Healthcare workers' perspectives on access to sexual and reproductive health services in the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors: insights from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

BACKGROUND: Access to sexual and reproductive health services remains a challenge for many in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Health service delivery in the four countries is decentralised and provided by the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors. When accessing sexual and reproductive health services, clients encounter numerous challenges, which might differ per sector. Healthcare workers have first-hand insight into what impediments to access exist at their health facility. The aim of this study was to identify differences and commonalities in barriers to access to sexual and reproductive health services across the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers working in health facilities offering sexual and reproductive health services in Kenya (n = 212), Tanzania (n = 371), Uganda (n = 145) and Zambia (n = 243). Data were collected in July 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data, while binary logistic regression analyses were used to test for significant differences in access barriers and recommendations between sectors. RESULTS: According to healthcare workers, the most common barrier to accessing sexual and reproductive health services was poor patient knowledge (37.1%). Following, issues with supply of commodities (42.5%) and frequent stockouts (36.0%) were most often raised in the public sector; in the other sectors these were also raised as an issue. Patient costs were a more significant barrier in the private (33.3%) and private not-for-profit sectors (21.1%) compared to the public sector (4.6%), and religious beliefs were a significant barrier in the private not-for-profit sector compared to the public sector (odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval = 1.69-3.56). In all sectors delays in the delivery of supplies (37.4-63.9%) was given as main stockout cause. Healthcare workers further believed that it was common that clients were reluctant to access sexual and reproductive health services, due to fear of stigmatisation, their lack of knowledge, myths/superstitions, religious beliefs, and fear of side effects. Healthcare workers recommended client education to tackle this. CONCLUSIONS: Demand and supply side barriers were manifold across the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors, with some sector-specific, but mostly cross-cutting barriers. To improve access to sexual and reproductive health services, a multi-pronged approach is needed, targeting client knowledge, the weak supply chain system, high costs in the private and private not-for-profit sectors, and religious beliefs.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024): Implications for healthcare.

In August 2024, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) entered into force. This legally binding instrument sets rules for the development, the placing on the market, the putting into service, and the use of AI systems in the European Union. As the world's first extensive legal framework on AI, it aims to boost innovation while protecting individuals against the harms of AI. Since healthcare is one of the top sectors for AI deployment, the new rules will significantly reform national policies and practices on health technology. In this article, we highlight the implications of the AI Act for the healthcare sector. We give a comprehensive overview of the new legal obligations for various healthcare stakeholders (tech developers; healthcare professionals; public health authorities). We conclude that, due to its horizontal approach, it is necessary to adopt further guidelines to address the unique needs of the healthcare sector. To this end, we make recommendations for the upcoming implementation and standardization phase.

Antivenom for sale? Availability and affordability of snakebite medicines across public and private health facilities in Rwanda.

Antivenom is considered the safest and most effective treatment against snake envenomation (SBE); however, global shortages mean that many low-income countries struggle to meet demand. In Rwanda, chronic shortages of essential medicines are an important barrier to robust healthcare delivery and discourage snakebite victims from seeking hospital care. The aim of this retrospective, cross-sectional study was to evaluate the availability and affordability of commodities to treat SBE at hospitals and health centers. In total, our team interviewed pharmacy managers at 111 public and 31 private health facilities (N = 142) to complete a validated quantitative questionnaire, entering data electronically through KoBoCollect. Commodity prices were collected in 2023RWF and for the lowest cost item across any category. A commodity was considered affordable if a treatment regimen cost less than one day's wages, using the international poverty line to approximate a low-income worker's wages. Across all health facilities, mean availability of SBE commodities was relatively good (77.1%). Snake antivenom was only available at public hospitals and was concentrated in urban rather than rural areas. Two snake antivenom types were observed, one of which was not appropriate for treating envenomation by East African snakes. Overall, this meant that only 4.2% of facilities stocked safe and effective antivenom. Black stones, an ineffective traditional treatment, were sold by 5.6% of health providers. Moreover, antivenom did not meet the minimum threshold for affordability, costing on average 10 days of work for a single dose among uninsured individuals. Altogether, this study highlights serious performance gaps among pharmacies responsible for procuring and supplying SBE commodities and helps to explain the widespread belief that SBE treatment is unaffordable at hospitals and health centers. Urgent action is needed to ensure that all hospital and health center pharmacies located in high-risk areas stock appropriate antivenom and that re-stocking time for essential medicines is reduced.

Barriers to accessing internationally controlled essential medicines in sub-saharan Africa: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Access to internationally controlled essential medicines (ICEMs), medicines that are listed on both the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines List and one of three international drug control conventions, remains problematic in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Previous reviews have focused only on specific ICEMs or ICEM-related healthcare fields, but none have focused on all ICEMs as a distinct class. This scoping review therefore aims to identify the barriers to accessing ICEMs across all relevant healthcare fields in SSA. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted across indexing platforms Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science of studies published between January 1 2012 and February 1 2022. Articles were eligible if they mentioned barriers to accessing ICEMs and/or ICEM-related healthcare fields, if studies were conducted in SSA, or included data on an SSA country within a multi-country study. The review was guided by the Access to Medicines from a Health System Perspective framework. RESULTS: The search identified 5519 articles, of which 97 met the inclusion criteria. Many barriers to access were reported and were common across the ICEMs drug class. Main barriers were: at the individual level, the lack of knowledge about ICEMs; at the health service delivery level, low availability, stockouts, affordability, long distances to health facilities, insufficient infrastructure to store and distribute ICEMs, and lack of ICEM knowledge and training among healthcare workers; at the health sector level, lack of prioritisation of ICEM-related healthcare fields by governments and subsequent insufficient budget allocation. Cross-cutting, governance-related barriers pertained to lack of proper quantification systems, cumbersome procurement processes, and strict national laws controlling ICEMs, leading to overly restrictive prescription practices. CONCLUSION: This review showed that there are a multitude of barriers to accessing ICEMs in SSA across all health system levels. Many of the barriers identified are applicable to all ICEMs, highlighting the importance of tackling barriers for this entire class of drugs together.

Snakebite incidents, prevention and care during COVID-19: Global key-informant experiences.

Snakebite envenoming is a long-neglected disease causing significant morbidity and mortality in snakebite endemic low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Global awareness on snakebite was increasing steadily up to 2020, and an increasing number of countries began to acknowledge the issue, when coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to have an unprecedented impact on societies and health systems. To better understand how snakebite incidents, prevention and care are being affected during this global emergency, we collected perspectives of snakebite community- and health system stakeholders in a qualitative key-informant study. An open-ended survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather information on changes in snakebite occurrence and circumstances, community responses, access to care and health outcomes in LMICs since the COVID-19 pandemic. Forty-three informants from 21 countries participated in the study. Based on informants' experiences, in spite of COVID-19 lockdowns, exposure to snakes did not change in many rural agrarian communities, where incidences are usually highest. However, we did find several access to care issues relating to avoidance of formal care, transport barriers, overburdened healthcare systems and -providers, and antivenom manufacturing and supply disruptions, which were unique per context. On a brighter note, ventilator availability had increased in several countries, although not automatically benefitting snakebite patients directly. In conclusion, we found apparent effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on snakebite prevention and care, although its severity was highly context- and time-dependent. Interactions between the pandemic effects and snakebite incidents most severely impact remote rural communities, showing the need to invest in community-based prevention and care.

An exploratory focus group study on experiences with snakebites: health-seeking behaviour and challenges in rural communities of Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Snakebite envenoming is a long-hidden public health threat in the rural communities of Kenya. This study aimed to shed light on the health-seeking behaviour of people bitten by snakes, views on prevention measures and community needs and the consequences for snakebite patients in these areas. METHODS: Six focus group interviews were conducted in communities in the Kajiado (n=3) and Kilifi (n=3) counties. RESULTS: Traditional first-aid practices such as the use of a tourniquet and/or cutting the wound, use of a black stone and a variety of other traditional remedies were common. Challenges with transportation to health facilities and inadequately resourced facilities complicated accessing medical care. Community members voiced a need to improve access to trained healthcare workers and snakebite treatments at health facilities. CONCLUSION: While communities had high trust in evidence-based medical care, traditional treatment was often sought, causing delays in timely medical attention. Traditional practices were often used in the home environment and these were not usually administered by a traditional healer. The findings illustrate the need to combine improving the availability of effective snakebite treatment and healthcare worker training on snakebite with community education to reduce the impact of snakebite.

The Burden of Snakebite in Rural Communities in Kenya: A Household Survey.

Annually, about 2.7 million snakebite envenomings occur worldwide, primarily affecting those living in rural regions. Effective treatment exists but is scarce, and traditional treatments are commonly used. To inform context-specific policies in Kenya, this study aimed to determine the health-seeking behavior and the health, social, and economic burden of snakebites in rural communities. Nonprobability sampling was used to survey 382 respondents from four snakebite-endemic counties, from February to August 2020, using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, binary logistic regressions, and Mantel-Haenszel tests were used for analysis. Life-time experience with snakebites included 13.1% of respondents who reported being personally bitten and 37.4% who reported knowing of a community member being bitten. Respondents reported death after a snakebite in 9.1% of bitten community members and in 14.6% of bitten family members. Risk of snakebite was not significantly associated with sex, educational level, or occupation. Snakebite victims were most often walking (38%) or farming (24%) when bitten. Of those bitten, 58% went to a health facility, 30% sought traditional treatment, and 12% first went to a traditional healer before visiting a facility. Significant differences existed in perceptions on the financial consequences of snakebites among those who had been personally bitten and those who had observed a snakebite. Most commonly mentioned preventive measures were wearing shoes and carrying a light in the dark. Community engagement, including engagement with traditional healers, is needed to reduce snakebites. This should be done through education and sensitization to improve used preventive measures and effective health-seeking behavior.

Availability, affordability and stock-outs of commodities for the treatment of snakebite in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Annually, about 2.7 million snakebite envenomings occur globally. Alongside antivenom, patients usually require additional care to treat envenoming symptoms and antivenom side effects. Efforts are underway to improve snakebite care, but evidence from the ground to inform this is scarce. This study, therefore, investigated the availability, affordability, and stock-outs of antivenom and commodities for supportive snakebite care in health facilities across Kenya. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This study used an adaptation of the standardised World Health Organization (WHO)/Health Action International methodology. Data on commodity availability, prices and stock-outs were collected in July-August 2020 from public (n = 85), private (n = 36), and private not-for-profit (n = 12) facilities in Kenya. Stock-outs were measured retrospectively for a twelve-month period, enabling a comparison of a pre-COVID-19 period to stock-outs during COVID-19. Affordability was calculated using the wage of a lowest-paid government worker (LPGW) and the impoverishment approach. Accessibility was assessed combining the WHO availability target (≥80%) and LPGW affordability (<1 day's wage) measures. Overall availability of snakebite commodities was low (43.0%). Antivenom was available at 44.7% of public- and 19.4% of private facilities. Stock-outs of any snakebite commodity were common in the public- (18.6%) and private (11.7%) sectors, and had worsened during COVID-19 (10.6% versus 17.0% public sector, 8.4% versus 11.7% private sector). Affordability was not an issue in the public sector, while in the private sector the median cost of one vial of antivenom was 14.4 days' wage for an LPGW. Five commodities in the public sector and two in the private sector were deemed accessible. CONCLUSIONS: Access to snakebite care is problematic in Kenya and seemed to have worsened during COVID-19. To improve access, efforts should focus on ensuring availability at both lower- and higher-level facilities, and improving the supply chain to reduce stock-outs. Including antivenom into Universal Health Coverage benefits packages would further facilitate accessibility.

The Current State of Snakebite Care in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia: Healthcare Workers' Perspectives and Knowledge, and Health Facilities' Treatment Capacity.

Snakebites continue to be a public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa, where availability of appropriate medical treatment is rare, even though death and disability can be prevented with timely intervention. A challenge is the lack of sociopolitical studies to inform health policies. This study aimed to identify snakebite patient profiles, healthcare workers' (HCWs) knowledge of snakebite, and facilities' snakebite treatment capacity in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia to inform interventions to improve access to appropriate treatment. The research comprised a cross-sectional key informant survey among HCWs from health facilities in Kenya (n = 145), Uganda (n = 144), and Zambia (n = 108). Data were collected between March 2018 and November 2019. Most of the HCWs suggested that the number of snakebite incidents was similar between the genders, that most patients were aged 21-30 years, and most people were bitten when farming or walking. Overall, only 12% of HCWs had received formal training in snakebite management. Only about 20% of HCWs in each country said their health facility had the medicines needed to treat snakebites, with antivenom available in 0-34% of facilities across the sectors and countries, and snakebites were not systematically recorded. This research shows that an integrative approach through policies to increase resource allocation for health system strengthening, including community education, HCW training, and improved access to snakebite treatment, is needed. Part of this approach should include regulations that ensure antivenoms available in health facilities meet quality control standards and that snakebites are accommodated into routine reporting systems to assess progress.