Search

Background: While there is increasing recognition that the non-technical aspects of health care quality - particularly the inter-personal dimensions of care - are important components of health system performance, evidence from population-based studies on these outcomes in low- and middle-income countries is sparse. This study assesses these non-technical aspects of care using two measures: health system responsiveness (HSR), which quantifies the degree to which the health system meets the expectations of the population, and non-technical health care quality (QoC), for which we 'filtered out' these expectations. Pooling data from six large middle-income countries, this study therefore aimed to determine how HSR and QoC vary between countries and by individuals' sociodemographic characteristics within countries.Methods: We pooled individual-level data, collected between 2007 and 2010, from nationally representative household surveys of (primarily) adults aged 50 years and older in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa. The outcome measure was a binary indicator for a 'bad' rating (HSR: "very bad" or "bad" on a five-point Likert scale; QoC: a worse rating of one's own visit than that of the character in an anchoring vignette) on at least one of seven dimensions for the most recent primary care visit.Results: 23 749 adults who reported to have sought primary care during the preceding 12 months were includedin the analysis. The proportion of participants who gave a bad rating for their last primary care visit on at least one of seven dimensions varied from 4.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.8-6.7) in China to 33.1% (95% CI = 23.6-44.2) in South Africa for HSR, and from 17.0% (95% CI = 11.4-24.5) in Russia to 50.8% (95% CI = 46.0-55.6) in Ghana for QoC. There was a strong negative association between increasing household wealth and both bad HSR and QoC in India and South Africa.Conclusions: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) with good-quality health services ("effective UHC") will require efforts to improve HSR and QoC across the population in Ghana and South Africa. Additionally, a particular focus on raising HSR and QoC for the poorest population groups is needed in India and South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Resource allocation in health is universally challenging, but especially so in resource-constrained contexts in the Global South. Pursuing a strategy of evidence-based decision-making and using tools such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), can help address issues relating to both affordability and equity when allocating resources. Three BRICS and Global South countries, China, India and South Africa have committed to strengthening HTA capacity and developing their domestic HTA systems, with the goal of getting evidence translated into policy. Through assessing and comparing the HTA journey of each country it may be possible to identify common problems and shareable insights. Objectives: This collaborative paper aimed to share knowledge on strengthening HTA systems to enable enhanced evidence-based decision-making in the Global South by: Identifying common barriers and enablers in three BRICS countries in the Global South; and Exploring how South-South collaboration can strengthen HTA capacity and utilisation for better healthcare decision-making. Methods: A descriptive and explorative comparative analysis was conducted comprising a Within-Case analysis to produce a narrative of the HTA journey in each country and an Across-Case analysis to explore both knowledge that could be shared and any potential knowledge gaps. Results: Analyses revealed that China, India and South Africa share many barriers to strengthening and developing HTA systems such as: (1) Minimal HTA expertise; (2) Weak health data infrastructure; (3) Rising healthcare costs; (4) Fragmented healthcare systems; and (5) Significant growth in non-communicable diseases. Stakeholder engagement and institutionalisation of HTA were identified as two conducive factors for strengthening HTA systems. Conclusion: China, India and South Africa have all committed to establishing robust HTA systems to inform evidence-based priority setting and have experienced similar challenges. Engagement among countries of the Global South can provide a supportive platform to share knowledge that is more applicable and pragmatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical criteria/Family history-based BRCA testing misses a large proportion of BRCA carriers who can benefit from screening/prevention. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing in general population women across different countries/health systems. A Markov model comparing the lifetime costs and effects of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing all general population women ≥30 years compared with clinical criteria/FH-based testing. Separate analyses are undertaken for the UK/USA/Netherlands (high-income countries/HIC), China/Brazil (upper–middle income countries/UMIC) and India (low–middle income countries/LMIC) using both health system/payer and societal perspectives. BRCA carriers undergo appropriate screening/prevention interventions to reduce breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Outcomes include OC, BC, and additional heart disease deaths and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. For the base case, from a societal perspective, we found that population-based BRCA testing is cost-saving in HIC (UK-ICER = $−5639/QALY; USA-ICER = $−4018/QALY; Netherlands-ICER = $−11,433/QALY), and it appears cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $18,066/QALY; Brazil-ICER = $13,579/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $23,031/QALY). From a payer perspective, population-based BRCA testing is highly cost-effective in HIC (UK-ICER = $21,191/QALY, USA-ICER = $16,552/QALY, Netherlands-ICER = $25,215/QALY), and it is cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $23,485/QALY, Brazil−ICER = $20,995/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $32,217/QALY). BRCA testing costs below $172/test (ICER = $19,685/QALY), which makes it cost-effective (from a societal perspective) for LMIC/India. Population-based BRCA testing can prevent an additional 2319 to 2666 BC and 327 to 449 OC cases per million women than the current clinical strategy. Findings suggest that population-based BRCA testing for countries evaluated is extremely cost-effective across HIC/UMIC health systems, is cost-saving for HIC health systems from a societal perspective, and can prevent tens of thousands more BC/OC cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]