home (47%), 34% preferred a hospice/palliative care unit, and 19% preferred the hospital. Common benefits and worries associated with locations included perceived burden on others, familiarity of environment, availability of expert medical care, symptom management, and likelihood of having wishes respected. More patients had discussed preferences with their support persons (41%) than doctors (7%). Most wanted a doctor to ask them about preferred location of care (87%) and thought it was important to die in the location of their choice (93%). Conclusions: Patients were willing to have clinicians to ask them where they wanted to die, although few had discussed their preferences with doctors. Although home was the most preferred location for many patients, the overall variation suggests that clinicians should adopt a systematic approach to eliciting patient preferences. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16(1):35-41 doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.7025 Research into location of end-of-life (EOL) care offers insight into whether people are accessing resources that aim to improve quality of dying and support appropriate service planning. 1 A recent population-level study of patients with cancer in 14 countries reported that between 12% and 57% of patients die at home and between 22%

Background Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people experience dementia at a rate three to five times higher than the general Australian population. Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) have a critical role to play in recognising symptoms of cognitive impairment, facilitating timely diagnosis of dementia, and managing the impacts of dementia. Little is known about the barriers and enablers to Aboriginal people receiving a timely dementia diagnosis and appropriate care once diagnosed. This study aims to explore, from the perspective of healthcare providers in the ACCHS sector across urban, regional and remote communities, the barriers and enablers to the provision of dementia diagnosis and care. Methods A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with staff members working in the ACCHS sector. Aboriginal Health Workers, General Practitioners, nurses, practice or program managers, and Chief Executive Officers were eligible to participate. Consenting ACCHS staff completed a telephone interview administered by a trained interviewer. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Sixteen staff from 10 ACCHSs participated. Most participants perceived their communities had a limited understanding of dementia. Symptoms of dementia were usually noticed by the GP or another healthcare worker at the ACCHS who had an ongoing relationship with the person. Most participants reported that their service had established referral pathways with either hospital-based geriatricians, geriatricians located with aged care assessment teams, or specialists who visited communities periodically. Key enablers to high quality dementia care included the use of routine health assessments as a mechanism for diagnosis; relationships within communities to support diagnosis and care; community and family relationships; comprehensive and holistic care models; and the use of tailored visual resources to support care. Key barriers to high quality care included: denial and stigma; dementia being perceived as a low priority health condition; limited community awareness and understanding of dementia; lack of staff education and training about dementia; and numerous gaps in service delivery. Conclusions Substantially increased investments in supporting best-practice diagnosis and management of dementia in Aboriginal communities are required. ACCHSs have key strengths that should be drawn upon in developing solutions to identified barriers to care.

These data suggest that decreases in plasma free-VEGF levels are greater after treatment with aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab at 4 weeks. At 52 and 104 weeks, a greater decrease was observed in bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Results from 2 subgroups of participants who did not receive injections within at least 1 month and 2 months before collection suggest similar changes in VEGF levels after stopping injections. It is unknown whether VEGF levels return to normal as the drug is cleared from the system or whether the presence of the drug affects the assay's ability to accurately measure free VEGF. No significant associations between VEGF concentration and systemic factors were noted.

No abstract

Tools need to be created so that patients better understand the side effects after being treated with chemotherapy and what action they should take.

While the international community has acted forcefully since World War II to protect sites and objects of cultural or historic significance on Earth, little attention has been paid to the same kinds of sites and objects in space. There are important ethical and scholarly reasons for wanting to preserve sites and in situ objects in off-Earth contexts from destruction or commercial exploitation. Innovative space research equipment, such as spacecraft, satellites, and space stations, and the locations of historic missions, such as Tranquility Base, therefore deserve formal international recognition and protection. Appropriate models for developing a comprehensive protective scheme can be found in existing international protocols, especially the 1959 Antarctic Treaty (and later additions), the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property, the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, and the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Underwater Cultural Heritage. In addition, space agencies and professional organizations can mandate adequate and ethical planning for the post-operational phases of space missions to include arrangements for heritage protection.

Abstract