Proposing the "Value- and Evidence-Based decision making and Practice" (VEDMAP) framework for Priority-Setting and knowledge translation in low and Middle-Income Countries: A novel framework for Decision-Making in Low-and middle income countries like Malawi.

The existence and availability of evidence on its own does not guarantee that the evidence will be demanded and used by decision and policy makers. Decision and policy-makers, especially in low-income settings, often confront ethical dilemmas about determining the best available evidence and its utilization. This dilemma can be in the form of conflict of evidence, scientific and ethical equipoise and competing evidence or interests. Consequently, decisions are made based on convenience, personal preference, donor requirements, and political and social considerations which can result in wastage of resources and inefficiency. To mitigate these challenges, the use of "Value- and Evidence-Based Decision Making and Practice" (VEDMAP) framework is proposed. This framework was developed by Joseph Mfutso-Bengo in 2017 through a desk review. It was pretested through a scoping study under the Thanzi la Onse (TLO) Project which assessed the feasibility and acceptability of using the VEDMAP as a priority setting tool for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Malawi. The study used mixed methods whereby it conducted a desk review to map out and benchmark normative values of different countries in Africa and HTA; focus group discussion and key informant interviews to map out the actual (practised) values in Malawi. The results of this review confirmed that the use of VEDMAP framework was feasible and acceptable and can bring efficiency, traceability, transparency and integrity in decision- policy making process and implementation.

A qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of institutionalizing health technology assessment in Malawi.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of institutionalizing Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in Malawi. METHODS: This study employed a document review and qualitative research methods, to understand the status of HTA in Malawi. This was complemented by a review of the status and nature of HTA institutionalization in selected countries.Qualitative research employed a Focus Group Discussion (FGD ) with 7 participants, and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with12 informants selected based on their knowledge and expertise in policy processes related to HTA in Malawi.Data extracted from the literature was organized in Microsoft Excel, categorized according to thematic areas and analyzed using a literature review framework. Qualitative data from KIIs and the FGD was analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: Some HTA processes exist and are executed through three structures namely: Ministry of Health Senior Management Team, Technical Working Groups, and Pharmacy and Medicines Regulatory Authority (PMRA) with varyingdegrees of effectiveness.The main limitations of current HTA mechanisms include limited evidence use, lack of a standardized framework for technology adoption, donor pressure, lack of resources for the HTA process and technology acquisition, laws and practices that undermine cost-effectiveness considerations. KII and FGD results showed overwhelming demand for strengthening HTA in Malawi, with a stronger preference for strengthening coordination and capacity of existing entities and structures. CONCLUSION: The study has shown that HTA institutionalization is acceptable and feasible in Malawi. However, the current committee based processes are suboptimal to improve efficiency due to lack of a structured framework. A structured HTA framework has the potential to improve processes in pharmaceuticals and medical technologies decision-making.In the short to medium term, HTA capacity building should focus on generating demand and increasing capacity in cost-effectiveness assessments. Country-specific assessments should precede HTA institutionalization as well as recommendations for new technology adoptions.

Tools for measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of measurement properties.

BACKGROUND: Perspectives of patients as clients on healthcare offer unique insights into the process and outcomes of care and can facilitate improvements in the quality of services. Differences in the tools used to measure these perspectives often reflect differences in the conceptualization of quality of care and personal experiences. This systematic review assesses the validity and reliability of instruments measuring client experiences and satisfaction with healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of studies published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL. This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the development and psychometric properties of client experience and satisfaction with general health care were included in the review. Critical appraisal of study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and Terwee's criteria were used to appraise the psychometric properties of the included studies. A narrative synthesis approach was used in the interpretation of the findings. RESULTS: Of the 7470 records identified, 12 studies with 14 corresponding instruments met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. No study assessed all the psychometric properties highlighted by the COSMIN criteria. In most instruments, we found evidence that initial development work incorporated client participation. The most evaluated measurement properties were content validity, internal consistency, and structural validity. Measurement error and responsiveness were not reported in any study. CONCLUSION: Reliability and validity should be considered important elements when choosing or developing an instrument for professionals seeking an effective instrument for use within the population. Our review identified limitations in the psychometric properties of patient experience and satisfaction instruments, and none met all methodological quality standards. Future studies should focus on further developing and testing available measures for their effectiveness in clinical practice. Furthermore, the development of new instruments should incorporate clients' views and be rigorously tested or validated in studies with high methodological quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020150438.