An implementation research programme to support an intravenous iron intervention for pregnant women with moderate and severe anaemia in Malawi: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal iron supplementation is critical to maternal and child health; however, access and adherence to oral iron are inconsistent in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Modern intravenous (IV) iron products have become available in high-income clinical settings and provide an opportunity to deliver high doses of iron in a single-short infusion during pregnancy. However, there is limited knowledge of the drivers and barriers for such an intervention to be effectively delivered and upscaled in LMICs. In this study protocol, we describe the implementation research programme to support an IV iron intervention in Malawi for pregnant women with moderate and severe anaemia. METHODS: The implementation research programme has three phases, each guided by implementation science conceptual frameworks. In Phase 1, we will conduct formative research (context assessment of the health system with key informant interviews) to determine how IV iron can be effectively introduced into routine antenatal care. We will use the findings to co-develop potential strategies with end-users and healthcare providers to improve intervention implementation. In Phase 2, we will disseminate the implementation strategies to support the uptake and delivery of the intervention in the study settings. In Phase 3, the intervention will be implemented, and we will conduct formative evaluation (interviews with end-users, healthcare providers, and analysis of health services data) to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and strategies. We will also identify processes and contextual factors that facilitate or impede the delivery and uptake of IV iron. DISCUSSION: In LMICs, modern IV iron products present a novel opportunity to rapidly cure moderate and severe anaemia in pregnancy, thereby improving maternal and child health outcomes. This implementation research programme will provide guidance and recommendations on how best an IV iron intervention for pregnant women with anaemia can be implemented in an LMIC setting like Malawi. We will develop locally relevant and culturally appropriate implementation strategies by engaging with key stakeholders (pregnant women, healthcare providers, and policymakers) and identifying factors likely to facilitate successful implementation. The findings of this research can guide the implementation of an IV iron intervention in Malawi and other LMICs.

Questioning the ethics of evidence-based practice for Indigenous health and social settings in Australia.

Australian government planning promotes evidence-based action as the overarching goal to achieving health equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. However, an inequitable distribution of power and resources in the conduct of evidence-based practice produces a policy environment counterintuitive to this goal. This context of contemporary evidence-based practice gives legitimacy to 'expert practitioners' located in Australian governments and universities to use Western guidelines and tools, embedded in Western methodology, to make 'evidence' informed policy and programming decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. This method for decision making assumes a positional superiority that can marginalise the important perspectives, experiences and knowledge of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and their processes for decision making. Here we consider the four steps of an evidence review: (1) developing a review question; (2) acquiring studies; (3) appraising the evidence and (4) assessing the evidence, as components of wider evidence-based practice. We discuss some of the limitations across each step that arise from the broader context within which the evidence review is produced. We propose that an ethical and just approach to evidence-based review can be achieved through a well-resourced Aboriginal community controlled sector, where Aboriginal organisations generate their own evidence and evidence is reviewed using methods and tools that privilege Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, doing and being.

Challenges in Implementing Community-Based Healthcare Teams in a Low-Income Country Context: Lessons From Ethiopia's Family Health Teams.

BACKGROUND: Addressing chronic diseases and intra-urban health disparities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires new health service models. Team-based healthcare models can improve management of chronic diseases/complex conditions. There is interest in integrating community health workers (CHWs) into these teams, given their effectiveness in reaching underserved populations. However healthcare team models are difficult to effectively implement, and there is little experience with team-based models in LMICs and with CHW-integrated models more generally. Our study aims to understand the determinants related to the poor adoption of Ethiopia's family health teams (FHTs); and, raise considerations for initiating CHW-integrated healthcare team models in LMIC cities. METHODS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we examine organizational-level factors related to implementation climate and readiness (work processes/incentives/resources/leadership) and system-level factors (policy guidelines/governance/financing) that affected adoption of FHTs in two Ethiopian cities. Using semi-structured interviews/focus groups, we sought implementation perspectives from 33 FHT members and 18 administrators. We used framework analysis to deductively code data to CFIR domains. RESULTS: Factors associated with implementation climate and readiness negatively impacted FHT adoption. Failure to tap into financial, political, and performance motivations of key stakeholders/FHT members contributed to low willingness to participate, while resource constraints restricted capacity to implement. Workload issues combined with no financial incentives/perceived benefit contributed to poor adoption among clinical professionals. Meanwhile, staffing constraints and unavailability of medicines/supplies/transport contributed to poor implementation readiness, further decreasing willingness among clinical professionals/managers to prioritize non-clinic based activities. The federally-driven program failed to provide budgetary incentives or tap into political motivations of municipal/health centre administrators. CONCLUSION: Lessons from Ethiopia's challenges in implementing its FHT program suggest that LMICs interested in adopting CHW-integrated healthcare team models should closely consider health system readiness (budgets, staffing, equipment/medicines) as well as incentivization strategies (financial, professional, political) to drive organizational change.

Walking the talk: evaluating the alignment between Australian governments' stated principles for working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts and health evaluation practice.

BACKGROUND: Stated principles in government policy documents serve as a set of values outlining how governments intend to work. As such, health planning principles should be reflected in health policy across the cycle of planning, implementation and evaluation. Such principles should be reflected in the process of governments commissioning and funding evaluation, and in the work of those commissioned to do evaluation on behalf of governments. METHODS: We reviewed health planning policy documents to identify principles Australian State and Territory and National governments stated as being important to the work they do within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts. Evaluation tenders and reports relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy, programs and service for the period 1-Jan-2007 to 1-Jan-2017 were retrieved and assessed as to whether they embedded principles governments state as important. RESULTS: In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health planning policy contexts, Australian governments outline shared responsibility, cultural competence, engagement, partnership, capacity building, equity, a holistic concept of health, accountability, and evidence-based as fundamental principles that will underpin the work they will do. In total, we identified 390 publicly advertised evaluation tenders, but were only able to retrieve 18 tenders and 97 reports. Despite strong rhetoric placing importance on the abovementioned principles, these were not consistently embedded in tenders released by government commissioners, nor in reports largely commissioned by governments. Principles most widely incorporated in documents were those corresponding to Closing the Gap - accountability, evidence-based and equity. Principles of holistic concept of health, capacity building, cultural competence and partnership do not appear well applied in evaluation practice. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the tensions and criticism of current practice that sees dominant governments policing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations and defining what principles should inform health policy and evaluation practice, this paper reveals shortcomings in current evaluation practice. Firstly, this paper reveals a lack of transparency about current practice, with only 2% of tenders and 25% of reports in the public domain. Secondly, this paper reveals that governments do not 'walk the talk', particularly when it comes to principles relating to Aboriginal participation in health.

Indigenous engagement in health: lessons from Brazil, Chile, Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Given the persistence of Indigenous health inequities across national contexts, many countries have adopted strategies to improve the health of Indigenous peoples. Governmental recognition of the unique health needs of Indigenous populations is necessary for the development of targeted programs and policies to achieve universal health coverage. At the same time, the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and program and policy design helps to ensure that barriers to health services are appropriately addressed and promotes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Due to similar patterns of Indigenous health and health determinants across borders, there have been calls for greater global collaboration in this field. However, most international studies on Indigenous health policy link Anglo-settler democracies (Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States), despite these countries representing a small fraction of the world's Indigenous people. AIM: This paper examines national-level policy in Australia, Brazil, Chile and New Zealand in relation to governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs and engagement with Indigenous peoples in health. The paper aims to examine how Indigenous health needs and engagement are addressed in national policy frameworks within each of the countries in order to contribute to the understanding of how to develop pro-equity policies within national health care systems. METHODS: For each country, a review was undertaken of national policies and legislation to support engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous peoples in the identification of their health needs, development of programs and policies to address these needs and which demonstrate governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs. Government websites were searched as well as the following databases: Google, OpenGrey, CAB Direct, PubMed, Web of Science and WorldCat. FINDINGS: Each of the four countries have adopted international agreements regarding the engagement of Indigenous peoples in health. However, there is significant variation in the extent to which the principles laid out in these agreements are reflected in national policy, legislation and practice. Brazil and New Zealand both have established national policies to facilitate engagement. In contrast, national policy to enable engagement is relatively lacking in Australia and Chile. Australia, Brazil and New Zealand each have significant initiatives and policy structures in place to address Indigenous health. However, in Brazil this is not necessarily reflected in practice and although New Zealand has national policies these have been recently reported as insufficient and, in fact, may be contributing to health inequity for Maori. In comparison to the other three countries, Chile has relatively few national initiatives or policies in place to support Indigenous engagement or recognise the distinct health needs of Indigenous communities. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of international policy frameworks forms an important step in ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in the formation and implementation of health policy and programs. However, without the relevant principles being reflected in national legislature, international agreements hold little weight. At the same time, while a national legislative framework facilitates the engagement of Indigenous peoples, such policy may not necessarily translate into practice. Developing multi-level approaches that improve cohesion between international policy, national policy and practice in Indigenous engagement in health is therefore vital. Given that each of the four countries demonstrate strengths and weaknesses across this causal chain, cross-country policy examination provides guidance on strengthening these links.

Copayment Incentive Increased Medication Use And Reduced Spending Among Indigenous Australians After 2010.

Australian health policy has prioritized efforts to close the ten-year life expectancy gap between indigenous and nonindigenous Australians, a disparity largely driven by cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Because out-of-pocket spending poses a barrier to accessing medications for chronic conditions, in 2010 the Australian government reduced or eliminated medication copayments for indigenous people with chronic disease or risk factors for chronic disease. In this quasi-experimental study we found that the copayment reductions were associated with a 39 percent relative increase in the use of medications and a 61 percent reduction in out-of-pocket spending. Among indigenous Australians who qualified for the largest copayment reductions, overall use of medications increased by 156 percent-including increases of 26-109 percent in the use of lipid-lowering, hypertension, and diabetes medications. These findings suggest that Australia's novel strategy of targeted copayment reductions improved access to prescription medications among indigenous Australians, a population with a high burden of chronic conditions and marked social disadvantage.

Priority setting in Indigenous health: assessing priority setting process and criteria that should guide the health system to improve Indigenous Australian health.

INTRODUCTION: The health of Indigenous Australians is worse than that of other Australians. Most of the determinants of health are preventable and the poor health outcomes are inequitable. The Australian Government recently pledged to close that health gap. One possible way is to improve the priority setting process to ensure transparency and the use of evidence such as epidemiology, equity and economic evaluation.The purpose of this research was to elicit the perceptions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous decision-makers on several issues related to priority setting in Indigenous-specific health care services. Specifically, we aimed to:1. identify the criteria used to set priorities in Indigenous-specific health care services;2. determine the level of uptake of economic evaluation evidence by decision-makers and how to improve its uptake; and 3. identify how the priority setting process can be improved from the perspective of decision-makers. METHODS: We used a paper survey instrument, adapted from Mitton and colleagues' work, and a face-to-face interview approach to elicit decision-makers' perceptions in Indigenous-specific health care in Victoria, Australia. We used mixed methods to analyse data from the survey. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Results were reported as numbers and percentages. RESULTS: The size of the health burden; sustainability and acceptability of interventions; historical trends/patterns; and efficiency are key criteria for making choices in Indigenous health in Victoria. There is a need for an explicit priority setting approach, which is systematic, and is able to use available data/evidence, such as economic evaluation evidence. The involvement of Indigenous Australians in the process would potentially make the process acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: An economic approach to priority setting is a potentially acceptable and useful tool for Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS). It has the ability to use evidence and ensure due process at the same time. The use of evidence can ensure that health outcomes for Indigenous peoples can be maximised - hence, increase the potential for 'closing the gap' between Indigenous and other Australians.

Improving access to medicines among clients of remote area Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Services.

Despite unequivocally worse health, expenditure on Indigenous people through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is considerably less than for other Australians. We report on the effectiveness of a program to supply PBS medicines to remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Services (ATSIHSs) under section 100 (s. 100) of the National Health Act 1953. THE PROGRAM: Under the special PBS arrangements (SPBSAs), approved ATSIHSs are able to order PBS medicine in bulk through local pharmacies and supply them as needed to patients on-site. The usual co-payment associated with PBS medicine is not charged and the pharmacist remuneration structure is different. METHODS: The project involved consultation with the evaluation reference group and other stakeholders at all stages. There were six main data collection components: public submissions; interviews with government and other key stakeholders; pharmacist survey; medicine utilisation and expenditure data; national ATSIHS minimum dataset; and case studies of ATSIHSs. RESULTS: These SPBSA potentially benefit 36% of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. They have resulted in improved access to much-needed medicines, representing an increase of dollar 36.5 million in expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through the PBS between 2000/01 and 2002/03. They have further ensured that dollar 8.3 million of State and Territory expenditure formerly directed at medicine can be spent on prevention and primary care. CONCLUSION: Overall, the SPBSAs have been very successful and demonstrates an effective model for the development of Indigenous health policy.

Effects of financial disadvantage on use and non-use of after hours care in Australia.

Policy addressing the provision of primary care after hours (AH) is currently in flux because of concerns about equity of access and cost. In this study we examine the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage on access to AH care and episodes of not seeking AH care when needed among users and non-users of AH care. The effects of health on these relationships were also explored. The total sample consisted of 5538 users of AH care and 891 non-users of AH care who were randomly selected for telephone interviews. Factors determining AH care included accessibility that is structural barriers to use of care such as distance and transport, as well as affordability and availability. Logistic regression was used to determine the impact of financial disadvantage on episodes of not seeking AH care. Barriers to use of AH care and household health were subsequently added to the models to assess their impact. The results suggested that there were inequities in access to AH care but these were a function of barriers to AH care use rather than financial disadvantage per se. Accessibility and availability were significant barriers to use of AH clinics among both user and non-user samples. Affordability was only a significant barrier among users of AH care. The study suggests that policy aimed at reducing these barriers may effectively address inequities in AH care but that to be optimally effective policy change would also need to be accompanied by changes in consumer awareness.