Thursday, 9 July 2020
New HEDS Discussion Paper - Development of the Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel (MiMiC-Bowel), an Individual Patient Simulation Model for Investigation of the Cost-effectiveness of Personalised Screening and Surveillance Strategies
Monday, 6 July 2020
Tuesday, 30 June 2020
All researchers, health care practitioners/clinicians and PhD students involved in PROMs research are invited to submit abstracts for oral and poster presentations. Calls for papers will open in autumn 2020.
Wednesday, 24 June 2020
Making 3D landscape and city models with Aerialod
First I'll show you some new visuals I created in Aerialod, then I'll
So, let's begin with the highest peaks in Scotland, England and
|I did this using a 5m DTM (not open data)|
|See the curved horizon? - that's the SG lens setting|
|A very nice looking mountain|
|I've added Glen Etive because it's so lovely|
But of course we don't always have to map things like mountains. If we have good quality Lidar data, as we do in much of the UK, we can create quite interesting cityscapes, as you can see below.
|Here's a little Salford Sunset to get things rolling|
|A Newcastle-Gateshead vista, along the Tyne|
The example data I've put in the shared folder is of Cheddar Gorge in the south west of England, and it looks like this once you fiddle with a few settings.
|Sun low in the sky, dusky effect|
|I've tweaked some of the settings here to make it glow|
|Different angle, light filtering through the gorge|
|A foggier, early morning effect|
So how do you do all this?
If you've not used Aerialod before then you'll really need to read my first blog post on it in order to get to grips with the controls, etc. Once you've done this, look closely at the screenshots below as the settings in them show you how I achieved the effects in the four images above. Study them closely and then see further below for a short slide set with more annotation on the settings options in Aerialod.
Take some time to Google some of the different terms and they'll begin to make a lot more sense - e.g. the Rayleigh setting refers to Rayleigh scattering, which relates to the blue colour we see in the sky. So, using the default Rayleigh setting in Aerialod you'll see a blue sky but if you reduce the number to, say 10, it will become more blue and if you put it up to 90, for example, it will look a lot less blue and instead more like a lovely glowing orange/yellow sunset.
|This relates to the first Cheddar Gorge image|
|This also relates to the first image|
|Notice the glowing light at the corners here|
|This is the fourth Cheddar Gorge image above|
In addition to reading this, it's a good idea to check out the @ephtracy Twitter account for other tips, plus the #aerialod hashtag on Twitter. There are also now a few good video tutorials online, including this one by Steven Scott.
Here is the small set of slides, with annotated screenshots, that I made in order to help you get to grips with the settings a little better - direct link here.
|I've put everything in here|
|This is done by keeping the 'Map' option on in Grid settings|
|This works if you want to Minecraft your map|
|The Western Highlands of Scotland|
|This city is home to two football teams, as you can see here|
|In this example, I've added some fog|
Tuesday, 23 June 2020
EEPRU Publication: Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England
Economic analysis of the prevalence and clinical and economic burden of medication error in England
This paper's objective is to provide national estimates of the number and clinical and economic burden of medication errors in the National Health Service (NHS) in England.
Monday, 22 June 2020
Tuesday, 16 June 2020
Our graduates go on to a range of careers with healthcare, the pharmaceutical industry, NGOs, and healthcare consulting, having developed both a sound theoretical knowledge and highly practical applied skills which are highly valued by employers.
Thursday, 11 June 2020
Monday, 8 June 2020
This blog post originated in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The published version is available at: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/05/29/evidence-based-injustices/
In healthcare, and many other areas of endeavour, policy and guidance claims legitimacy on the basis that it is evidence-based and follows the best scientific advice. Expert advisory committees collect, consider and interpret extensive, and often complex, scientific evidence. As we have seen in the diverse responses to Covid-19, evidence and expertise does not necessarily lead to purely ‘objective’ responses or unequivocal decisions. Instead, it may provide a veneer of scientific authority that masks a host of underlying subjective influences, uncertainties, biases, and value judgements.
Over my career as a vascular surgeon I developed an interest in decision theory, perhaps in the expectation that it would give me reassurance in the complex decisions affecting life and limb that the specialty demands. Instead, rather than providing clarity in such questions, it helped to highlight the underlying structure of decisions, which depend both upon predictive evidence and the value judgements inherent in dealing with uncertainty and the necessary trade-offs between potentially conflicting objectives. Through this interest I became involved in the development of guidelines and technology appraisals carried out by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK.
Over the years, I observed the growing political and commercial influence on all aspects of such processes, from the selection of subject matter, through the generation and interpretation of evidence, to the value frameworks and decision-making criteria that determine the final outcomes. Complex decision-making processes, a culture of expertise, formal and bureaucratic processes and an extensive ‘case-law’ have developed over the years. This has the effect of excluding those without the necessary background knowledge, economic resources and academic credibility from contributing to, or challenging, such decisions.
A few years ago, I came across Miranda Fricker’s description of epistemic injustice. She suggests that “there is a distinctively epistemic genus of injustice, in which someone is wronged specifically in their capacity as a knower”. This results in individuals or groups being systematically disadvantaged through exclusion from the processes that generate the knowledge upon which so many decisions depend. This resonated with my own experience of the way in which evidence-based principles appear to be applied in healthcare decisions, particularly those involving rationing of scarce resources.
In exploring the principles of distributive and procedural justice that underpin healthcare policy and guidance, I highlight the factors that may lead to injustices and consider how these might be addressed. Evidential failures may occur due to distortion in the selection of subject matter for research, the limitations of preferred research methods, the choice of comparators and outcome measures, or the reporting and interpretation of results. Epistemic exclusion may result in the failure of guidance to reflect the interests and values of particular patient, service-user, societal or professional groups. Opportunities to contribute to or challenge decisions may be inaccessible to those most likely to be disadvantaged by the outcome.
Apart from the many underlying biases and distortions that are inherent in the published evidence, there are implicit and explicit value judgements in the decision-making processes that may remain obscured or reflect unwarranted epistemic privilege assigned to particular groups. Some of the potential remedies, such as the regulation of trial design and transparent reporting, are well documented, but still fail to be implemented. Significant improvement in other aspects may require a fundamental shift in the research agenda to reflect areas of societal concern, greater emphasis on independent evaluation of all the evidence, including explicit adjustment for likely biases, and a means to represent the interests of marginalised or excluded stakeholders.
Download the full paper from the Journal of Medical Ethics:
Thursday, 4 June 2020
Once again we explore what new publications have been produced by HEDS in collaboration with colleagues in ScHARR and further afield. Many of these are currently in press, so you can find much of our work in its open access form via our institutional repository. You can view them and many others here.
|British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology|
|Journal of Medical Ethics|
|Journal of the Endocrine Society|