Living invisible: HTLV-1-infected persons and the lack of care in public health

Introduction

Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) infection is intractable and endemic in many countries. Although a few individuals have severe symptoms, most patients remain asymptomatic throughout their lives and their infections may be unknown to many health professionals. HTLV-1 can be considered a neglected public health problem and there are not many studies specifically on patients'' needs and emotional experiences.

Objective

To better understand how women and men living with HTLV-1 experience the disease and what issues exist in their healthcare processes.

Methods

A qualitative study using participant observation and life story interview methods was conducted with 13 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, at the outpatient clinic of the Emilio Ribas Infectious Diseases Institute, in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Results and Discussion

The interviewees stated that HTLV-1 is a largely unknown infection to society and health professionals. Counseling is rare, but when it occurs, focuses on the low probability of developing HTLV-1 related diseases without adequately addressing the risk of infection transmission or reproductive decisions. The diagnosis of HTLV-1 can remain a stigmatized secret as patients deny their situations. As a consequence, the disease remains invisible and there are potentially negative implications for patient self-care and the identification of infected relatives. This perception seems to be shared by some health professionals who do not appear to understand the importance of preventing new infections.

Conclusions

Patients and medical staff referred that the main focus was the illness risk, but not the identification of infected relatives to prevent new infections. This biomedical model of care makes prevention difficult, contributes to the lack of care in public health for HTLV-1, and further perpetuates the infection among populations. Thus, HTLV-1 patients experience an “invisibility” of their complex demands and feel that their rights as citizens are ignored.     

China's Rural Public Health System Performance: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

In the past three years, the Government of China initiated health reform with rural public health system construction to achieve equal access to public health services for rural residents. The study assessed trends of public health services accessibility in rural China from 2008 to 2010, as well as the current situation about the China''s rural public health system performance.

Methods

The data were collected from a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2011, which used a multistage stratified random sampling method to select 12 counties and 118 villages from China. Three sets of indicators were chosen to measure the trends in access to coverage, equality and effectiveness of rural public health services. Data were disaggregated by provinces and by participants: hypertension patients, children, elderly and women. We examined the changes in equality across and within region.

Results

China''s rural public health system did well in safe drinking water, children vaccinations and women hospital delivery. But more hypertension patients with low income could not receive regular healthcare from primary health institutions than those with middle and high income. In 2010, hypertension treatment rate of Qinghai in Western China was just 53.22% which was much lower than that of Zhejiang in Eastern China (97.27%). Meanwhile, low performance was showed in effectiveness of rural public health services. The rate of effective treatment for controlling their blood pressure within normal range was just 39.7%.

Conclusions

The implementation of health reform since 2009 has led the public health development towards the right direction. Physical access to public health services had increased from 2008 to 2010. But, inter- and intra-regional inequalities in public health system coverage still exist. Strategies to improve the quality and equality of public health services in rural China need to be considered.     

How Do People Attribute Income-Related Inequalities in Health? A Cross-Sectional Study in Ontario,Canada

Context

Substantive equity-focused policy changes in Ontario, Canada have yet to be realized and may be limited by a lack of widespread public support. An understanding of how the public attributes inequalities can be informative for developing widespread support. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to examine how Ontarians attribute income-related health inequalities.

Methods

We conducted a telephone survey of 2,006 Ontarians using random digit dialing. The survey included thirteen questions relevant to the theme of attributions of income-related health inequalities, with each statement linked to a known social determinant of health. The statements were further categorized depending on whether the statement was framed around blaming the poor for health inequalities, the plight of the poor as a cause of health inequalities, or the privilege of the rich as a cause of health inequalities.

Results

There was high agreement for statements that attributed inequalities to differences between the rich and the poor in terms of employment, social status, income and food security, and conversely, the least agreement for statements that attributed inequalities to differences in terms of early childhood development, social exclusion, the social gradient and personal health practices and coping skills. Mean agreement was lower for the two statements that suggested blame for income-related health inequalities lies with the poor (43.1%) than for the three statements that attributed inequalities to the plight of the poor (58.3%) or the eight statements that attributed inequalities to the privilege of the rich (58.7%).

Discussion

A majority of this sample of Ontarians were willing to attribute inequalities to the social determinants of health, and were willing to accept messages that framed inequalities around the privilege of the rich or the plight of the poor. These findings will inform education campaigns, campaigns aimed at increasing public support for equity-focused public policy, and knowledge translation strategies.     

The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review

Background

The use of research evidence to underpin public health policy is strongly promoted. However, its implementation has not been straightforward. The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesise empirical evidence on the use of research evidence by public health decision makers in settings with universal health care systems.

Methods

To locate eligible studies, 13 bibliographic databases were screened, organisational websites were scanned, key informants were contacted and bibliographies of included studies were scrutinised. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Data were synthesised as a narrative review.

Findings

18 studies were included: 15 qualitative studies, and three surveys. Their methodological quality was mixed. They were set in a range of country and decision making settings. Study participants included 1063 public health decision makers, 72 researchers, and 174 with overlapping roles. Decision making processes varied widely between settings, and were viewed differently by key players. A range of research evidence was accessed. However, there was no reliable evidence on the extent of its use. Its impact was often indirect, competing with other influences. Barriers to the use of research evidence included: decision makers'' perceptions of research evidence; the gulf between researchers and decision makers; the culture of decision making; competing influences on decision making; and practical constraints. Suggested (but largely untested) ways of overcoming these barriers included: research targeted at the needs of decision makers; research clearly highlighting key messages; and capacity building. There was little evidence on the role of research evidence in decision making to reduce inequalities.

Conclusions

To more effectively implement research informed public health policy, action is required by decision makers and researchers to address the barriers identified in this systematic review. There is an urgent need for evidence to support the use of research evidence to inform public health decision making to reduce inequalities.     

Abnormal brain default-mode network functional connectivity in drug addicts

Background

The default mode network (DMN) is a set of brain regions that exhibit synchronized low frequency oscillations at resting-state, and is believed to be relevant to attention and self-monitoring. As the anterior cingulate cortex and hippocampus are impaired in drug addiction and meanwhile are parts of the DMN, the present study examined addiction-related alteration of functional connectivity of the DMN.

Methodology

Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data of chronic heroin users (14 males, age: 30.1±5.3 years, range from 22 to 39 years) and non-addicted controls (13 males, age: 29.8±7.2 years, range from 20 to 39 years) were investigated with independent component analysis to address their functional connectivity of the DMN.

Principal Findings

Compared with controls, heroin users showed increased functional connectivity in right hippocampus and decreased functional connectivity in right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and left caudate in the DMN.

Conclusions

These findings suggest drug addicts'' abnormal functional organization of the DMN, and are discussed as addiction-related abnormally increased memory processing but diminished cognitive control related to attention and self-monitoring, which may underlie the hypersensitivity toward drug related cues but weakened strength of cognitive control in the state of addiction.     

Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review

Background

A recent report from the British Nuffield Council on Bioethics associated ‘emerging biotechnologies’ with a threefold challenge: 1) uncertainty about outcomes, 2) diverse public views on the values and implications attached to biotechnologies and 3) the possibility of creating radical changes regarding societal relations and practices. To address these challenges, leading international institutions stress the need for public involvement activities (PIAs). The objective of this study was to assess the state of PIA reports in the field of biomedical research.

Methods

PIA reports were identified via a systematic literature search. Thematic text analysis was employed for data extraction.

Results

After filtering, 35 public consultation and 11 public participation studies were included in this review. Analysis and synthesis of all 46 PIA studies resulted in 6 distinguishable PIA objectives and 37 corresponding PIA methods. Reports of outcome translation and PIA evaluation were found in 9 and 10 studies respectively (20% and 22%). The paper presents qualitative details.

Discussion

The state of PIAs on biomedical research and innovation is characterized by a broad range of methods and awkward variation in the wording of objectives. Better comparability of PIAs might improve the translation of PIA findings into further policy development. PIA-specific reporting guidelines would help in this regard. The modest level of translation efforts is another pointer to the “deliberation to policy gap”. The results of this review could inform the design of new PIAs and future efforts to improve PIA comparability and outcome translation.     

Perspectives of clinician and biomedical scientists on interdisciplinary health research

Background

Interdisciplinary health research is a priority of many funding agencies. We surveyed clinician and biomedical scientists about their views on the value and funding of interdisciplinary health research.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with 31 biomedical and 30 clinician scientists. The scientists were selected from the 2000–2006 membership lists of peer-review committees of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We investigated respondents’ perspectives on the assumption that collaboration across disciplines adds value to health research. We also investigated their perspectives on funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research.

Results

The 61 respondents expressed a wide variety of perspectives on the value of interdisciplinary health research, ranging from full agreement (22) to complete disagreement (11) that it adds value; many presented qualified viewpoints (28). More than one-quarter viewed funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research as appropriate. Most (44) felt that the level of support was unwarranted. Arguments included the belief that current support leads to the creation of artificial teams and that a top-down process of imposing interdisciplinary structures on teams constrains scientists’ freedom. On both issues we found contrasting trends between the clinician and the biomedical scientists.

Interpretation

Despite having some positive views about the value of interdisciplinary research, scientists, especially biomedical scientists, expressed reservations about the growing support of interdisciplinary research.Collaboration between health disciplines is a new priority of research institutions and funding agencies. Many of these agencies have undergone restructuring and have developed programs specifically to intensify interdisciplinary research. In 2007, the US National Institutes of Health created 9 interdisciplinary research consortia “as a means of integrating aspects of different disciplines to address health challenges that have been resistant to traditional research approaches.”¹ In 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) was established with an express mandate “to forge a health research agenda across disciplines, sectors, and regions that embraces scientific opportunity and reflects the emerging health needs of Canadians, the evolution of the health care system and the information needs of health policy decision-makers.”²This change in priority has been attributed to 3 main factors: the need to answer complex health problems, the need to explore questions that are not confined to a single discipline and the need to provide effective solutions to societal problems.^3,4 Although the arguments advocating for interdisciplinary health research have evoked many kinds of promises, scientists undertaking collaborative research can also face many challenges. The past 10 years have seen a growing body of literature examining the impediments and facilitators to interdisciplinary collaboration.^3,5–14Despite this growing interest, little is known about scientists’ opinions on the prevalent assumption that working across disciplines adds value to health research. Moreover, little consideration has been given to how scientists perceive the growing support of interdisciplinary research by funding agencies. In a survey commissioned by the CIHR, 36% of funded researchers indicated that their collaboration across disciplines had increased as a result of the agency’s establishment.¹⁵ Whether this shift reflects researchers’ scientific interests or their attempts to secure funding by appealing to the agency’s policy of promoting interdisciplinary research is unknown.As part of a broad research program investigating the integration of social science in health research,¹⁶ we conducted this study to examine to what extent, and why, biomedical and clinician scientists are for or against the promotion of interdisciplinary research. We targeted these types of scientists because they were predominantly affected by the move toward interdisciplinary research that occurred after the creation of the CIHR.     

Will Dengue Vaccines Be Used in the Public Sector and if so,How? Findings from an 8-country Survey of Policymakers and Opinion Leaders

Background

A face-to-face survey of 158 policymakers and other influential professionals was conducted in eight dengue-endemic countries in Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam) and Latin America (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua) to provide an indication of the potential demand for dengue vaccination in endemic countries, and to anticipate their research and other requirements in order to make decisions about the introduction of dengue vaccines. The study took place in anticipation of the licensure of the first dengue vaccine in the next several years.

Methods/Principal Findings

Semi-structured interviews were conducted on an individual or small group basis with government health officials, research scientists, medical association officers, vaccine producers, local-level health authorities, and others considered to have a role in influencing decisions about dengue control and vaccines. Most informants across countries considered dengue a priority disease and expressed interest in the public sector use of dengue vaccines, with a major driver being the political pressure from the public and the medical community to control the disease. There was interest in a vaccine that protects children as young as possible and that can fit into existing childhood immunization schedules. Dengue vaccination in most countries surveyed will likely be targeted to high-risk areas and begin with routine immunization of infants and young children, followed by catch-up campaigns for older age groups, as funding permits. Key data requirements for decision-making were additional local dengue surveillance data, vaccine cost-effectiveness estimates, post-marketing safety surveillance data and, in some countries vaccine safety and immunogenicity data in the local population.

Conclusions/Significance

The lookout for the public sector use of dengue vaccines in the eight countries appears quite favorable. Major determinants of whether and when countries will introduce dengue vaccines include whether WHO recommends the vaccines, their price, the availability of external financing for lower income countries, and whether they can be incorporated into countries'' routine immunization schedules.     

“I Try and Smile,I Try and Be Cheery,I Try Not to Be Pushy. I Try to Say ‘I'm Here for Help’ but I Leave Feeling… Worried”: A Qualitative Study of Perceptions of Interactions with Health Professionals by Community-Based Older Adults with Chronic Pain

Background

Over 50% of community-dwelling older adults experience chronic pain, which threatens their quality of life. Of importance to their pain management is older people''s interaction with health professionals that, if unsatisfactory, may impair the outcome.

Aims

To add to the limited research specific to older people living with chronic pain in the community, we explored how they perceive their experiences of interacting with health professionals, seeking factors that might optimise these interactions.

Methods

Purposive sampling was used to recruit men and women >65 years with self-reported musculoskeletal chronic pain. Qualitative individual interviews and one group interview were undertaken with 23 participants. Data were transcribed verbatim and underwent Framework Analysis.

Results

Three themes were identified. Seeking help illustrates issues around why older people in the community may or may not seek help for chronic pain, and highlights the potential involvement of social comparison. Importance of diagnosis illustrates the desire for professional validation of their condition and an aversion to vague explanations based on the person''s age. Being listened to and being heard illustrates the importance of empathic communication and understanding expectations, with due respect for the person''s age.

Conclusions

In common with people of all ages, an effective partnership between an older person in pain and health professionals is essential if pain is to be reported, appropriately assessed and managed, because of the subjective nature of pain and its treatment responses. For older people with pain, perception about their age, by both parties in the partnership, is an additional factor that can unnecessarily interfere with the effectiveness of this partnership. Health professionals should engage with older adults to clarify their expectations about pain and its management, which may be influenced by perceptions about age; and to encourage expression of their concerns, which may also be affected by perceptions about age.     

United States Private-Sector Physicians and Pharmaceutical Contract Research: A Qualitative Study

Background

There have been dramatic increases over the past 20 years in the number of nonacademic, private-sector physicians who serve as principal investigators on US clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. However, there has been little research on the implications of these investigators'' role in clinical investigation. Our objective was to study private-sector clinics involved in US pharmaceutical clinical trials to understand the contract research arrangements supporting drug development, and specifically how private-sector physicians engaged in contract research describe their professional identities.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a qualitative study in 2003–2004 combining observation at 25 private-sector research organizations in the southwestern United States and 63 semi-structured interviews with physicians, research staff, and research participants at those clinics. We used grounded theory to analyze and interpret our data. The 11 private-sector physicians who participated in our study reported becoming principal investigators on industry clinical trials primarily because contract research provides an additional revenue stream. The physicians reported that they saw themselves as trial practitioners and as businesspeople rather than as scientists or researchers.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that in addition to having financial motivation to participate in contract research, these US private-sector physicians have a professional identity aligned with an industry-based approach to research ethics. The generalizability of these findings and whether they have changed in the intervening years should be addressed in future studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary.     

Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review

Background

There is increasing recognition that the development of evidence-informed health policy is not only a technical problem of knowledge exchange or translation, but also a political challenge. Yet, while political scientists have long considered the nature of political systems, the role of institutional structures, and the political contestation of policy issues as central to understanding policy decisions, these issues remain largely unexplored by scholars of evidence-informed policy making.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of empirical studies that examined the influence of key features of political systems and institutional mechanisms on evidence use, and contextual factors that may contribute to the politicisation of health evidence. Eligible studies were identified through searches of seven health and social sciences databases, websites of relevant organisations, the British Library database, and manual searches of academic journals. Relevant findings were extracted using a uniform data extraction tool and synthesised by narrative review.

Findings

56 studies were selected for inclusion. Relevant political and institutional aspects affecting the use of health evidence included the level of state centralisation and democratisation, the influence of external donors and organisations, the organisation and function of bureaucracies, and the framing of evidence in relation to social norms and values. However, our understanding of such influences remains piecemeal given the limited number of empirical analyses on this subject, the paucity of comparative works, and the limited consideration of political and institutional theory in these studies.

Conclusions

This review highlights the need for a more explicit engagement with the political and institutional factors affecting the use of health evidence in decision-making. A more nuanced understanding of evidence use in health policy making requires both additional empirical studies of evidence use, and an engagement with theories and approaches beyond the current remit of public health or knowledge utilisation studies.     

The Smartphone Addiction Scale: Development and Validation of a Short Version for Adolescents

Objective

This study was designed to investigate the revised and short version of the smartphone addiction scale and the proof of its validity in adolescents. In addition, it suggested cutting off the values by gender in order to determine smartphone addiction and elaborate the characteristics of smartphone usage in adolescents.

Method

A set of questionnaires were provided to a total of 540 selected participants from April to May of 2013. The participants consisted of 343 boys and 197 girls, and their average age was 14.5 years old. The content validity was performed on a selection of shortened items, while an internal-consistency test was conducted for the verification of its reliability. The concurrent validity was confirmed using SAS, SAPS and KS-scale. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was conducted to suggest cut-off.

Results

The 10 final questions were selected using content validity. The internal consistency and concurrent validity of SAS were verified with a Cronbach''s alpha of 0.911. The SAS-SV was significantly correlated with the SAS, SAPS and KS-scale. The SAS-SV scores of gender (p<.001) and self-evaluation of smartphone addiction (p<.001) showed significant difference. The ROC analysis results showed an area under a curve (AUC) value of 0.963(0.888–1.000), a cut-off value of 31, sensitivity value of 0.867 and specificity value of 0.893 in boys while an AUC value of 0.947(0.887–1.000), a cut-off value of 33, sensitivity value of 0.875, and a specificity value of 0.886 in girls.

Conclusions

The SAS-SV showed good reliability and validity for the assessment of smartphone addiction. The smartphone addiction scale short version, which was developed and validated in this study, could be used efficiently for the evaluation of smartphone addiction in community and research areas.     

Academic impact of a public electronic health database: bibliometric analysis of studies using the general practice research database

Background

Studies that use electronic health databases as research material are getting popular but the influence of a single electronic health database had not been well investigated yet. The United Kingdom''s General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is one of the few electronic health databases publicly available to academic researchers. This study analyzed studies that used GPRD to demonstrate the scientific production and academic impact by a single public health database.

Methodology and Findings

A total of 749 studies published between 1995 and 2009 with ‘General Practice Research Database’ as their topics, defined as GPRD studies, were extracted from Web of Science. By the end of 2009, the GPRD had attracted 1251 authors from 22 countries and been used extensively in 749 studies published in 193 journals across 58 study fields. Each GPRD study was cited 2.7 times by successive studies. Moreover, the total number of GPRD studies increased rapidly, and it is expected to reach 1500 by 2015, twice the number accumulated till the end of 2009. Since 17 of the most prolific authors (1.4% of all authors) contributed nearly half (47.9%) of GPRD studies, success in conducting GPRD studies may accumulate. The GPRD was used mainly in, but not limited to, the three study fields of “Pharmacology and Pharmacy”, “General and Internal Medicine”, and “Public, Environmental and Occupational Health”. The UK and United States were the two most active regions of GPRD studies. One-third of GRPD studies were internationally co-authored.

Conclusions

A public electronic health database such as the GPRD will promote scientific production in many ways. Data owners of electronic health databases at a national level should consider how to reduce access barriers and to make data more available for research.     

Patients' and practitioners' views of knee osteoarthritis and its management: a qualitative interview study

Purpose

To identify the views of patients and care providers regarding the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to reveal potential obstacles to improving health care strategies.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews of a stratified sample of 81 patients (59 women) and 29 practitioners (8 women, 11 general practitioners [GPs], 6 rheumatologists, 4 orthopedic surgeons, and 8 [4 GPs] delivering alternative medicine).

Results

Two main domains of patient views were identified: one about the patient–physician relationship and the other about treatments. Patients feel that their complaints are not taken seriously. They also feel that practitioners act as technicians, paying more attention to the knee than to the individual, and they consider that not enough time is spent on information and counseling. They have negative perceptions of drugs and a feeling of medical uncertainty about OA, which leads to less compliance with treatment and a switch to alternative medicine. Patients believe that knee OA is an inevitable illness associated with age, that not much can be done to modify its evolution, that treatments are of little help, and that practitioners have not much to propose. They express unrealistic fears about the impact of knee OA on daily and social life. Practitioners'' views differ from those of patients. Physicians emphasize the difficulty in elaborating treatment strategies and the need for a tool to help in treatment choice.

Conclusions

This qualitative study suggests several ways to improve the patient–practitioner relationship and the efficacy of treatment strategies, by increasing their acceptability and compliance. Providing adapted and formalized information to patients, adopting more global assessment and therapeutic approaches, and dealing more accurately with patients'' paradoxal representation of drug therapy are main factors of improvement that should be addressed.     

Screening Primary-Care Patients Forgoing Health Care for Economic Reasons

Background

Growing social inequities have made it important for general practitioners to verify if patients can afford treatment and procedures. Incorporating social conditions into clinical decision-making allows general practitioners to address mismatches between patients'' health-care needs and financial resources.

Objectives

Identify a screening question to, indirectly, rule out patients'' social risk of forgoing health care for economic reasons, and estimate prevalence of forgoing health care and the influence of physicians'' attitudes toward deprivation.

Design

Multicenter cross-sectional survey.

Participants

Forty-seven general practitioners working in the French–speaking part of Switzerland enrolled a random sample of patients attending their private practices.

Main Measures

Patients who had forgone health care were defined as those reporting a household member (including themselves) having forgone treatment for economic reasons during the previous 12 months, through a self-administered questionnaire. Patients were also asked about education and income levels, self-perceived social position, and deprivation levels.

Key Results

Overall, 2,026 patients were included in the analysis; 10.7% (CI95% 9.4–12.1) reported a member of their household to have forgone health care during the 12 previous months. The question “Did you have difficulties paying your household bills during the last 12 months” performed better in identifying patients at risk of forgoing health care than a combination of four objective measures of socio-economic status (gender, age, education level, and income) (R² = 0.184 vs. 0.083). This question effectively ruled out that patients had forgone health care, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Furthermore, for physicians who felt powerless in the face of deprivation, we observed an increase in the odds of patients forgoing health care of 1.5 times.

Conclusion

General practitioners should systematically evaluate the socio-economic status of their patients. Asking patients whether they experience any difficulties in paying their bills is an effective means of identifying patients who might forgo health care.     

Enabling Policy Planning and Innovation Management through Patent Information and Co-Authorship Network Analyses: A Study of Tuberculosis in Brazil

Introduction

New tools and approaches are necessary to facilitate public policy planning and foster the management of innovation in countries'' public health systems. To this end, an understanding of the integrated way in which the various actors who produce scientific knowledge and inventions in technological areas of interest operate, where they are located and how they relate to one another is of great relevance. Tuberculosis has been chosen as a model for the present study as it is a current challenge for Brazilian research and innovation.

Methodology

Publications about tuberculosis written by Brazilian authors were accessed from international databases, analyzed, processed with text searching tools and networks of coauthors were constructed and visualized. Patent applications about tuberculosis in Brazil were retrieved from the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) and the European Patent Office databases, through the use of International Patent Classification and keywords and then categorized and analyzed.

Results/Conclusions

Brazilian authorship of articles about tuberculosis jumped from 1% in 1995 to 5% in 2010. Article production and patent filings of national origin have been concentrated in public universities and research institutions while the participation of private industry in the filing of Brazilian patents has remained limited. The goals of national patenting efforts have still not been reached, as up to the present none of the applications filed have been granted a patent. The analysis of all this data about TB publishing and patents clearly demonstrates the importance of maintaining the continuity of Brazil''s production development policies as well as government support for infrastructure projects to be employed in transforming the potential of research. This policy, which already exists for the promotion of new products and processes that, in addition to bringing diverse economic benefits to the country, will also contribute to effective dealing with public health problems affecting Brazil and the World.     

Do Ask,Do Tell: High Levels of Acceptability by Patients of Routine Collection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Four Diverse American Community Health Centers

Background

The Institute of Medicine and The Joint Commission have recommended asking sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) questions in clinical settings and including such data in Electronic Health Records (EHRs). This is increasingly viewed as a critical step toward systematically documenting and addressing health disparities affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The U.S. government is currently considering whether to include SOGI data collection in the Stage 3 guidelines for the incentive program promoting meaningful use of EHR. However, some have questioned whether acceptable standard measures to collect SOGI data in clinical settings exist.

Methods

In order to better understand how a diverse group of patients would respond if SOGI questions were asked in primary care settings, 301 randomly selected patients receiving primary care at four health centers across the U.S. were asked SOGI questions and then asked follow-up questions. This sample was mainly heterosexual, racially diverse, and geographically and regionally broad.

Results

There was a strong consensus among patients surveyed about the importance of asking SOGI questions. Most of the LGBT respondents thought that the questions presented on the survey allowed them to accurately document their SOGI. Most respondents—heterosexual and LGBT—answered the questions, and said that they would answer such questions in the future. While there were some age-related differences, respondents of all ages overwhelmingly expressed support for asking SOGI questions and understood the importance of providers'' knowing their patients'' SOGI.

Conclusions

Given current deliberations within national health care regulatory bodies and the government''s increased attention to LGBT health disparities, the finding that patients can and will answer SOGI questions has important implications for public policy. This study provides evidence that integrating SOGI data collection into the meaningful use requirements is both acceptable to diverse samples of patients, including heterosexuals, and feasible.