Insight into Private General Physicians' Practices: an Exploratory Qualitative Study in a Rural District of Pakistan.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess private general physicians'(GPs) healthcare practices, identifying perceived malpractices, the support they receive, and barriers they experience in providing healthcare services. DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory study. SETTING: Rural district, Thatta in Province of Sindh, Pakistan. PARTICIPANTS: 15 GPs. RESULTS: Our results include increased motivation among GPs for continued professional development, the high influence of pharmaceutical companies on providers' prescribing practices, perceived malpractices by GPs, and the prevalence of quackery and ineffective regulatory mechanisms for private GPs in a rural district. CONCLUSION: Our findings have implications for the capacity building of GPs by academic institutions, enforcement of regulatory measures by the authorities, and the introduction of measures to curb practices by unqualified practitioners. Finally, more research will be needed to further understand the perceptions of GPs, their needs and the service delivery interventions that will enhance the quality of care they provide.

Pakistan's Progress on Universal Health Coverage: Lessons Learned in Priority Setting and Challenges Ahead in Reinforcing Primary Healthcare.

Pakistan developed an essential package of health services at the primary healthcare (PHC) level as a key component of health reforms aiming to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). This supplement describes the methods and processes adopted for evidence-informed prioritization of services, policy decisions adopted, and the lessons learned in package design as well as in the transition to effective rollout. The papers conclude that evidence-informed deliberative processes can be effectively applied to design affordable packages of services that represent good value for money and address a major part of the disease burden. Transition to implementation requires a comprehensive assessment of health system gaps, strong engagement of the planning and financing sectors, serious involvement of key national stakeholders and the private health sector, capacity building, and institutionalization of technical and managerial skills. Pakistan's experience highlights the need for updating the evidence and model packages of the Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) initiative and reinforcing international collaboration to support technical guidance to countries in priority setting and UHC reforms.

Technology-Assisted Mental Health Intervention Delivered by Frontline Workers at Community Doorsteps for Reducing Anxiety and Depression in Rural Pakistan: Protocol for the mPareshan Mixed Methods Implementation Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of specialized mental health workforce in low- and middle-income countries. Use of mobile technology by frontline community health workers (CHWs) is gaining momentum in Pakistan and needs to be explored as an alternate strategy to improve mental well-being. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of an app-based counseling intervention delivered by government lady health workers (LHWs) to reduce anxiety and depression in rural Pakistan. METHODS: Project mPareshan is a single-arm, pre- and posttest implementation research trial in Badin District, Sindh, using mixed methods of data collection executed in 3 phases (preintervention, intervention, and postintervention). In the preintervention phase, formative qualitative assessments through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews assess the acceptability and appropriateness of intervention through perceptions of all concerned stakeholders using a specific interview guide. A REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture)-based baseline survey using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale (GAD-7) determines the point prevalence of depression and anxiety among consenting men and women older than 18 years. Individuals with mild and moderate anxiety and depression are identified as screen positives (SPs) and are eligible for mPareshan app-based intervention. Mental health literacy of health workers is improved through customized training adapting the World Health Organization's Mental Health Gap Action Programme guide 2.0. The intervention (mPareshan app) consists of tracking, counseling, and referral segments. The tracking segment facilitates participant consent and enrollment while the referral segment is used by LHWs to transfer severe cases to the next level of specialist care. Through the counseling segment, identified SPs are engaged during LHWs' routine home visits in 6 face-to-face 20-minute counseling sessions over 6 months. Each session imparts psychoeducation through audiovisual aids, breathing exercises, and coping skills to reduce stress. Clinical and implementation outcomes include change in mean anxiety and depression scores and identification of facilitators and barriers in intervention uptake and rollout. RESULTS: At the time of this submission (April 2024), we are analyzing the results of 366 individuals who participated in the baseline prevalence survey, the change in knowledge and skills of 72 health workers who took the mPareshan training, change in anxiety and depression scores of 98 SPs recruited for app-based counseling intervention, and perceptions of stakeholders pre- and postintervention gathered through 8 focus group discussions and 18 in-depth interviews. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will assess the feasibility of early home-based mental health screening, counseling, and prompt referrals by frontline health workers to reduce anxiety and depression in the community. The study findings will set the stage for integrating mental health into primary health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12622000989741; https://tinyurl.com/5n844c8z. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54272.

Engagement of private healthcare sector in addressing noncommunicable diseases at primary care level in the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

Background: The private healthcare sector is a critical stakeholder in the provision of health care services, including noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), and engagement with the sector is increasingly being advocated in efforts to achieve Universal Health Coverage. Aim: This study was conducted to explore the role of the private health sector in delivering NCD-related primary care services in selected countries of the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR): Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Methods: We adapted the analytical framework for this study from the "Framework for action to implement the United Nations political declaration on noncommunicable diseases". We conducted a desk review to gather evidence, identify gaps and provide direction for the subsequent stakeholder interviews. Key informant interview respondents were selected using the snowball sampling method. Data from the interviews were analysed using MAXQDA, version 2020. Results: We reviewed 26 documents and interviewed 19 stakeholders in Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic. Our results indicated increasing advocacy at the regional and national levels to align the private and public health sectors, just as there were efforts to reduce the risk factors for NCDs by implementing tobacco laws, introducing food labelling guidelines, increasing taxes on soft drinks, and promoting the healthy cities approach. NCDs health information systems varied widely among the countries, from being organized and developed to having poor recordkeeping. The private health sector is the predominant provider of care at primary level in most of the EMR countries. Conclusion: Increased collaboration between the public and private sectors is essential for better management of NCDs in the EMR. Governments need to strengthen regulation and defragment the private health sector and harness the sector's strengths as part of efforts to achieve national health targets, NCD goals and Universal Health Coverage.

Assessing Global Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness to Inform Development of Pakistan's Essential Package of Health Services.

BACKGROUND: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan's approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process. METHODS: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GH-CEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation. RESULTS: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches. CONCLUSION: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.

What happens when private general practitioners receive incentivisation offers from pharmaceutical sales representatives? A qualitative study in Pakistan.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians for profit maximisation is a well-documented health system challenge. This study examined general practitioners' (GPs) reactions to pharmaceutical incentivisation offers in one region in Pakistan. METHODS: We used the Standardised Pharmaceutical Sales Representative (SPSR) method and qualitative interviews with GPs. SPSRs were field researchers representing mock pharmaceutical companies who recorded their observations of 267 GPs' responses to pharmaceutical incentivisation offers. We triangulated SPSR data using qualitative interviews with a subset of the same GPs to gather information about how they interpreted different interaction outcomes. RESULTS: We found four major outcomes for GPs being offered incentives by pharmaceutical companies for prescribing medications. GPs might agree to make incentivisation deals, reject incentivisation offers, disallow PSRs to access them, or remain indeterminate with no clear indication of acceptance or rejection of incentivisation offers. GPs rejecting SPSRs' incentivisation offers indicated having active commitments to other pharmaceutical companies, not being able to work with unheard-of companies, and asking SPSRs to return later. CONCLUSIONS: The GP-pharmaceutical sales representative interaction that centres on profit-maximisation is complex as offers to engage in prescribing for mutual financial benefit are not taken up immediately. The SPSR method helps understand the extent of distortion of practices impacted by incentivisation. Such an understanding can support the development of strategies to control unethical behaviours.

Assessment of Patient Safety in a Low-Resource Health Care System: Proposal for a Multimethod Study.

BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of adverse events (AEs) globally in health care delivery has led to the establishment of many guidelines to enhance patient safety. However, patient safety is a relatively nascent concept in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where health systems are already overburdened and underresourced. This is why it is imperative to study the nuances of patient safety from a local perspective to advocate for the judicious use of scarce public health resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the status of patient safety in a health care system within a low-resource setting, using a multipronged, multimethod approach of standardized methodologies adapted to the local setting. METHODS: We propose purposive sampling to include a representative mix of public and private, rural and urban, and tertiary and secondary care hospitals, preferably those ascribed to the same hospital quality standards. Six different approaches will be considered at these hospitals including (1) focus group discussions on the status quo of patient safety, (2) Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, (3) Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, (4) estimation of incidence of AEs identified by patients, (5) estimation of incidence of AEs via medical record review, and (6) assessment against the World Health Organization's Patient Safety Friendly Hospital Framework via thorough reviews of existing hospital protocols and in-person surveys of the facility. RESULTS: The abovementioned studies collectively are expected to yield significant quantifiable information on patient safety conditions in a wide range of hospitals operating within LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: A multidimensional approach is imperative to holistically assess the patient safety situation, especially in LMICs. Our low-budget, non-resource-intensive research proposal can serve as a benchmark to conduct similar studies in other health care settings within LMICs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50532.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The Disease Control Priorities 3 (DCP3) project provides long-term support to Pakistan in the development and implementation of its universal health coverage essential package of health services (UHC-EPHS). This paper reports on the priority setting process used in the design of the EPHS during the period 2019-2020, employing the framework of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a tool for priority setting with the explicit aim of optimising the legitimacy of decision-making in the development of health benefit packages. METHODS: We planned the six steps of the framework during two workshops in the Netherlands with participants from all DCP3 Pakistan partners (October 2019 and February 2020), who implemented these at the country level in Pakistan in 2019 and 2020. Following implementation, we conducted a semi-structured online survey to collect the views of participants in the UHC benefit package design about the prioritisation process. RESULTS: The key steps in the EDP framework were the installation of advisory committees (involving more than 150 members in several Technical Working Groups [TWGs] and a National Advisory Committee [NAC]), definition of decision criteria (effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, avoidable burden of disease, equity, financial risk protection, budget impact, socio-economic impact and feasibility), selection of interventions for evaluation (a total of 170), and assessment and appraisal (across the three dimensions of the UHC cube) of these interventions. Survey respondents were generally positive across several aspects of the priority setting process. CONCLUSION: Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the priority setting process may have improved the legitimacy of decision-making by involving stakeholders through participation with deliberation, and being evidence-informed and transparent. Important lessons were learned that can be beneficial for other countries designing their own health benefit package such as on the options and limitations of broad stakeholder involvement.

The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.

BACKGROUND: Pakistan embarked on a process of designing an essential package of health services (EPHS) as a pathway towards universal health coverage (UHC). The EPHS design followed an evidence-informed deliberative process; evidence on 170 interventions was introduced along multiple stages of appraisal engaging different stakeholders tasked with prioritising interventions for inclusion. We report on the composition of the package at different stages, analyse trends of prioritised and deprioritised interventions and reflect on the trade-offs made. METHODS: Quantitative evidence on cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and avoidable burden of disease was presented to stakeholders in stages. We recorded which interventions were prioritised and deprioritised at each stage and carried out three analyses: (1) a review of total number of interventions prioritised at each stage, along with associated costs per capita and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, to understand changes in affordability and efficiency in the package, (2) an analysis of interventions broken down by decision criteria and intervention characteristics to analyse prioritisation trends across different stages, and (3) a description of the trajectory of interventions broken down by current coverage and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Value for money generally increased throughout the process, although not uniformly. Stakeholders largely prioritised interventions with low budget impact and those preventing a high burden of disease. Highly cost-effective interventions were also prioritised, but less consistently throughout the stages of the process. Interventions with high current coverage were overwhelmingly prioritised for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Evidence-informed deliberative processes can produce actionable and affordable health benefit packages. While cost-effective interventions are generally preferred, other factors play a role and limit efficiency.

Costing Interventions for Developing an Essential Package of Health Services: Application of a Rapid Method and Results From Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The Federal Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination (MNHSR&C) in Pakistan has committed to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030 by providing an Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS). Starting in 2019, the Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition (DCP3) evidence framework was used to guide the development of Pakistan's EPHS. In this paper, we describe the methods and results of a rapid costing approach used to inform the EPHS design process. METHODS: A total of 167 unit costs were calculated through a context-specific, normative, ingredients-based, and bottom-up economic costing approach. Costs were constructed by determining resource use from descriptions provided by MNHSR&C and validated by technical experts. Price data from publicly available sources were used. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Unit costs ranged from 2019 US$ 0.27 to 2019 US$ 1478. Interventions in the cancer package of services had the highest average cost (2019 US$ 837) while interventions in the environmental package of services had the lowest (2019 US$ 0.68). Cost drivers varied by platform; the two largest drivers were drug regimens and surgery-related costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest our results are not sensitive to changes in staff salary but are sensitive to changes in medicine pricing. CONCLUSION: We estimated a large number of context-specific unit costs, over a six-month period, demonstrating a rapid costing method suitable for EPHS design.

Addressing the UHC Challenge Using the Disease Control Priorities 3 Approach: Lessons Learned and an Overview of the Pakistan Experience.

BACKGROUND: Pakistan developed its first national Essential Package of Health Services (EPHS) as a key step towards accelerating progress in achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). We describe the rationale, aims, the systematic approach followed to EPHS development, methods adopted, outcomes of the process, challenges encountered, and lessons learned. METHODS: EPHS design was led by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination. The methods adopted were technically guided by the Disease Control Priorities 3 Country Translation project and existing country experience. It followed a participatory and evidence-informed prioritisation and decision-making processes. RESULTS: The full EPHS covers 117 interventions delivered at the community, health centre and first-level hospital platforms at a per capita cost of US$29.7. The EPHS also includes an additional set of 12 population-based interventions at US$0.78 per capita. An immediate implementation package (IIP) of 88 district-level interventions costing US$12.98 per capita will be implemented initially together with the population-based interventions until government health allocations increase to the level required to implement the full EPHS. Interventions delivered at the tertiary care platform were also prioritised and costed at US$6.5 per capita, but they were not included in the district-level package. The national EPHS guided the development of provincial packages using the same evidence-informed process. The government and development partners are in the process of initiating a phased approach to implement the IIP. CONCLUSION: Key ingredients for a successful EPHS design requires a focus on package feasibility and affordability, national ownership and leadership, and solid engagement of national stakeholders and development partners. Major challenges to the transition to implementation are to continue strengthening the national technical capacity, institutionalise priority setting and package design and its revision in ministries of health, address health system gaps and bridge the current gap in financing with the progressive increase in coverage towards 2030.

"Caught in Each Other's Traps": Factors Perpetuating Incentive-Linked Prescribing Deals Between Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry.

BACKGROUND: Despite known adverse impacts on patients and health systems, "incentive-linked prescribing," which describes the prescribing of medicines that result in personal benefits for the prescriber, remains a widespread and hidden impediment to quality of healthcare. We investigated factors perpetuating incentive-linked prescribing among primary care physicians in for-profit practices (referred to as private doctors - PDs), using Pakistan as a case study. METHODS: Our mixed-methods study synthesised insights from a survey of 419 systematically sampled PDs and 68 semi-structured interviews with PDs (n=28), pharmaceutical sales representatives (SRs) (n=12), and provincial and national policy actors (n=28). For the survey, we built a verified database of all registered PDs within Karachi, Pakistan's most populous city, administered an electronic questionnaire in-person and descriptively analysed the data. Semi-structured interviews incorporated a vignette-based exercise and data was analysed using an interpretive approach. RESULTS: Our survey showed that 90% of PDs met pharmaceutical SRs weekly. Three interlinked factors perpetuating incentive-linked prescribing we identified were: gaps in understanding of conflicts of interest and loss of values among doctors; financial pressures on doctors operating in a (largely) privately financed health-system, exacerbated by competition with unqualified healthcare providers; and aggressive incentivisation by pharmaceutical companies, linked to low political will to regulate an over-saturated pharmaceutical market. CONCLUSION: Regular interactions between pharmaceutical companies and PDs are normalised in our study setting. Progress on regulating these is hindered by the substantial role of incentive-linked prescribing in the financial success of physicians and pharmaceutical industry employees. A first step towards addressing the entrenchment of incentive-linked prescribing may be to reduce opposition to restrictions on incentivisation of physicians from stakeholders within the pharmaceutical industry, physicians themselves, and policy-makers concerned about curtailing growth of the pharmaceutical industry.