The world health organization has identified high blood pressure (BP) as One of the most important modifiable risk factors to reduce rapidly escalating burden of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Globally, 13.5% of total premature deaths annually (i.e.7.6 million deaths) are directly attributed to hypertension. Randomised clinical trial data are consistent in showing that BP reduction substantially reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, despite these facts and widespread availability of effective antihypertensive medications, the vast majority of more than 1 billion hypertensive patients remain with uncontrolled BP. Even among hypertensive patients who receive treatment, in most countries at least half of them fail to reach currently recommended BP targets.

A range of conceptual models for understanding the policy process have been applied to the health policy process, largely in particular sub areas or policy domains such as public health. However, these contributions appear to offer different rationales and present different frameworks for understanding the policy process. This Editorial critically examines articles that explore the health policy process with models from wider public policy and from health policy. It can be seen that very few of the wider models have been applied in studies of the health policy process. Conversely, some models feature in studies of the health policy process, but not in the wider policy process literature, which suggests that literature on the health policy process is semi-detached from the wider policy process literature. There seem to be two very different future research directions: focusing on ‘home grown’ models, or taking greater account of the wider policy process literature. Does ‘One size fit all’ or is it ‘horses for courses’?

Cancer is One of the leading causes of death worldwide and One of the greatest challenges in extending life expectancy. The paradigm of One-size-fits-all medicine has already given way to the stratification of patients by disease subtypes, clinical characteristics, and biomarkers (stratified medicine). The introduction of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical oncology has made it possible to tailor cancer patient therapy to their molecular profiles. NGS is expected to lead the transition to precision medicine (PM), where the right therapeutic approach is chosen for each patient based on their characteristics and mutations. Here, we highlight how the NGS technology facilitates cancer treatment. In this regard, first, precision medicine and NGS technology are reviewed, and then, the NGS revolution in precision medicine is described. In the sequel, the role of NGS in oncology and the existing limitations are discussed. The available databases and bioinformatics tools and online servers used in NGS data analysis are also reviewed. The review ends with concluding remarks.

The treatment of breast cancer is changing so much so that a recent JAMA 2019 editorial Breast Cancer Treatment did not even mention surgery or radiotherapy in the article. 1 The management protocols change regularly making multidisciplinary management mandatory. . . .

Powell and Mannion’s review of reviews maps the landscape of health policy research, showing a number of problematic and longstanding features. This commentary focuses on the extent to which health parochialism is good for the scientific development of the literature, the extent to which a “tournament of theories” actually develops our understanding of health policy process, and, finally, whether circumscribed theories of the policy process might be missing some of the most important and useful findings of broader comparative politics, which focus on the ways policies create politics over time. It concludes that health parochialism and focus on a circumscribed policy process is not likely to be helpful because it distracts attention from the ways in which coalitions and institutions over time shape politics and policy, a finding explored by scholars of many sectors whose findings should influence health policy research.

Powell and Manion present an important review of reviews about health and policy research. They zero in on theories of the policy process as the most likely to unearth what is really going on in health policy. Here I contend that their analysis insufficiently attends to institutions. Powell and Manion situate ‘institutions’ (with ‘Ideas’ and ‘Interests’) as a ‘health policy process models’ that ‘tend to’ list factors rather than connect them. Rather, I show how there is a rich history of considering institutions in the political science literature that is under considered by Powell and Manion. By necessity for a Public Health audience I quickly pull back the covers on ‘rigour’ and ‘causation’ to demonstrate what is ‘fit for purpose’ in rigorous institution focussed policy analysis. I conclude by arguing how institutionally focussed public health policy analysis is vital for understanding and addressing heath inequities. That focus necessitates research that provides better, explicit, conceptualisations of power in health policy: especially drawing out the roles played by structure and agency. I offer some recent examples.

Powell and Mannion suggest that ‘health policy process’ research should draw more lessons from ‘the wider policy process literature.’ While health research could continue with sector specific models, the wider literature is ‘conceptually stronger.’ In that context, I clarify how and why health researchers should use policy theories. I describe a review of the use of policy theories in public health research to show that many researchers use them to not only understand policy-making but also influence policy and policy-making. Most policy theories are not designed for that purpose, but it is still possible to produce practical lessons. I outline the issues that arise when repurposing theory-informed insights, such as that policy change takes a long time, and the scale of policy-making is potentially overwhelming. I then highlight the valuable role of theories in raising dilemmas in relation to modes of governance and evidence production.