Exploring the association between primary care efficiency and health system characteristics across European countries: a two-stage data envelopment analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is widely seen as a core component of resilient and sustainable health systems, yet its efficiency is not well understood and there is a lack of evidence about how primary care efficiency is associated with health system characteristics. We examine this issue through the lens of diabetes care, which has a well-established evidence base for effective treatment and has previously been used as a tracer condition to measure health system performance. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework to guide the analysis of primary care efficiency. Using data on 18 European countries during 2010-2016 from several international databases, we applied a two-stage data envelopment analysis to estimate (i) technical efficiency of primary care and (ii) the association between efficiency and health system characteristics. RESULTS: Countries varied widely in terms of primary care efficiency, with efficiency scores depending on the range of population characteristics adjusted for. Higher efficiency was associated with bonus payments for the prevention and management of chronic conditions, nurse-led follow-up, and a financial incentive or requirement for patients to obtain a referral to specialist care. Conversely, lower efficiency was associated with higher rates of curative care beds and financial incentives for patients to register with a primary care provider. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline the importance of considering differences in population characteristics when comparing country performance on primary care efficiency. We highlight several policies that could enhance the efficiency of primary care. Improvements in data collection would enable more comprehensive assessments of primary care efficiency across countries, which in turn could more effectively inform policymaking.

EXPERTS II - How are patient and caregiver participation in health and social care shaped by experienced burden of treatment and social inequalities? Protocol for a qualitative synthesis.

Background: The workload health and social care service users and caregivers take on, and their capacity to do this work is important. It may play a key part in shaping the implementation of innovations in health service delivery and organisation; the utilisation and satisfaction with services; and the outcomes of care. Previous research has often focused on experiences of a narrow range of long-term conditions, and on factors that shape adherence to self-care regimes. Aims: With the aim of deriving policy and practice implications for service redesign, this evidence synthesis will extend our understanding of service user and caregiver workload and capacity by comparing how they are revealed in qualitative studies of lived experience of three kinds of illness trajectories: long-term conditions associated with significant disability (Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia); serious relapsing remitting disease (Inflammatory Bowel Disease, bipolar disorder); and rapidly progressing acute disease (brain cancer, early onset dementia). Methods: We will review and synthesise qualitative studies of lived experience of participation in health and social care that are shaped by interactions between experienced treatment burdens, social inequalities and illness trajectories. The review will involve:   1.  Construction of a theory-informed coding manual; systematic search of bibliographic databases to identify, screen and quality assess full-text papers.   2.  Analysis of papers using manual coding techniques, and text mining software; construction of taxonomies of service user and caregiver work and capacity.   3.  Designing a model of core components and identifying common factors across conditions, trajectories, and contexts.   4.  Work with practitioners, and a Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, to explore the validity of the models produced; to develop workload reduction strategies; and to consider person-centred service design. Dissemination: We will promote workload reduction models to support service users and caregivers and produce policy briefs and peer-reviewed publications for practitioners, policy-makers, and researchers.

Our experiences of illness are often complex. We may have to work hard too. We may need to monitor and record symptoms: take up different diets and physical activity; use different drugs and medical devices; develop expertise in using websites and information technology; coordinate input from health and care services; sometimes we have to work out how to pay for the services we need. How we get through this work is affected by our capacity to do it, and that is shaped by personal and wider resources, we can draw on. All of this is also affected by the services that are available to us, and by the ways our chances in life are shaped by income, ethnicity, education, gender, and age. The kinds of illnesses we have and how they progress, mean that these factors change over time. We call these changes trajectories. To better understand service user work and capacity, we will review published studies that tell us about people's everyday experiences of living with illnesses. We focus on three rarely studied trajectories. These are long-term conditions associated with significant disability; serious relapsing remitting disease; and rapidly progressing acute disease. We will first use existing research to build a framework in which we can describe and understand relevant aspects of the published studies. We will use this framework to extract relevant information from the studies. This will enable us to make a model of common features of service user work and capacity across different conditions, their trajectories, service organisation and delivery, and patterns of social and economic disadvantage. Finally, we will work with groups of service users and caregivers, and with health and social care professionals to apply the model to the development of strategies to reduce workload and improve service design for people with complex health problems.

Examining the responsiveness of the National Health Insurance Fund to people living with hypertension and diabetes in Kenya: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the responsiveness of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) Supa Cover benefit package to the needs of individuals with diabetes and hypertension in Kenya. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We carried out a qualitative study and collected data using key informant interviews (n=39) and focus group discussions (n=4) in two purposively selected counties in Western Kenya. Study participants were drawn from NHIF officials, county government officials, health facility managers, healthcare workers and individuals with hypertension and diabetes who were enrolled in NHIF. We analysed data using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Study participants reported that the NHIF Supa Cover benefit package expanded access to services for people living with hypertension and diabetes. However, the NHIF members and healthcare workers had inadequate awareness of the NHIF service entitlements. The NHIF benefit package inadequately covered the range of services needed by people living with hypertension and diabetes and the benefits package did not prioritise preventive and promotive services. Sometimes patients were discriminated against by healthcare providers who preferred cash-paying patients, and some NHIF-empanelled health facilities had inadequate structural inputs essential for quality of care. Study participants felt that the NHIF premium for the general scheme was unaffordable, and NHIF members faced additional out-of-pocket costs because of additional payments for services not available or covered. CONCLUSION: Whereas NHIF has reduced financial barriers for hypertension and diabetes patients, to enhance its responsiveness to patient needs, NHIF should implement mechanisms to increase benefit package awareness among members and providers. In addition, preventive and promotive services should be included in NHIF's benefits package and mechanisms to monitor and hold contracted providers accountable should be strengthened.

"There's Not Enough Bodies to Do the Demand": An Exploration of Key Stakeholder Views on the Role of Health Service Capacity in Shaping Cancer Outcomes in 7 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Countries.

BACKGROUND: Differences in cancer survival are shaped by differences in health system capacity in workforce and infrastructure. Part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), this study explored stakeholders' perceptions of the role of health system capacity necessary for cancer care in influencing cancer survival in 7 high-income countries. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 79 key informants from national, regional, and local tiers of health systems, professional bodies, patient associations, and academic experts in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Data collection was guided by a conceptual model linking characteristics of health systems and cancer survival along the cancer patient journey, from recognition of symptoms at pre-diagnostic stages through to survivorship or death. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes as important in shaping cancer outcomes: primary care and access to diagnostic evaluation, specialist care and access to treatment, and workforce pertaining to diagnostic and treatment phases. Improved infrastructure for diagnosis and treatment had improved cancer outcomes in all jurisdictions. However, this was seen as insufficient if staffing was inadequate. Consolidation of services and greater surgical specialisation was important in some jurisdictions if accompanied by a reconfiguration of services, in particular the creation of specialist multidisciplinary teams, along with supporting capacity in the wider health system. Staff shortages were commonly cited as reasons why some jurisdictions lagged behind others. CONCLUSION: Continued improvement in cancer outcomes will require sustained investment in plans to deliver and maintain the workforce engaged in cancer care and in the infrastructure on which they depend. However, strategic plans must recognise that systems for cancer care do not work in isolation from the rest of the health system and a whole systems approach is essential if we are to improve outcomes for an ageing, increasingly multimorbid population.

The Public Health Responsibility Deal: Using a Systems-Level Analysis to Understand the Lack of Impact on Alcohol, Food, Physical Activity, and Workplace Health Sub-Systems.

The extent to which government should partner with business interests such as the alcohol, food, and other industries in order to improve public health is a subject of ongoing debate. A common approach involves developing voluntary agreements with industry or allowing them to self-regulate. In England, the most recent example of this was the Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD), a public⁻private partnership launched in 2011 under the then Conservative-led coalition government. The RD was organised around a series of voluntary agreements that aim to bring together government, academic experts, and commercial, public sector and voluntary organisations to commit to pledges to undertake actions of public health benefit. This paper brings together the main findings and implications of the evaluation of the RD using a systems approach. We analysed the functioning of the RD exploring the causal pathways involved and how they helped or hindered the RD; the structures and processes; feedback loops and how they might have constrained or potentiated the effects of the RD; and how resilient the wider systems were to change (i.e., the alcohol, food, and other systems interacted with). Both the production and uptake of pledges by RD partners were largely driven by the interests of partners themselves, enabling these wider systems to resist change. This analysis demonstrates how and why the RD did not meet its objectives. The findings have lessons for the development of effective alcohol, food and other policies, for defining the role of unhealthy commodity industries, and for understanding the limits of industry self-regulation as a public health measure.

International experiments with different models of allocating funds to facilitate integrated care: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated care is viewed widely as a potential solution to some of the major challenges faced by health and social care systems, such as those posed by service duplication, fragmentation and poor care coordination, and associated impacts on the quality and cost of services. Fragmented models of allocating funds to and across sectors, programmes and providers are frequently cited as a major barrier to integration and countries have experimented with different models of allocating funds to enhance care coordination among service providers and to reduce ineffective care and avoid costly adverse events. This scoping review aims to assess published international experiences of different models of allocating funds to facilitate integration and the evidence on their impacts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will adopt a scoping review methodology due to the potentially vast and multidisciplinary nature of the literature on different models of allocating funds in health and social care systems, as well as the scarcity of existing knowledge syntheses. The framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley will be followed that entails six steps: (1) identifying the research question(s), (2) searching for relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results and (6) and conducting consultation exercises. These steps will be conducted iteratively and reflexively, making adjustments and repetitions when appropriate to make sure the literature has been covered as comprehensively as possible. To ensure comprehensiveness of our literature review, we also search a wide range of sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: An integrated knowledge translation strategy will be pursued by engaging our knowledge users through all stages of the review. We will organise two workshops or policy roundtables/policy dialogues in Alberta and British Columbia with participation of diverse knowledge users to discuss and interpret the findings of our review and to draw out policy opportunities and lessons that can be applied to the context of these two provinces.

Organization and financing of public health services in Europe

How are public health services in Europe organized and financed? With European health systems facing a plethora of challenges that can be addressed through public health interventions, there is renewed interest in strengthening public health services. Yet, there are enormous gaps in our knowledge. How many people work in public health? How much money is spent on public health? What does it actually achieve? None of these questions can be answered easily. This volume brings together current knowledge on the organization and financing of public health services in Europe. It is based on country reports on the organization and financing of public health services in nine European countries and an in-depth analysis of the involvement of public health services in addressing three contemporary public health challenges (alcohol, obesity and antimicrobial resistance). The focus is on four core dimensions of public health services: organization, financing, the public health workforce, and quality assurance. The questions the volume seeks to answer are: How are public health services in Europe organized? Are there good practices that can be emulated? What policy options are available?; How much is spent on public health services? Where do resources come from? And what was the impact of the economic crisis?; What do we know about the public health workforce? How can it be strengthened?; How is the quality of public health services being assured? What should quality assurance systems for public health services look like? This study is the result of close collaboration between the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and the WHO Regional Office for Europe, Division of Health Systems and Public Health. It accompanies two other Observatory publications: Organization and financing of public health services in Europe: country reports and The role of public health organizations in addressing public health problems in Europe: the case of obesity, alcohol and antimicrobial resistance.

Organization and financing of public health services in Europe: country reports

What are “public health services”? Countries across Europe understand what they are, or what they should include, differently. This study describes the experiences of nine countries, detailing the ways they have opted to organize and finance public health services, and train and employ their public health workforce. It covers England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, Poland and the Republic of Moldova, and aims to give insights into current practice that will support decision-makers in their efforts to strengthen public health capacities and services. Each country chapter captures the historical background of public health services and the context in which they operate; sets out the main organizational structures; assesses the sources of public health financing and how it is allocated; explains the training and employment of the public health workforce; and analyses existing frameworks for quality and performance assessment. The study reveals a wide range of experience and variation across Europe and clearly illustrates two fundamentally different approaches to public health services: integration with curative health services (as in Slovenia or Sweden) or organization and provision through a separate parallel structure (Republic of Moldova). The case studies explore the context that explain this divergence and its implications. This study is the result of close collaboration between the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and the WHO Regional Office for Europe, Division of Health Systems and Public Health. It accompanies two other Observatory publications: Organization and financing of public health services in Europe and The role of public health organizations in addressing public health problems in Europe: the case of obesity, alcohol and antimicrobial resistance.

Assessing the economic costs of unhealthy diets and low physical acitivity: an evidence review and proposed framework

Unhealthy diets and low physical activity contribute to many chronic diseases and disability; they are responsible for some 2 in 5 deaths worldwide and for about 30% of the global disease burden. Yet surprisingly little is known about the economic costs that these risk factors cause, both for health care and society more widely. This study pulls together the evidence about the economic burden that can be linked to unhealthy diets and low physical activity and explores: how definitions vary and why this matters; the complexity of estimating the economic burden and; how we can arrive at a better way to estimate the costs of an unhealthy diet and low physical activity, using diabetes as an example. The review finds that unhealthy diets and low physical activity predict higher health care expenditure, but estimates vary greatly. Existing studies underestimate the true economic burden because most only look at the costs to the health system. Indirect costs caused by lost productivity may be about twice as high as direct health care costs, together accounting for about 0.5% of national income. The study also tests the feasibility of using a disease-based approach to estimate the costs of unhealthy diets and low physical activity in Europe, projecting the total economic burden associated with these two risk factors as manifested in new type 2 diabetes cases at €883 million in 2020 for France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom alone. The ‘true’ costs will be higher, as unhealthy diets and low physical activity are linked to many more diseases. The study’s findings are a step towards a better understanding of the economic burden that can be associated with two key risk factors for ill health and they will help policy-makers in setting priorities and to more effectively promoting healthy diets and physical activity.

Public reporting on quality, waiting times and patient experience in 11 high-income countries.

This article maps current approaches to public reporting on waiting times, patient experience and aggregate measures of quality and safety in 11 high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States). Using a questionnaire-based survey of key national informants, we found that the data most commonly made available to the public are on waiting times for hospital treatment, being reported for major hospitals in seven countries. Information on patient experience at hospital level is also made available in many countries, but it is not generally available in respect of primary care services. Only one of the 11 countries (England) publishes composite measures of overall quality and safety of care that allow the ranking of providers of hospital care. Similarly, the publication of information on outcomes of individual physicians remains rare. We conclude that public reporting of aggregate measures of quality and safety, as well as of outcomes of individual physicians, remain relatively uncommon. This is likely to be due to both unresolved methodological and ethical problems and concerns that public reporting may lead to unintended consequences.

Assessing chronic disease management in European health systems: country reports

Many countries are exploring innovative approaches to redesign delivery systems to provide appropriate support to people with long-standing health problems. Central to these efforts to enhance chronic care are approaches that seek to better bridge the boundaries between professions, providers and institutions, but, as this study clearly demonstrates, countries have adopted differing strategies to design and implement such approaches. This book systematically examines experiences of 12 countries in Europe, using an explicit comparative approach and a unified framework for assessment to better understand the diverse range of contexts in which new approaches to chronic care are being implemented, and to evaluate the outcomes of these initiatives. The study focuses on the content of these new models, which are frequently applied from different disciplinary and professional perspectives and associated with different goals and does so through analysing approaches to self-management support, service delivery design and decision-support strategies, financing, availability and access. Significantly, it also illustrates the challenges faced by individual patients as they pass through the system. This book complements the earlier published study Assessing chronic disease management in European health systems; it builds on the findings of the DISMEVAL project (Developing and validating DISease Management EVALuation methods for European health care systems), led by RAND Europe and funded under the European Union's (EU) Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) (Agreement no. 223277).

For debate: a new wave in public health improvement.

The rising burden of chronic disease poses a challenge for all public health systems and requires innovative approaches to effectively improve population health. Persisting inequalities in health are of particular concern. Disadvantage because of education, income, or social position is associated with a larger burden of disease and, in particular, multimorbidity. Although much has been achieved to enhance population health, challenges remain, and approaches need to be revisited. In this paper, we join the debate about how a new wave of public health improvement might look. We start from the premise that population health improvement is conditional on a health-promoting societal context. It is characterised by a culture in which healthy behaviours are the norm, and in which the institutional, social, and physical environment support this mindset. Achievement of this ambition will require a positive, holistic, eclectic, and collaborative effort, involving a broad range of stakeholders. We emphasise three mechanisms: maximisation of the value of health and incentives for healthy behaviour; promotion of healthy choices as default; and minimisation of factors that create a culture and environment which promote unhealthy behaviour. We give examples of how these mechanisms might be achieved.

What is the evidence on the economic impacts of integrated care?

This policy summary reviews the existing evidence on the economic impact of integrated care approaches. Whereas it is generally accepted that integrated care models have a positive effect on the quality of care, health outcomes and patient satisfaction, it is less clear how cost effective they are. As the evidence-base in this field is rather weak, the authors suggest that we may have to revisit our understanding of the concept and our expectations in terms of its assessment. Integrated care should rather be seen as a complex strategy to innovate and implement long-lasting change in the way services in the health and social-care sectors are delivered. This policy summary is based on a report for the European Commission to inform the discussions of the EU’s Reflection process on modern, responsive and sustainable health systems on the objective of integrated care models and better hospital management.

CLAHRCs in practice: combined knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, cultural change, and experimentation.

OBJECTIVES: The nine NIHR CLAHRCs are collaborations between universities and local NHS organizations that seek to improve patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research. The theoretical and practical context within which the CLAHRCs were set up was characterized by a considerable degree of uncertainty, and the CLAHRCs were established as a natural experiment. METHODS: We adopted a formative and emergent evaluation approach. Drawing on in-depth, multi-method case studies of two CLAHRCs we explored how they pursued their remit by supporting efforts to increase the relevance and use of health research, and building relationships. RESULTS: Both CLAHRCs: strengthened local networks and relationships; built capacity in their local academic and NHS communities to undertake and use research that meets the needs of the service; developed research and implementation methodologies; and added to understanding of the complex relation between research and implementation. There was evidence of impact of CLAHRC projects on health and social care services. Informed by the literature on implementing collaborative research initiatives, knowledge transfer and exchange and cultural change, some key lessons can be drawn. CONCLUSION: The CLAHRCs pursued a strategy that can be categorized as one of flexible comprehensiveness; i.e. their programmes have been flexible and responsive and they have used a range of approaches that seek to match the diverse aspects of the complex issues they face. Key features include their work on combining a range of knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, their efforts to promote cultural change, and the freedom to experiment, learn and adapt. Although the CLAHRCs do not, by themselves, have the remit or resources to bring about wholesale service improvement in health care, they do have features that would allow them to play a key role in some of the wider initiatives that encourage innovation.

The Public Health Responsibility Deal: how should such a complex public health policy be evaluated?

BACKGROUND: The Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) in England was launched in 2011 as a public-private partnership which aims to 'tap into the potential for businesses and other influential organisations to make a significant contribution to improving public health by helping us to create this environment'. It has come under criticism from public health advocates and others, who have suggested that it will be ineffective or perhaps even harmful. Like many public health policies, there have also been demands to know whether it 'works'. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and used this, supplemented with interviews with stakeholders, to develop a detailed logic model of the RD (presented here) to help understand its likely outcomes and the pathways by which these may be achieved as a basis for planning an evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluations of complex interventions require not just assessment of effects (including outcomes), but also a clear conceptualization of the intervention and its processes. The way the RD and the pledges made by participant organizations has been presented makes it difficult at this stage to evaluate whether the RD 'works' in terms of improving health. Instead, any evaluation needs to put together a jigsaw of evidence about processes, mechanisms and potential future health and non-health impacts, in part using the current scientific evidence. This task is ongoing.