- Email: [email protected]
TDR: a time to live or die?
Editorial
Science Photo Library
TDR: a time to live or die?
For the TDR global report see http://www.who.int/tdr/ stewardship/global_report/en/
Since 1975, the UN Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) has been examining needs and gaps in health research on the diseases of poverty. Co-sponsored by UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank, and WHO, TDR has emphasised research in neglected areas and scientific collaboration, and has trained thousands of researchers in developing countries to help strengthen research capacity. TDR has also led five major elimination campaigns for neglected diseases, co-developed 12 new drugs for tropical parasitic diseases, and helped document the effectiveness of artemisinincombination therapy for malaria. But in recent years, some observers have asked whether TDR has left its best days behind. If TDR has served its purpose, perhaps it should even be closed down. On April 16, under the leadership of TDR, The Global Report on Research for Infectious Diseases of Poverty was released. It advocates innovative and cross-disciplinary research to improve health in developing counties. The report is aimed at policy makers, funders, and research leaders.
TDR focuses on the need for a holistic approach to research that links environment, climate, social factors, and animal health with human health. It calls for attention to health systems, innovation, and technology to fight the diseases of poverty. Five high-level actions are proposed: creation of a new index of infectious diseases of poverty that merges social and economic development with health data; implementation of a “One Health, One World” multisectoral and multidisciplinary strategy in research for infectious diseases; promotion of research ownership by disease endemic countries; encouragement of a culture of innovation in affected countries; and creation of an online global platform for health research resources that will inform strategies, policies, and funding commitments. Gaps in the report include a timetable for action, a mechanism for accountability, and TDR’s collaboration with the neglected tropical diseases department at WHO. We welcome this report, as well as TDR’s new director, John Reeder. The vision expressed by TDR should earn wide new commitment and partners. It deserves that commitment. ■ The Lancet
Corbis
Social media: how doctors can contribute
For the GMC draft guidance see https://gmc.e-consultation.net/ econsult/consultation_Dtl. aspx?consult_Id-271&status For more on Facebook use see World Report Lancet 2011; 377: 1141–42 For more on Floating Doctors see http://floatingdoctors.com For more on Taiwan health reform see Correspondence Lancet 2011; 377: 2083–84
1562
On April 18, The General Medical Council, which regulates medical practice in the UK, opened up its draft guidance on doctors’ use of social media for consultation. Comments can be made until June 13, and the results will be published by the end of the year. The guidance emphasises the need to maintain patient confidentiality, provide accurate information, treat colleagues with respect, avoid anonymity online if writing in a professional capacity, be aware of how content is shared, review privacy settings and online presence, declare conflicts of interest, and maintain separate personal and professional profiles. This conservative approach is not dissimilar to existing guidance from medical associations. Accepting Facebook friend requests from patients is, in general, not advised. But what of situations where doctors and patients are genuine friends? What, too, of the benefits of doctors providing medical information via blogs, Twitter, or Facebook? Current guidance focuses more on the risks than the benefits of doctors’ use of social media.
Patients use social networks to research their symptoms, their doctors, their treatments, and to set up support and information groups. Clinicians can use social media to drive awareness, to provide accurate information, and as a portal to communicate with other physicians. An example is the Floating Doctors programme, which uses Facebook and Twitter to ask specialists for clinical advice for patients in remote areas of Central America. Across Africa, the potential for top-quality health information, advice, and access to treatment can be aided by doctors contributing to social media networks. In Taiwan, Facebook use has even contributed to reform of emergency departments. Much is said about the dangers of social media. Care about posting in a public space is, of course, needed. Doctors, though, should seize the opportunities provided by social networks to improve the health of their patients, and do their utmost to ensure that the highest quality of health information and access to treatment is there for all. ■ The Lancet www.thelancet.com Vol 379 April 28, 2012
Science Photo Library
TDR: a time to live or die?
For the TDR global report see http://www.who.int/tdr/ stewardship/global_report/en/
Since 1975, the UN Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) has been examining needs and gaps in health research on the diseases of poverty. Co-sponsored by UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank, and WHO, TDR has emphasised research in neglected areas and scientific collaboration, and has trained thousands of researchers in developing countries to help strengthen research capacity. TDR has also led five major elimination campaigns for neglected diseases, co-developed 12 new drugs for tropical parasitic diseases, and helped document the effectiveness of artemisinincombination therapy for malaria. But in recent years, some observers have asked whether TDR has left its best days behind. If TDR has served its purpose, perhaps it should even be closed down. On April 16, under the leadership of TDR, The Global Report on Research for Infectious Diseases of Poverty was released. It advocates innovative and cross-disciplinary research to improve health in developing counties. The report is aimed at policy makers, funders, and research leaders.
TDR focuses on the need for a holistic approach to research that links environment, climate, social factors, and animal health with human health. It calls for attention to health systems, innovation, and technology to fight the diseases of poverty. Five high-level actions are proposed: creation of a new index of infectious diseases of poverty that merges social and economic development with health data; implementation of a “One Health, One World” multisectoral and multidisciplinary strategy in research for infectious diseases; promotion of research ownership by disease endemic countries; encouragement of a culture of innovation in affected countries; and creation of an online global platform for health research resources that will inform strategies, policies, and funding commitments. Gaps in the report include a timetable for action, a mechanism for accountability, and TDR’s collaboration with the neglected tropical diseases department at WHO. We welcome this report, as well as TDR’s new director, John Reeder. The vision expressed by TDR should earn wide new commitment and partners. It deserves that commitment. ■ The Lancet
Corbis
Social media: how doctors can contribute
For the GMC draft guidance see https://gmc.e-consultation.net/ econsult/consultation_Dtl. aspx?consult_Id-271&status For more on Facebook use see World Report Lancet 2011; 377: 1141–42 For more on Floating Doctors see http://floatingdoctors.com For more on Taiwan health reform see Correspondence Lancet 2011; 377: 2083–84
1562
On April 18, The General Medical Council, which regulates medical practice in the UK, opened up its draft guidance on doctors’ use of social media for consultation. Comments can be made until June 13, and the results will be published by the end of the year. The guidance emphasises the need to maintain patient confidentiality, provide accurate information, treat colleagues with respect, avoid anonymity online if writing in a professional capacity, be aware of how content is shared, review privacy settings and online presence, declare conflicts of interest, and maintain separate personal and professional profiles. This conservative approach is not dissimilar to existing guidance from medical associations. Accepting Facebook friend requests from patients is, in general, not advised. But what of situations where doctors and patients are genuine friends? What, too, of the benefits of doctors providing medical information via blogs, Twitter, or Facebook? Current guidance focuses more on the risks than the benefits of doctors’ use of social media.
Patients use social networks to research their symptoms, their doctors, their treatments, and to set up support and information groups. Clinicians can use social media to drive awareness, to provide accurate information, and as a portal to communicate with other physicians. An example is the Floating Doctors programme, which uses Facebook and Twitter to ask specialists for clinical advice for patients in remote areas of Central America. Across Africa, the potential for top-quality health information, advice, and access to treatment can be aided by doctors contributing to social media networks. In Taiwan, Facebook use has even contributed to reform of emergency departments. Much is said about the dangers of social media. Care about posting in a public space is, of course, needed. Doctors, though, should seize the opportunities provided by social networks to improve the health of their patients, and do their utmost to ensure that the highest quality of health information and access to treatment is there for all. ■ The Lancet www.thelancet.com Vol 379 April 28, 2012