There have been recent policy moves aimed at encouraging individuals to lead healthier lives. The Cabinet Office has set up a ‘nudge unit’ with health as one of its priorities and behavioural approaches have started to be integrated into health-related domestic policy in a number of areas. Behavioural research has shown that that the way the environment is constructed can shape a person's choices within it. Thus, it is hoped that, by using insights from such research, people can be nudged towards making decisions which are better for their health. This article outlines how nudges can be conceived of as part of an expanding arsenal of health-affecting regulatory tools being used by the Government and addresses some concerns which have been expressed regarding behavioural research-driven regulation and policy. In particular, it makes the case that, regardless of new regulatory and policy strategies, we cannot escape the myriad of influences which surround us. As such, we can view our health-affecting decisions as already being in some sense shaped and constructed. Further, it argues we may in fact have reason to prefer sets of health-affecting options which have been intentionally designed by the state, rather than those that stem from other sources or result from random processes. Even so, in closing, this article draws attention to the largely unanswered questions about how behavioural research translates into policy and regulatory initiatives.

BackgroundOver the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time.MethodsEight databases were searched for reviews published prior to 31st December 2008. Studies were selected if they evaluated a diagnostic test, measured performance, searched two or more databases, stated the search terms and inclusion criteria, and used a statistical method to summarise a test's performance. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and items of the PRISMA statement. To measure the change in the quality of reporting over time, PRISMA items for two periods of equal duration were compared.ResultsCompliance with the PRISMA statement was generally poor: none of the reviews completely adhered to all 27 checklist items. Of the 236 meta-analyses included following selection: only 2(1%) reported the study protocol; 59(25%) reported the searches used; 76(32%) reported the results of a risk of bias assessment; and 82(35%) reported the abstract as a structured summary. Only 11 studies were published before 2000. Thus, the impact of QUOROM on the quality of reporting was not evaluated. However, the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 (covering 93% of studies) were compared using relative risks (RR). There was an increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on five PRISMA items: eligibility criteria (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.27); risk of bias across studies (methods) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.44); study selection results (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.09); results of individual studies (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.72); risk of bias across studies (results) (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.25).ConclusionAlthough there has been an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic research, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting which future reviewers need to address if readers are to trust the validity of the reported findings.

BackgroundThe last decade has seen a number of methodological developments in meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies. However, it is unclear whether such developments have permeated the wider research community and on which applications they are being deployed. The objective was to assess the uptake and deployment of the main methodological developments in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, and identify the tests and target disorders most commonly evaluated by meta-analysis.MethodsDesign - systematic review. Data Sources - Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Global health, HMIC, and AMED were searched for studies published before 31st December 2008. Selection criteria - studies were included if they satisfied all of the following: evaluated a diagnostic test; measured test performance; searched two or more databases; stated search terms and inclusion criteria; used a statistical method to summarise performance. Data extraction - included the following data items: year; test; reference standard; target disorder; setting; statistical and quality methods.Results236 studies were included. Over the last 5 years the number of meta-analyses published has increased, but the uptake of new statistical methods lags behind. Pooling the sensitivity and specificity and using the SROC remain the preferred methods for analysis in 70% of studies, with the bivariate random effects and HSROC model being used in only 22% and 5% of studies respectively. In contrast, between 2006 and 2008 the QUADAS tool was used in 40% of studies. Broadly, radiological imaging was the most frequent category of tests analysed (36%), with cancer (22%) and infection (21%) being the most common categories of target disorder. Nearly 80% of tests analysed were those normally used in specialist settings.ConclusionAlthough quality assessment in meta-analyses has improved with the introduction of QUADAS, uptake of the newer statistical methods is still lagging behind. Furthermore, the focus of secondary research seems to be in evaluating specialist tests in specialist settings, in contrast to the more routine tests and settings encountered in the majority of clinical practice.

Israel's rates of organ donation have been one of the lowest among developed countries. An attempt to change this has led to the introduction of a pioneering new law, the Organ Transplant Act 2008, which came into effect in January 2010 and sets out principles underlying a new policy in relation to the allocation of organs for transplantation. According to this policy, a person can gain priority points by signing a donor card, making a nondirected organ donation during their lifetime, or as a result of a first-degree relative signing a donor card, or consenting to procurement of organs after death. In this opinion piece, we argue that although this approach merits attention for its innovative aspects and its potential benefits, it raises some ethical difficulties. In particular, we discuss some problems of justice and fairness inherent in the system, focusing on inequalities because of the (a) number of relatives one might have, (b) the type of living donation one makes, (c) the potential for strategic behavior, and (d) problems regarding the consent of family members.

No abstract