Search

Women with cervical cancer, especially those with advanced disease, appear to experience suffering that is more prevalent, complex, and severe than that caused by other cancers and serious illnesses, and approximately 85% live in low- and middle-income countries where palliative care is rarely accessible. To respond to the highly prevalent and extreme suffering in this vulnerable population, we convened a group of experienced experts in all aspects of care for women with cervical cancer, and from countries of all income levels, to create an essential package of palliative care for cervical cancer (EPPCCC). The EPPCCC consists of a set of interventions, medicines, simple equipment, social supports, and human resources, and is designed to be safe and effective for preventing and relieving all types of suffering associated with cervical cancer. It includes only inexpensive and readily available medicines and equipment, and its use requires only basic training. Thus, the EPPCCC can and should be made accessible everywhere, including for the rural poor. We provide guidance for integrating the EPPCCC into gynecologic and oncologic care at all levels of health care systems, and into primary care, in countries of all income levels.

The essential package of palliative care for cervical cancer (EPPCCC), described elsewhere, is designed to be safe and effective for preventing and relieving most suffering associated with cervical cancer and universally accessible. However, it appears that women with cervical cancer, more frequently than patients with other cancers, experience various types of suffering that are refractory to basic palliative care such as what can be provided with the EPPCCC. In particular, relief of refractory pain, vomiting because of bowel obstruction, bleeding, and psychosocial suffering may require additional expertise, medicines, or equipment. Therefore, we convened a group of experienced experts in all aspects of care for women with cervical cancer, and from countries of all income levels, to create an augmented package of palliative care for cervical cancer with which even suffering refractory to the EPPCCC often can be relieved. The package consists of medicines, radiotherapy, surgical procedures, and psycho-oncologic therapies that require advanced or specialized training. Each item in this package should be made accessible whenever the necessary resources and expertise are available.

PURPOSE To enable design of optimum palliative care for women with cervical cancer, we studied the most common types of suffering and their severity, prevalence, and duration. METHODS We first reviewed the literature on the major types, severity, prevalence, and duration of suffering associated with cervical cancer. We then conducted a modified Delphi process with experts in cervical cancer care to supplement the literature. For each type of suffering, we distinguished between decedents (those who die from cervical cancer in a given year) and nondecedents (those who have cervical cancer in a given year but do not die). By applying the suffering prevalence and duration estimates to the number of decedents, nondecedents, and family caregivers in 2017, we were able to estimate their palliative care needs and the intensity of palliative care needed to respond adequately to this suffering. RESULTS There is a high prevalence among decedents of moderate or severe pain (84%), vaginal discharge (66%), vaginal bleeding (61%), and loss of faith (31%). Among both decedents and nondecedents, there is a high prevalence of clinically significant anxiety (63% and 50%, respectively), depressed mood (52% and 38%, respectively), and sexual dysfunction (87% and 83%, respectively). Moderate or severe financial distress is prevalent among decedents, nondecedents, and family caregivers (84%, 74%, and 66%, respectively). More than 40% of decedents and nondecedents are abandoned by their intimate partners. Most patients experience some combination of moderate or severe physical, psychological, social, and spiritual suffering. In total, 258,649 decedents and 2,558,857 nondecedents needed palliative care in 2017, approximately 85% of whom were in low- and middle-income countries where palliative care is rarely accessible. CONCLUSION Among women with advanced cervical cancer, suffering is highly prevalent and often severe and multifaceted.

Background Malaria is a public health burden and a major cause for morbidity and mortality in Ethiopia. Malaria also places a substantial financial burden on families and Ethiopia’s national economy. Economic evaluations, with evidence on equity and financial risk protection (FRP), are therefore essential to support decision-making for policymakers to identify best buys amongst possible malaria interventions. The aim of this study is to estimate the expected health and FRP benefits of universal public financing of key malaria interventions in Ethiopia. Methods Using extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA), the potential health and FRP benefits were estimated, and their distributions across socio-economic groups, of publicly financing a 10% coverage increase in artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT), long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets (LLIN), indoor residual spraying (IRS), and malaria vaccine (hypothetical). Results ACT, LLIN, IRS, and vaccine would avert 358, 188, 107 and 38 deaths, respectively, each year at a net government cost of $5.7, 16.5, 32.6, and 5.1 million, respectively. The annual cost of implementing IRS would be two times higher than that of the LLIN interventions, and would be the main driver of the total costs. The averted deaths would be mainly concentrated in the poorest two income quintiles. The four interventions would eliminate about $4,627,800 of private health expenditures, and the poorest income quintiles would see the greatest FRP benefits. ACT and LLINs would have the largest impact on malaria-related deaths averted and FRP benefits. Conclusions ACT, LLIN, IRS, and vaccine interventions would bring large health and financial benefits to the poorest households in Ethiopia.

Background Priority setting process for the health care sector in low- and middle-income countries involves multiple agencies, each with their unique power, decision-making and funding mechanisms. Methods This paper developed and applied a new framework to analyze priority setting processes in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania, from a scoping review of literature. Interviews were then conducted using a pre-determined interview guide developed by the research team. Transcripts were reviewed and coded based on the framework to identify what principles, players, processes, and products were considered during priority setting. Those elements were further used to identify where the potential capacity of local decision-makers could be harnessed. Results a framework was developed based on 40 articles selected from 6860 distinct search records. 21 interviews were conducted in three case countries from 12 institutions. Transcripts or meeting notes were analyzed to identify common practices and specific challenges faced by each country. We found that multiple stakeholders working around one national plan was the preferred approach used for priority setting in the countries studied. Conclusions Priority setting process can be further strengthened through better use of analytical tools, such as the one described in our study, to enhance local ownership and improve aid effectiveness.

Purpose The incidence of infection-associated cancers and lethality of cancers amenable to treatment are closely correlated with the income of countries. We analyzed a core part of this global cancer divide—the distribution of premature mortality across country income groups and cancers—applying novel approaches to measure avoidable mortality and identify priorities for public policy. Methods We analyzed avoidable cancer mortality using set lower- and upper-bound age limits of 65 and 75 years (empirical approach), applying cancer-specific and country income group–specific ages of death (feasibility approach), and applying cancer-specific ages of death of high-income countries to all low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; social justice approach). We applied these methods to 2015 mortality data on 16 cancers for which prevention is possible and/or treatment is likely to result in cure or significant increase in life expectancy. Results At least 30% and as much as 50% of cancer deaths are premature, corresponding to between 2.6 and 4.3 million deaths each year, and 70% to 80% are concentrated in LMICs. Using the feasibility approach, 36% of cancer deaths are avoidable; with the social justice approach, 45% of cancer deaths are avoidable. Five cancer types—breast, colorectal, lung, liver, and stomach—account for almost 75% of avoidable cancer deaths in LMICs and worldwide. Conclusion Each year, millions of premature cancer deaths could be avoided with interventions focused on four priority areas: infection-associated cancers, lifestyle and risk factors, women’s cancers, and children’s cancers. Our analysis of the global burden and the specific cancer types associated with avoidable cancer mortality suggests significant opportunities for health systems to redress the inequity of the global cancer divide.

Global health research has typically focused on single diseases, and most economic evaluation research to date has analysed technical health interventions to identify 'best buys'. New approaches in the conduct of economic evaluations are needed to help policymakers in choosing what may be good value (ie, greater health, distribution of health, or financial risk protection) for money (ie, per budget expenditure) investments for health system strengthening (HSS) that tend to be programmatic. We posit that these economic evaluations of HSS interventions will require developing new analytic models of health systems which recognise the dynamic connections between the different components of the health system, characterise the type and interlinks of the system's delivery platforms; and acknowledge the multiple constraints both within and outside the health sector which limit the system's capacity to efficiently attain its objectives. We describe priority health system modelling research areas to conduct economic evaluation of HSS interventions and ultimately identify good value for money investments in HSS., Department of Global Health and Population at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Annually, more than 61 million people worldwide experience about 6 billion days of serious health-related suffering that could be alleviated with access to palliative care and pain relief. However, palliative care is limited or nonexistent in most parts of the world. The access abyss is so stark that 50% of the world’s poorest populations live in countries that receive only 1% of the opioid analgesics distributed worldwide. By contrast, the richest 10% of the world’s population live in countries that receive nearly 90% of the opioid pain relief medications. The Lancet Commission on Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Relief developed a framework to measure the global burden of serious health-related suffering and generated the evidence base to address this burden. We present the inequities in access to pain relief and highlight key points from country responses, drawing from and building on recommendations of the Lancet Commission report “Alleviating the Access Abyss in Palliative Care and Pain Relief—An Imperative of Universal Health Coverage” to close the access abyss in relief of pain and other types of serious health-related suffering.

Palliative care has been shown to provide significant and diverse benefits for patients with serious, complex, or life-limiting health problems. Such benefits include the following: Reduced physical, psychological, and spiritual suffering (Abernethy and others 2003; Gwyther and Krakauer 2011; Higginson and others 2014; Krakauer 2008; Singer and others 2016; Temel and others 2010; WHO 2008; Zimmerman and others 2014) Improved quality of life (Singer and others 2016; Zimmerman and others 2014) Prolonged survival in some situations (Connor and others 2007; Temel and others 2010). Palliative care also can lower costs to health care systems (Chalkidou and others 2014; DesRosiers and others 2014; Gomez-Batiste and others 2012; Jamison and others 2013; Knaul and others 2017; Summers 2016). For these reasons, it is recognized globally as an ethical responsibility of all health care systems and a necessary component of universal health coverage (World Health Assembly 2014). Yet palliative care is rarely accessible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This chapter describes an essential package (EP) of palliative care services and treatments that could and should be accessible to everyone everywhere, as well as the sites or platforms where those services and treatments could be offered. Thus, it was necessary to make a preliminary estimate of the burden of health-related suffering requiring palliative care.To roughly estimate the need for palliative care, we identified the serious, complex, or life-limiting conditions listed in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 that most commonly result in physical, psychological, social, or spiritual suffering (WHO 2015a). We then estimated the types, prevalence, and duration of suffering resulting from each condition. On the basis of this characterization of the burden of suffering, we propose an EP of palliative care and pain control designed to do the following: Prevent or relieve the most common and severe suffering related to illness or injury. Be affordable, even in LMICs. Provide financial risk protection for patients and families by providing a realistic alternative to expensive, low-value treatment. We costed the EP in one low-income country (Rwanda), one lower-middle-income country (Vietnam), and one upper-middle-income country (Mexico) and projected these costs for LMICs in general (Knaul and others 2017). At the conclusion of this chapter, we provide guidance on how to integrate the EP into health systems as an essential element of universal health coverage (UHC) in LMICs. We also discuss how to augment the EP as soon as is feasible to further prevent and relieve suffering.This chapter draws directly on the work of the Lancet Commission on Global Access to Palliative Care and Pain Control (the Lancet Commission) (Knaul and others 2017).