Economic interventions to improve population health: a scoping study of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the close relationship between poverty and health, national program managers, policy-makers and donors are increasingly including economic interventions as part of their core strategies to improve population health. However, there is often confusion among stakeholders about the definitions and operational differences between distinct types of economic interventions and financial instruments, which can lead to important differences in interpretation and expectations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study to define and clarify concepts underlying key economic interventions - price interventions (taxes and subsidies), income transfer programs, incentive programs, livelihood support programs and health-related financial services - and map the evidence currently available from systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identified 195 systematic reviews on economic interventions published between 2005 and July 2015. Overall, there was an increase in the number of reviews published after 2010. The majority of reviews focused on price interventions, income transfer programs and incentive programs, with much less evidence available from systematic reviews on livelihood support programs and health-related financial services. We also identified a lack of evidence on: health outcomes in low income countries; unintended or perverse outcomes; implementation challenges; scalability and cost-effectiveness of economic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that while more research is clearly needed to assess suitability and effectiveness of economic interventions in different contexts, before interventions are tested and further systematic reviews conducted, a consistent and accurate understanding of the fundamental differences in terminology and approaches is essential among researchers, public health policy makers and program planners.

The broader economic impact of vaccination: reviewing and appraising the strength of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Microeconomic evaluations of public health programmes such as immunisation typically only consider direct health benefits and medical cost savings. Broader economic benefits around childhood development, household behaviour, and macro-economic indicators are increasingly important, but the evidence linking immunization to such benefits is unclear. METHODS: A conceptual framework of pathways between immunisation and its proposed broader economic benefits was developed through expert consultation. Relevant articles were obtained from previous reviews, snowballing, and expert consultation. Articles were associated with one of the pathways and quality assessed using modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: We found 20 studies directly relevant to one or more pathways. Evidence of moderate quality from experimental and observational studies was found for benefits due to immunisation in improved childhood physical development, educational outcomes, and equity in distribution of health gains. Only modelling evidence or evidence outside the immunization field supports extrapolating these benefits to household economic behaviour and macro-economic indicators. CONCLUSION: Innovative use of experimental and observational study designs is needed to fill evidence gaps around key pathways between immunisation and many of its proposed economic benefits.

Barriers to Gestational Diabetes Management and Preferred Interventions for Women With Gestational Diabetes in Singapore: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with risks for both the mother and child. The escalated prevalence of GDM because of obesity and changes in screening criteria demands for greater health care needs than before. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the perception of patients and health care providers of the barriers to GDM management and preferred interventions to manage GDM in an Asian setting. METHODS: This mixed methods study used a convergent parallel design. Survey data were collected from 216 women with GDM, and semistructured interviews were conducted with 15 women and with 8 health care providers treating patients with GDM. Participants were recruited from 2 specialized GDM clinics at the National University Hospital, Singapore. RESULTS: The patients were predominantly Chinese (102/214, 47.6%), employed (201/272, 73.9%), with higher education (150/216, 69.4%) and prenatal attendance at a private clinic (138/214, 64.2%), already on diet control (210/214, 98.1%), and receiving support and information from the GDM clinic (194/215, 90.2%) and web-based sources (131/215, 60.9%). In particular, working women reported barriers to GDM management, including the lack of reminders for blood glucose monitoring, diet control, and insufficient time for exercise. Most women preferred getting such support directly from health care providers, whether at the GDM clinic (174/215, 80.9%) or elsewhere (116/215, 53.9%). Smartphone apps were the preferred means of additional intervention. Desirable intervention features identified by patients included more information on GDM, diet and exercise options, reminders for blood glucose testing, a platform to record blood glucose readings and illustrate or understand trends, and a means to communicate with care providers. CONCLUSIONS: A GDM-focused smartphone app that is able to integrate testing, education, and communication may be a feasible and acceptable intervention to provide support to women with GDM, particularly for working women.

Understanding the Attitudes of Clinicians and Patients Toward a Self-Management eHealth Tool for Atrial Fibrillation: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder and poses a growing disease burden worldwide because of an aging population. A multidisciplinary approach with an emphasis on patient education and self-management has been demonstrated to improve outcomes for AF through the engagement of patients in their own care. Although electronic tools (e-tools) such as apps have been proposed to provide patient education and facilitate self-management, there have been few studies to guide the development of these tools for patients with AF. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perceptions of patients and health care providers (HCPs) and their attitudes toward the use of e-tools for the self-management of AF. It also seeks to elicit the factors that contribute to these attitudes. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews with HCPs and patients were conducted to understand the interpretations and expectations of an e-tool that would be used for the self-management of AF. Interview data were analyzed using an exploratory thematic analysis approach to uncover emergent themes and infer ideas of preferred features in a device. A modified technology acceptance model was developed as a framework to help interpret these findings. Data from the HCPs and patients were compared and contrasted. RESULTS: Both patients and HCPs thought that an e-tool would be useful in the self-management of AF. Although both groups favored educational content and monitoring of blood pressure, patients expressed more passivity toward self-care and an ambivalence toward the use of technology to monitor their medical condition. This appears to be related to factors such as a patient's age, social support, and their attitudes toward technology. Instead, they favored using the app to contact their HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into significant differences in the attitudes of patients and HCPs toward the use of e-tools for self-care against their priorities. Understanding patients' motivations and their needs are key to ensuring higher acceptance of such tools.