Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Priority Setting in the Indian Health System: An International Collaborative Experience.

India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system . In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locally-tailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.

Targeting antiretroviral therapy: lessons from a longitudinal study of morbidity and treatment in relation to CD4 count in Thailand.

The aim of the study was to quantify the incidence of illness and treatment behaviour in relation to CD4 count, age, and gender among a cohort of persons living with HIV/AIDS in Thailand. 464 participants with a CD4 count between 50 and 550 cells/mm3 were followed up for 12 months. Multiple Poisson regression was used to model the adjusted incidence rate ratio of illness and care seeking at different levels. The incidence of morbidity and treatment pattern were significantly different among participants with different CD4 count, age and gender. For example, morbidity incidence was significantly higher among participants with CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mm3, among female participants, and participants aged 35 years or over. Females made significantly higher use of hospital ambulatory care and private clinics than males and males made significantly more use of private pharmacies. The potential opportunity cost of not providing ART to these different groups can be estimated and used to inform further economic evaluation and policy decisions on whether to provide ART at all and which patient groups to prioritise.

Nationwide survey of nutritional management in an Asian upper-middle income developing country government hospitals: Combination of quantitative survey and focus group discussion.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The objective of this study was to identify the differences in pattern, process, and management of nutrition care in government hospitals in Thailand (an Asian upper-middle income developing country). METHODS: This is a combination of a quantitative nationwide questionnaire survey and focus group discussions. A total of 2300 questionnaires were sent to government hospitals across Thailand. The responders were divided by routine-nutrition screening/assessment unit vs. non-routine-nutrition screening/assessment unit (RSA vs. NRSA). The comparison between the groups was reported as percentage and cross-sectional odds ratio (CS-OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The significant difference was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 814 questionnaires (35.4%) were returned. The three most common tools of RSA were 42% Bhumibol Nutrition Triage (BNT), 21.2% Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and 20.2% Nutrition Alert Form (NAF). The RSA was significantly higher in proportion for the role of the nurses (RSA vs. NRSA; CS-OR [95% CI]: 68.3% vs. 11.9%; 15.8 [11.1 to 22.7]; p < 0.01), the multidisciplinary team (90.1% vs. 0.4%; 2266 [558 to 1909]; p < 0.01), the nutrition management guidelines (60.6% vs. 2.8%; 53.6 [29.6 to 102.8]; p < 0.01), the nurse-driven enteral feeding protocols (31.7% vs. 17.5%; 2.2 [1.5 to 3.1]; p < 0.01) and preference for hospital formula enteral nutrition (91.4% vs.69.7%; 4.6 [2.9 to 7.4]; p < 0.01). For focus group discussions, the main barrier of RSA implementation was that there was no national recommendation of a screening/assessment tool, inconsistency of policy and reimbursement, and professional and acceptable workload. CONCLUSION: Nutrition screening/assessment tools were found to be varied in Thailand. RSA affected the nutrition management working process and the types of nutrition support. The main barriers of RSA implementation were inconsistency of policy and reimbursement, acceptable workload, and national guidance as regards - screening/assessment tools.