Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

HPV vaccination in Kenya: a study protocol to assess stakeholders' perspectives on implementation drivers of HPV vaccination and the acceptability of the reduced dose strategy among providers.

Background: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among Kenyan women. Persistent infection with high-risk oncogenic Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes is a necessary cause of cervical cancer. HPV vaccines are safe, durable, and efficacious in preventing incident HPV infections. In Kenya, despite efforts to increase HPV vaccination, coverage remains low. We sought to assess: (1) barriers and facilitators of HPV vaccination from the perspective of adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), their guardians as well as stakeholders involved in HPV vaccine delivery, and (2) the acceptability of the single dose of the HPV vaccination among healthcare providers (HCPs). Methods: Our study is nested within the KENya Single-dose HPV-vaccine Efficacy study (KEN SHE) that sought to test the efficacy of single-dose bivalent (HPV 16/18) and single-dose nonavalent (HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58/6/11) vaccination. We are conducting this study in Kiambu, Nairobi, and Kisumu counties. In these counties, we are interviewing stakeholders (n = ∼25), selected based on their role in HPV vaccination at the county and national levels. Interviews are audio recorded and conducted in English or Swahili. The semi-structured interview guides were designed based on: (1) the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) for AGYW and guardians and (2) the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) for other stakeholders. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) was leveraged to design the survey administered to HCPs (n = ∼309) involved in HPV vaccination. We will develop a codebook based on emerging codes from the transcripts and constructs from the TDF and CFIR. Emerging themes will be summarized highlighting similarities and differences between and within the different stakeholder groups and counties. Descriptive statistics and a χ2 test will be used to assess the distribution of responses between the different sites and regression analysis will be used to assess factors associated with high acceptability of the single-dose strategy while controlling for confounding variables. Discussion: Our study will describe key barriers and facilitators that affect HPV vaccination from the perspective of multiple stakeholders as well as insights on the perspective of HCPs towards the single-dose strategy to inform the designing of strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake in Kenya and comparable settings.

Procedural fairness for radiotherapy priority setting in a low resource context.

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve their populations. This mismatch between demand and supply creates the need for priority setting. There is no widely accepted system to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in a low resource context. In the absence of consensus on allocation principles, fair procedures for priority setting should be established. Research is needed to understand what elements of procedural fairness are important to decision makers in diverse settings, assess the feasibility of implementing fair procedures for priority setting in low resource contexts, and improve these processes. This study presents the views of decision makers engaged in everyday radiotherapy priority setting at a cancer center in Rwanda. Semi-structured interviews with 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and advisors were conducted. Participants evaluated actual radiotherapy priority setting procedures at the program (meso) and patient (micro) levels, reporting facilitators, barriers, and recommendations. We discuss our findings in relation to the leading Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) framework. Participants emphasized procedural elements that facilitate adherence to normative principles, such as objective criteria that maximize lives saved. They ascribed fairness to AFR's substantive requirement of relevance more than transparency, appeals, and enforcement. They identified several challenges unresolved by AFR, such as conflicting relevant rationales and unintended consequences of publicity and appeals. Implementing fair procedure itself is resource intensive, a paradox that calls for innovative, context-appropriate solutions. Finally, socioeconomic and structural barriers to care that undermine procedural fairness must be addressed.

Minimally Invasive Postmortem Intestinal Tissue Sampling in Malnourished and Acutely Ill Children Is Feasible and Informative.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal disorders such as environmental enteric dysfunction (EED) are prevalent in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and important contributors to childhood undernutrition and mortality. Autopsies are rarely performed in LMICs but minimally invasive tissue sampling is increasingly deployed as a more feasible and acceptable procedure, although protocols have been devoid of intestinal sampling to date. We sought to determine (1) the feasibility of postmortem intestinal sampling, (2) whether autolysis precludes enteric biopsies' utility, and (3) histopathologic features among children who died during hospitalization with acute illness or undernutrition. METHODS: Transabdominal needle and endoscopic forceps upper and lower intestinal sampling were conducted among children aged 1 week to 59 months who died while hospitalized in Blantyre, Malawi. Autolysis ratings were determined for each hematoxylin and eosin slide, and upper and lower intestinal scoring systems were adapted to assess histopathologic features and their severity. RESULTS: Endoscopic and transabdominal sampling procedures were attempted in 28 and 14 cases, respectively, with >90% success obtaining targeted tissue. Varying degrees of autolysis were present in all samples and precluded histopathologic scoring of 6% of 122 biopsies. Greater autolysis in duodenal samples was seen with longer postmortem interval (Beta = 0.06, 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.11). Histopathologic features identified included duodenal Paneth and goblet cell depletion. Acute inflammation was absent but chronic inflammation was prevalent in both upper and lower enteric samples. Severe chronic rectal inflammation was identified in children as young as 5.5 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive postmortem intestinal sampling is feasible and identifies histopathology that can inform mortality contributors.

Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress and burnout are highly prevalent among oncology clinicians. Research is needed to better understand how resource constraints and systemic inequalities contribute to moral distress in order to develop effective mitigation strategies. Oncology providers in low- and middle-income countries are well positioned to provide insight into the moral experience of cancer care priority setting and expertise to guide solutions. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and clinical advisors at a cancer center in Rwanda. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: Participants identified sources of moral distress at three levels of engagement with resource prioritization: witnessing program-level resource constraints drive cancer disparities, implementing priority setting decisions into care of individual patients, and communicating with patients directly about resource prioritization implications. They recommended individual and organizational-level interventions to foster resilience, such as communication skills training and mental health support for clinicians, interdisciplinary team building, fair procedures for priority setting, and collective advocacy for resource expansion and equity. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the current literature an in-depth examination of the impact of resource constraints and inequities on clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective interventions are urgently needed to address moral distress, reduce clinician burnout, and promote well-being among a critical but strained oncology workforce. Collective advocacy is concomitantly needed to address the structural forces that constrain resources unevenly and perpetuate disparities in cancer care and outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For many oncology clinicians worldwide, resource limitations constrain routine clinical practice and necessitate decisions about prioritizing cancer care. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first in-depth analysis of how resource constraints and priority setting lead to moral distress among oncology clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective individual and organizational interventions and collective advocacy for equity in cancer care are urgently needed to address moral distress and reduce clinician burnout among a strained global oncology workforce. Lessons from low-resource settings can be gleaned as high-income countries face growing needs to prioritize oncology resources.

Barriers and coping mechanisms to accessing healthcare during the COVID-19 lockdown: a cross-sectional survey among patients with chronic diseases in rural Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: Large scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions imposed to contain COVID-19, often referred to as 'lockdowns', abruptly and ubiquitously restricted access to routine healthcare services. This study describes reported barriers and coping mechanisms to accessing healthcare among chronic care patients during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in Rwanda. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among chronic care patients enrolled in pediatric development, HIV/AIDS, non-communicable diseases, mental health, and oncology programs at 3 rural Rwandan districts. Active patients with an appointment scheduled between March-June 2020 and a phone number recorded in the electronic medical record system were eligible. Data were collected by telephone interviews between 23rd April and 11th May 2020, with proxy reporting by caregivers for children and critically ill-patients. Fisher's exact tests were used to measure associations. Logistic regression analysis was also used to assess factors associated with reporting at least one barrier to accessing healthcare during the lockdown. RESULTS: Of 220 patient respondents, 44% reported at least one barrier to accessing healthcare. Barriers included lack of access to emergency care (n = 50; 22.7%), lack of access to medication (n = 44; 20.0%) and skipping clinical appointments (n = 37; 16.8%). Experiencing barriers was associated with the clinical program (p < 0.001), with oncology patients being highly affected (64.5%), and with increasing distance from home to the health facility (p = 0.031). In the adjusted logistic regression model, reporting at least one barrier to accessing healthcare was associated with the patient's clinical program and district of residence. Forty (18.2%) patients identified positive coping mechanisms to ensure continuation of care, such as walking long distances during suspension of public transport (n = 21; 9.6%), contacting clinicians via telephone for guidance or rescheduling appointments (n = 15; 6.8%), and delegating someone else for medication pick-up (n = 6; 2.7%). Of 124 patients who reported no barriers to accessing healthcare, 9% used positive coping mechanisms. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of chronic care patients experienced barriers to accessing healthcare during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, many patients also independently identified positive coping mechanisms to ensure continuation of care - strategies that could be formally adopted by healthcare systems in Rwanda and similar settings to mitigate effects of future lockdowns on patients.

Safe Anesthesia Care in Western Kenya: A Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Nurse Anesthetists at Multiple Levels of Government Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Only 20% of the surgical burden in eastern sub-Saharan Africa is currently met, leaving >17 million surgical cases annually in need of safe surgery and anesthesia. Similarly, there is an extreme shortage of anesthesia providers in East Africa, with just 0.44 anesthesiologists per 100,000 people in Kenya compared to 20.82 per 100,000 in the United States. Additionally, surgical access is not equally distributed within countries, with rural settings often having the greatest unmet need. We developed and tested a set of tools to assess if graduates of the Kenya registered nurse anesthetist (KRNA) training program, who were placed in rural hospitals in Kenya, would have any impact on surgical numbers, referral patterns, and economics of these hospitals. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from facility assessments in 9 referral hospitals to evaluate the possible impact of the KRNAs on anesthesia care. The hospitals were grouped based on both the number of beds and the assigned national hospital level. At each level, a hospital that had KRNA graduates (intervention) was matched with comparison hospitals in the same category with no KRNA graduates (control). The facility assessment survey included questions capturing data on personnel, infrastructure, supplies, medications, procedures, and outcomes. At the intervention sites, the medical directors of the hospitals and the KRNAs were interviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to present the findings. RESULTS: Intervention sites had a density of anesthesia providers that was 43% higher compared to the control sites. Intervention sites performed at least twice as many surgical cases compared to the control sites. Most KRNAs stated that the anesthesia training program had given them sufficient training and leadership skills to perform safe anesthesia in their clinical practice setting. Medical directors at the intervention sites reported increased surgical volumes and fewer referrals to larger hospitals due to the anesthesia gaps that had been addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from this study suggest that KRNAs may be associated with an increased volume of surgical cases completed in these rural Kenyan hospitals and may therefore be filling a known anesthetic void. The presence of skilled anesthesia providers is a first step toward providing safe surgery and anesthesia care for all; however, significant gaps still remain. Future analysis will focus on surgical outcomes, the appropriate anesthesia delivery model for a rural population, and how the availability of anesthesia infrastructure impacts referral patterns and safe surgery capacity.