Addressing the gap in health economics data to support national cancer control plans in low- and middle-income countries: The Childhood Cancers Budgeting Rapidly to Incorporate Disadvantaged Groups for Equity (CC-BRIDGE) tool.

BACKGROUND: National cancer control plans (NCCPs) are complex public health programs that incorporate evidence-based cancer control strategies to improve health outcomes for all individuals in a country. Given the scope of NCCPs, small and vulnerable populations, such as patients with childhood cancer, are often missed. To support planning efforts, a rapid, modifiable tool was developed that estimates a context-specific national budget to fund pediatric cancer programs, provides 5-year scale-up scenarios, and calculates annual cost-effectiveness. METHODS: The tool was codeveloped by teams of policymakers, clinicians, and public health advocates in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Uganda. The 11 costing categories included real-world data, modeled data, and data from the literature. A base-case and three 5-year scale-up scenarios were created using modifiable inputs. The cost-effectiveness of the disability-adjusted life years averted was calculated. Results were compared with each country's projected gross domestic product per capita for 2022 through 2026. RESULTS: The number of patients/total budget for year 1 was 250/$1,109,366 for Zimbabwe, 280/$1,207,555 for Zambia, and 1000/$2,277,397 for Uganda. In year 5, these values were assumed to increase to 398/$5,545,445, 446/$4,926,150, and 1594/$9,059,331, respectively. Base-case cost per disability-adjusted life year averted/ratio to gross domestic product per capita for year 1, assuming 20% survival, was: $807/0.5 for Zimbabwe, $785/0.7 for Zambia, and $420/0.5 for Uganda. CONCLUSIONS: This costing tool provided a framework to forecast a budget for childhood-specific cancer services. By leveraging minimal primary data collection with existing secondary data, local teams obtained rapid results, ensuring that childhood cancer budgeting is not neglected once in every 5 to 6 years of planning processes.

CritCom: assessment of quality of interdisciplinary communication around deterioration in pediatric oncologic patients.

Background: High-quality clinical care requires excellent interdisciplinary communication, especially during emergencies, and no tools exist to evaluate communication in critical care. We describe the development of a pragmatic tool focusing on interdisciplinary communication during patient deterioration (CritCom). Methods: The preliminary CritCom tool was developed after a literature review and consultation with a multidisciplinary panel of global experts in communication, pediatric oncology, and critical care to review the domains and establish content validity iteratively. Face and linguistic validity were established through cognitive interviews, translation, and linguistic synthesis. We conducted a pilot study among an international group of clinicians to establish reliability and usability. Results: After reviewing 105 potential survey items, we identified 52 items across seven domains. These were refined through cognitive interviews with 36 clinicians from 15 countries. CritCom was piloted with 433 clinicians (58% nurses, 36% physicians, and 6% other) from 42 hospitals in 22 countries. Psychometric testing guided the refinement of the items for the final tool. CritCom comprised six domains with five items each (30 total). The final tool has excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.81-0.86), usability (93% agree or strongly agree that the tool is easy to use), and similar performance between English and Spanish tools. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the final 6-domain structure. Conclusions: CritCom is a reliable and pragmatic bilingual tool to assess the quality of interdisciplinary communication around patient deterioration for children in diverse resource levels globally. Critcom results can be used to design and evaluate interventions to improve team communication.

A new measure for multi-professional medical team communication: design and methodology for multilingual measurement development.

Background: As implementation science in global health continues to evolve, there is a need for valid and reliable measures that consider diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. A standardized, reproducible process for multilingual measure development may improve accessibility and validity by participants in global health settings. To address this need, we propose a rigorous methodology for multilingual measurement development. We use the example of a novel measure of multi-professional team communication quality, a determinant of implementation efforts. Methods: The development and translation of this novel bilingual measure is comprised of seven steps. In this paper, we describe a measure developed in English and Spanish, however, this approach is not language specific. Participants are engaged throughout the process: first, an interprofessional panel of experts and second, through cognitive interviewing for measure refinement. The steps of measure development included: (1) literature review to identify previous measures of team communication; (2) development of an initial measure by the expert panel; (3) cognitive interviewing in a phased approach with the first language (English); (4): formal, forward-backward translation process with attention to colloquialisms and regional differences in languages; (5) cognitive interviewing repeated in the second language (Spanish); (6) language synthesis to refine both instruments and unify feedback; and (7) final review of the refined measure by the expert panel. Results: A draft measure to assess quality of multi-professional team communication was developed in Spanish and English, consisting of 52 questions in 7 domains. This measure is now ready for psychometric testing. Conclusions: This seven-step, rigorous process of multilingual measure development can be used in a variety of linguistic and resource settings. This method ensures development of valid and reliable tools to collect data from a wide range of participants, including those who have historically been excluded due to language barriers. Use of this method will increase both rigor and accessibility of measurement in implementation science and advance equity in research and practice.

Access to essential cancer medicines for children: a comparative mixed-methods analysis of availability, price, and health-system determinants in east Africa.

BACKGROUND: Access to essential childhood cancer medicines is a core determinant of childhood cancer outcomes. Available evidence, although scarce, suggests that access to these medicines is highly variable across countries, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, where the burden of childhood cancer is greatest. To support evidence-informed national and regional policies for improved childhood cancer outcomes, we aimed to analyse access to essential childhood cancer medicines in four east African countries-Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda-by determining the availability and price of these medicines and the health system determinants of access. METHODS: In this comparative analysis, we used prospective mixed-method analyses to track and analyse the availability and price of essential childhood cancer medicines, investigate contextual determinants of access to childhood cancer medicines within and across included countries, and assess the potential effects of medicine stockouts on treatment. Eight tertiary care hospitals were included, seven were public sites (Kenyatta National Hospital [KNH; Nairobi, Kenya], Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Referral and Teaching Hospital [JOORTH; Kisumu, Kenya], Moi University Teaching and Referral Hospital [MTRH; Eldoret, Kenya], Bugando Medical Centre [BMC; Mwanza, Tanzania], Muhimbili National Hospital [MNH; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania], Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence [BCCE; Butaro Sector, Rwanda], and Uganda Cancer Institute [UCI; Kampala, Uganda]) and one was a private site (Aga Khan University Hospital [AKU; Nairobi, Kenya]). We catalogued prices and stockouts for 37 essential drugs from each of the eight study siteson the basis of 52 weeks of prospective data that was collected across sites from May 1, 2020, to Jan 31, 2022. We analysed determinants of medicine access using thematic analysis of academic literature, policy documents, and semi-structured interviews from a purposive sample of health system stakeholders. FINDINGS: Recurrent stockouts of a wide range of cytotoxic and supportive care medicines were observed across sites, with highest mean unavailability in Kenya (JOORTH; 48·5%), Rwanda (BCCE; 39·0%), and Tanzania (BMC; 32·2%). Drugs that had frequent stockouts across at least four sites included methotrexate, bleomycin, etoposide, ifosfamide, oral morphine, and allopurinol. Average median price ratio of medicines at each site was within WHO's internationally accepted threshold for efficient procurement (median price ratio ≤1·5). The effect of stockouts on treatment was noted across most sites, with the greatest potential for treatment interruptions in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, and acute lymphocytic leukaemia. Policy prioritisation of childhood cancers, health financing and coverage, medicine procurement and supply chain management, and health system infrastructure emerged as four prominent determinants of access when the stratified purposive sample of key informants (n=64) across all four countries (Kenya n=19, Rwanda n=15, Tanzania n=13, and Uganda n=17) was interviewed. INTERPRETATION: Access to childhood cancer medicines across east Africa is marked by gaps in availability that have implications for effective treatment delivery for a range of childhood cancers. Our findings provide detailed evidence of barriers to access to childhood cancer medicine at multiple points in the pharmaceutical value chain. These data could inform national and regional policy makers to optimise cancer medicine availability and affordability as part of efforts to improve childhood cancer outcomes specific regions and internationally. FUNDING: American Childhood Cancer Organization, Childhood Cancer International, and the Friends of Cancer Patients Ameera Fund.

Development and pilot testing of PROACTIVE: A pediatric onco-critical care capacity and quality assessment tool for resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 90% children with cancer reside in low- and middle-income countries, which face multiple challenges delivering high-quality pediatric onco-critical care (POCC). We recently identified POCC quality and capacity indicators for PROACTIVE (PediatRic Oncology cApaCity assessment Tool for IntensiVe carE), a tool that evaluates strengths and limitations in POCC services. This study describes pilot testing of PROACTIVE, development of center-specific reports, and identification of common POCC challenges. METHODS: The original 119 consensus-derived PROACTIVE indicators were converted into 182 questions divided between 2 electronic surveys for intensivists and oncologists managing critically ill pediatric cancer patients. Alpha-testing was conducted to confirm face-validity with four pediatric intensivists. Eleven centers representing diverse geographic regions, income levels, and POCC services conducted beta-testing to evaluate usability, feasibility, and applicability of PROACTIVE. Centers' responses were scored and indicators with mean scores ≤75% in availability/performance were classified as common POCC challenges. RESULTS: Alpha-testing ensured face-validity and beta-testing demonstrated feasibility and usability of PROACTIVE (October 2020-June 2021). Twenty-two surveys (response rate 99.4%) were used to develop center-specific reports. Adjustments to PROACTIVE were made based on focus group feedback and surveys, resulting in 200 questions. Aggregated data across centers identified common POCC challenges: (1) lack of pediatric intensivists, (2) absence of abstinence and withdrawal symptoms monitoring, (3) shortage of supportive care resources, and (4) limited POCC training for physicians and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: PROACTIVE is a feasible and contextually appropriate tool to help clinicians and organizations identify challenges in POCC services across a wide range of resource-levels. Widespread use of PROACTIVE can help prioritize and develop tailored interventions to strengthen POCC services and outcomes globally.

The cost effectiveness of treating Burkitt lymphoma in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Perceptions of high cost and resource intensity remain political barriers to the prioritization of childhood cancer treatment programs in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Little knowledge exists of the actual cost and cost-effectiveness of such programs. To improve outcomes for children with Burkitt lymphoma (BL), the most common childhood cancer in Africa, the Uganda Cancer Institute implemented a comprehensive BL treatment program in 2012. We undertook an economic evaluation of the program to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of BL therapy in a specific LIC setting. METHODS: We compared the treatment of BL to usual care in a cohort of 122 patients treated between 2012 and 2014. Costs included variable, fixed, and family costs. Our primary measure of effectiveness was overall survival (OS). Patient outcomes were determined through prospective capture and retrospective chart abstraction. The cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted was calculated using the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions That Are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) methodology. RESULTS: The 2-year OS with treatment was 55% (95% CI, 45% to 64%). The cost per DALY averted in the treatment group was US$97 (Int$301). Cumulative estimate of national DALYs averted through treatment was 8607 years, and the total national annual cost of treatment was US$834,879 (Int$2,590,845). The cost of BL treatment fell well within WHO-CHOICE cost-effectiveness thresholds. The ratio of cost per DALY averted to per capita gross domestic product was 0.14, reflecting a very cost-effective intervention. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that treating BL with locally tailored protocols is very cost-effective by international standards. Studies of this kind will furnish crucial evidence to help policymakers prioritize the allocation of LMIC health system resources among noncommunicable diseases, including childhood cancer.

The Collaborative Wilms Tumour Africa Project; baseline evaluation of Wilms tumour treatment and outcome in eight institutes in sub-Saharan Africa.

AIM: Reported survival of Wilms tumour in sub-Saharan Africa is below 50%. A published International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Pediatric Oncology in Developing Countries (PODC) consensus adapted treatment guideline is implemented as a multi-centre prospective clinical trial at eight centres in sub-Saharan Africa. A baseline evaluation has been done to help decide on priorities to improve outcome and to assess improvements over time. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients admitted with Wilms tumour in the three years (2011-2013) preceding the collaborative trial. Patient outcome at the end of treatment was documented for all patients diagnosed in 2011 and 2012. Outcome was classified as (1) alive, no evidence of disease; (2) alive with disease; (3) died during treatment and (4) incomplete treatment. Details on treatment facilities, staff and estimated cost of treatment are documented. RESULTS: Every year 114-130 patients are diagnosed. The mean survival at end of treatment is 39% (69/176) ranging from 11% to 61%. Incomplete treatment is the most common cause of treatment failure with 31% (54/176), ranging from 14% to 48% between centres. Twenty-six percent (46/176) of patients died during treatment, ranging from 13% to 37%. Estimated cost of treatment for parents ranged from 100 US$ to 1100 US$ and was considered an important cause of failure to complete treatment. CONCLUSION: Overall two year survival is estimated at 25%. Prevention of incomplete treatment is possible and will positively affect outcome. Sharing similar local challenges in this regional collaborative project helps to identify and implement feasible, sustainable and successful strategies.