How best to prioritise COVID-19 vaccination within and between countries has been a public health and an ethical challenge for decision-makers globally. We reviewed epidemiological and economic ...modelling evidence on population priority groups to minimise COVID-19 mortality, transmission, and morbidity outcomes.
We searched the National Institute of Health iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (a database of peer-reviewed and pre-print articles), Econlit, the Centre for Economic Policy Research, and the National Bureau of Economic Research for mathematical modelling studies evaluating the impact of prioritising COVID-19 vaccination to population target groups. The first search was conducted on March 3, 2021, and an updated search on the LMIC literature was conducted from March 3, 2021, to September 24, 2021. We narratively synthesised the main study conclusions on prioritisation and the conditions under which the conclusions changed.
The initial search identified 1820 studies and 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The updated search on LMIC literature identified 7 more studies. 43 studies in total were narratively synthesised. 74% of studies described outcomes in high-income countries (single and multi-country). We found that for countries seeking to minimise deaths, prioritising vaccination of senior adults was the optimal strategy and for countries seeking to minimise cases the young were prioritised. There were several exceptions to the main conclusion, notably that reductions in deaths could be increased if groups at high risk of both transmission and death could be further identified. Findings were also sensitive to the level of vaccine coverage.
The evidence supports WHO SAGE recommendations on COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation. There is, however, an evidence gap on optimal prioritisation for low- and middle-income countries, studies that included an economic evaluation, and studies that explore prioritisation strategies if the aim is to reduce overall health burden including morbidity.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Over the past decade, the global response to HIV has led to a reduction in the number of new infections, and a decrease in associated mortality. Yet, the number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) is ...high, with an estimated 38 million infected worldwide. As HIV shifts from being an acute terminal illness to a chronic condition, evaluating programmatic responses to HIV with sole reliance on biological markers (such as viral load or CD4 cell count) as proxies for patient health may no longer be suitable. HIV affects the lives of those infected in myriad ways which should be reflected in programme evaluations by measuring health-related quality of life, in addition to biomarkers.
In this commentary we argue that there is a pressing need to review how a "good" health outcome is defined and measured in light of care systems moving towards value-based frameworks that measure value in terms of the actual health outcomes achieved (rather than processes of care), global response shifting to providing long-term care for PLHIV in the community, and integrating HIV as part of universal health coverage plans. Efforts should be directed towards validating generic and disease specific patient-reported measures of PLHIV, to identify the most suitable tools. Such efforts will ensure that patient experience is appropriately captured, especially to be used in programme or economic evaluations.
It is only by recognising and measuring the full range of health, mental and social outcomes related to the disease that the health status of PLHIV can be fully understood.
International institutions provide well over US$10 billion in development assistance for health (DAH) annually and between 1990 and 2014, DAH disbursements totaled $458 billion but how do they decide ...who gets what, and for what purpose? In this article, we explore how allocation decisions were made by the nine convening agencies of the Equitable Access Initiative. We provide clear, plain language descriptions of the complete process from resource mobilization to allocation for the nine multilateral agencies with prominent agendas in global health. Then, through a comparative analysis we illuminate the choices and strategies employed in the nine international institutions. We find that resource allocation in all reviewed institutions follow a similar pattern, which we categorized in a framework of five steps: strategy definition, resource mobilization, eligibility of countries, support type and funds allocation. All the reviewed institutions generate resource allocation decisions through well-structured and fairly complex processes. Variations in those processes seem to reflect differences in institutional principles and goals. However, these processes have serious shortcomings. Technical problems include inadequate flexibility to account for or meet country needs. Although aid effectiveness and value for money are commonly referenced, we find that neither performance nor impact is a major criterion for allocating resources. We found very little formal consideration of the incentives generated by allocation choices. Political issues include non-transparent influence on allocation processes by donors and bureaucrats, and the common practice of earmarking funds to bypass the normal allocation process entirely. Ethical deficiencies include low accountability and transparency at international institutions, and limited participation by affected citizens or their representatives. We find that recipient countries have low influence on allocation processes themselves, although within these processes they have some influence in relatively narrow areas.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, UL, UM, UPUK
Healthcare cost-effectiveness analysis is increasingly used to inform priority-setting in low- and middle-income countries and by global health donors. As part of such analyses, cost-effectiveness ...thresholds are commonly used to determine what is, or is not, cost-effective. Recent years have seen a shift in best practice from a rule-of-thumb 1x or 3x per capita GDP threshold towards using thresholds that, in theory, reflect the opportunity cost of new investments within a given country. In this paper, we observe that international donors face both different resource constraints and opportunity costs compared to national decision-makers. Hence, their perspective on cost-effectiveness thresholds must be different. We discuss the potential implications of distinguishing between national and donor thresholds and outline broad options for how to approach setting a donor-perspective threshold. Further work is needed to clarify healthcare cost-effectiveness threshold theory in the context of international aid and to develop practical policy frameworks for implementation.
BackgroundCountries are recommended to progressively work towards universal health coverage (UHC), and to make explicit choices regarding the expansion of priority services. However, there is little ...guidance on how to manage the inclusion of vertical programmes, funded by external partners, in health benefits packages (HBP) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).ObjectiveWe conducted a scoping review to map the inclusion of six vertical programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, contraceptives, immunisation) in 26 LMICs.MethodsWe identified 26 LMICs with an HBP that was not aspirational (eg, with evidence of implementation or funding). For each HBP, we collected information on the corresponding UHC scheme, health financing at the time of establishment, revisions since inception and entitlements. For each vertical programme, we developed a list of tracer interventions based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 and the 100 Core Health Indicators List. We then used this list of tracer interventions to map the coverage of the six vertical programmes.ResultsThe review shows that there is no common starting point for countries embarking into UHC. Some HBPs were almost three decades old. Whole package revisions are rare. The inclusion of vertical programme does not follow a given pattern based on health financing indicators or country’s income group. Maternal child health services are the most often included and family planning the least. Six countries in our sample covered all vertical programmes, while one covered only one of six.ConclusionsThis review has shown that there has been a long history of countries facing this question and we have provided the first mapping of inclusion of vertical programmes in UHC. The results of the mapping can inform decisions in countries embarking in UHC.
COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model ...selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A ‘fitness-for-purpose’ flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. A ‘reporting standards trajectory’, which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, ‘minimum’, ‘acceptable’, and ‘ideal’, and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. A framework for “collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation” which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.
•COVID-19 models need appropriate adaptation to reflect contextual differences across settings.•Upholding scientific standards is equally important as providing evidence for policymaking during pandemics.•Wider stakeholder engagement with an iterative process for re-evaluating decisions is required for effective policy implementation.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
In May, 2015, the 68th World Health Assembly approved the decision to reform the work of WHO on emergencies by creating a single programme for outbreaks and health emergencies, and an accompanying ...Contingency Fund for Emergencies (CFE).
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
Health interventions often depend on a complex system of human and capital infrastructure that is shared with other interventions, in the form of service delivery platforms, such as healthcare ...facilities, hospitals, or community services. Most forms of health system strengthening seek to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of such delivery platforms. This paper presents a typology of ways in which health system strengthening can improve the economic efficiency of health services. Three types of health system strengthening are identified and modelled: (1) investment in the efficiency of an existing shared platform that generates positive benefits across a range of existing interventions; (2) relaxing a capacity constraint of an existing shared platform that inhibits the optimization of existing interventions; (3) providing an entirely new shared platform that supports a number of existing or new interventions. Theoretical models are illustrated with examples, and illustrate the importance of considering the portfolio of interventions using a platform, and not just piecemeal individual analysis of those interventions. They show how it is possible to extend principles of conventional cost-effectiveness analysis to identify an optimal balance between investing in health system strengthening and expenditure on specific interventions. The models developed in this paper provide a conceptual framework for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of investments in strengthening healthcare systems and, more broadly, shed light on the role that platforms play in promoting the cost-effectiveness of different interventions.
•Health interventions which rely on joint delivery platforms become interdependent.•Such interventions must be evaluated as a portfolio to avoid allocative inefficiency.•There are three types of health system strengthening.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Healthcare cost-effectiveness analysis is increasingly used to inform priority-setting in low- and middle-income countries and by global health donors. As part of such analyses, cost-effectiveness ...thresholds are commonly used to determine what is, or is not, cost-effective. Recent years have seen a shift in best practice from a rule-of-thumb 1x or 3x per capita GDP threshold towards using thresholds that, in theory, reflect the opportunity cost of new investments within a given country. In this paper, we observe that international donors face both different resource constraints and opportunity costs compared to national decision makers. Hence, their perspective on cost-effectiveness thresholds must be different. We discuss the potential implications of distinguishing between national and donor thresholds and outline broad options for how to approach setting a donor-perspective threshold. Further work is needed to clarify healthcare cost-effectiveness threshold theory in the context of international aid and to develop practical policy frameworks for implementation.
To evaluate the feasibility of an electronic symptom-tracking platform for patients recovering from ambulatory surgery.
We assessed user response to an electronic system designed to self-report ...symptoms. Endpoints included compliance, postoperative symptoms, patient satisfaction. An 8-item symptom inventory (pain, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, fever, swelling, discharge, redness) was developed and made available on postoperative days (POD) 2–6. Responses exceeding defined thresholds of severity triggered alerts to healthcare providers. Symptoms, alerts, actions taken, urgent care center (UCC) visits, hospital admissions were tracked until POD 30. Patient satisfaction was evaluated on POD 7. A patient was defined as “responder” if at least 5/8 items on at least 3 PODs were completed. The assessment method was deemed successful if 64/100 patients responded.
97/102 patients were evaluable; 65 met “responder” criteria (67% responder rate; 95% CI 57–76%). 321 surveys were completed (median 4/patient), 248 (77%) in ≤2 min. Involving caregivers and allowing additional symptom-reporting improved the responder rate to 72% (95% CI 58–84%). Most commonly-reported moderate, severe, very severe symptoms were pain, nausea, swelling; 71% reported moderate to very severe pain on POD 2. Phone calls and adjustment of medications adequately addressed most symptoms. Two patients (2%) presented at UCC before, 6 (6%) after, POD 6; 1 (1%) was admitted. Most agreed or strongly agreed that electronic symptom-tracking was helpful, easy to use, and would recommend it to others.
Electronic symptom-tracking is feasible for patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic cancer surgery. Symptom burden is high in the early postoperative period. Addressing patient-reported symptoms in a timely, automated manner may prevent severe downstream adverse events, reduce UCC visits and admission rates, and improve outcomes.
•This study assessed user response of an electronic system designed to self-report symptoms.•Electronic postoperative symptom-tracking is feasible for patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic cancer surgery.•Symptom burden is high in the early postoperative period.•Electronic patient-reported symptom-tracking reduces adverse events and urgent care/readmission rates and improves outcomes.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
