The impact of patient registration on utilisation and quality of care: a propensity score matching and staggered difference-in-differences analysis of a cohort of 16,775 people with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, Luxembourg introduced a Referring Doctor (RD) policy, whereby patients voluntarily register with a primary care practitioner, who coordinates patients' health care and ensures optimal follow-up. We contribute to the limited evidence base on patient registration by evaluating the effects of the RD policy. METHODS: We used data on 16,775 people with type 2 diabetes on oral medication (PWT2D), enrolled with the Luxembourg National Fund from 2010 to 2018. We examined the utilisation of primary and specialist outpatient care, quality of care process indicators, and reimbursed prescribed medicines over the short- (until 2015) and medium-term (until 2018). We used propensity score matching to identify comparable groups of patients with and without an RD. We applied difference-in-differences methods that accounted for patients' registration with an RD in different years. RESULTS: There was low enrolment of PWT2D in the RD programme. The differences-in-differences parallel trends assumption was not met for: general practitioner (GP) consultations, GP home visits (medium-term), HbA1c test (short-term), complete cholesterol test (short-term), kidney function (urine) test (short-term), and the number of repeat prescribed cardiovascular system medicines (short-term). There was a statistically significant increase in the number of: HbA1c tests (medium-term: 0.09 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.18)); kidney function (blood) tests in the short- (0.10 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.19)) and medium-term (0.11 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.20)); kidney function (urine) tests (medium-term: 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.10)); repeat prescribed medicines in the short- (0.19 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.36)) and medium-term (0.18 (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.34)); and repeat prescribed cardiovascular system medicines (medium-term: 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.15)). Sensitivity analyses also revealed increases in kidney function (urine) tests (short-term: 0.07 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.11)) and dental consultations (short-term: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.11), and decreases in specialist consultations (short-term: -0.28, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.04; medium-term: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The RD programme had a limited effect on care quality indicators and reimbursed prescribed medicines for PWT2D. Future research should extend the analysis beyond this cohort and explore data linkage to include clinical outcomes and socio-economic characteristics.

Evaluating the implementation of the Primary Health Integrated Care Project for Chronic Conditions: a cohort study from Kenya.

Introduction: In Kenya, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are estimated to account for almost one-third of all deaths and this is likely to rise by over 50% in the next 10 years. The Primary Health Integrated Care for Chronic Conditions (PIC4C) project aims to strengthen primary care by integrating comprehensive NCD care into existing HIV primary care platform. This paper evaluates the association of PIC4C implementation on clinical outcomes. Methods: Outcomes included proportion of new patients, systolic blood pressure (SBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), diastolic blood pressure, hypertension control, random plasma glucose, diabetes control, viral load and HIV viral suppression. We used interrupted time series and binomial regression with random effects for facility-level data and generalised mixed-effects regression for visit-level data to examine the association between PIC4C and outcomes between January 2017 and December 2021. We conducted sensitivity analysis with restrictions on sites and the number of visits. Results: Data from 66 641 visits of 13 046 patients with hypertension, 24 005 visits of 7267 patients with diabetes and 84 855 visits of 21 186 people with HIV were analysed. We found evidence of association between PIC4C and increase in proportion of new patients per month with hypertension (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.57, 95% CI 1.39 to 1.78) and diabetes (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.45), small increase in SBP (adjusted beta (aB) 1.7, 95% CI 0.8 to 2.7) and FPG (aB 0.6, 95% CI 0.0 to 1.1). There was no strong evidence of association between PIC4C and viral suppression (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.47). In sensitivity analysis, there was no strong evidence of association between PIC4C and SBP (aB 1.74, 95% CI -0.70 to 4.17) or FPG (aB 0.52, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.67). Conclusions: PIC4C implementation was associated with increase in proportion of new patients attending clinics and a slight increase in SBP and FPG. The immediate post-PIC4C implementation period coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, which is likely to explain some of our findings.

Governing Integrated Health and Social Care: An Analysis of Experiences in Three European Countries.

Purpose: Achieving greater health and social care integration is a policy priority in many countries, but challenges remain. We focused on governance and accountability for integrated care and explored arrangements that shape more integrated delivery models or systems in Italy, the Netherlands and Scotland. We also examined how the COVID-19 pandemic affected existing governance arrangements. Design/methodology/approach: A case study approach involving document review and semi-structured interviews with 35 stakeholders in 10 study sites between February 2021 and April 2022. We used the Transparency, Accountability, Participation, Integrity and Capability (TAPIC) framework to guide our analytical enquiry. Findings: Study sites ranged from bottom-up voluntary agreements in the Netherlands to top-down mandated integration in Scotland. Interviews identified seven themes that were seen to have helped or hindered integration efforts locally. Participants described a disconnect between what national or regional governments aspire to achieve and their own efforts to implement this vision. This resulted in blurred, and sometimes contradictory, lines of accountability between the centre and local sites. Flexibility and time to allow for national policies to be adapted to local contexts, and engaged local leaders, were seen to be key to delivering the integration agenda. Health care, and in particular acute hospital care, was reported to dominate social care in terms of policies, resource allocation and national monitoring systems, thereby undermining better collaboration locally. The pandemic highlighted and exacerbated existing strengths and weaknesses but was not seen as a major disruptor to the overall vision for the health and social care system. Research limitations: We included a relatively small number of interviews per study site, limiting our ability to explore complexities within sites. Originality: This study highlights that governance is relatively neglected as a focus of attention in this context but addressing governance challenges is key for successful collaboration.

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.

Quantitative estimates of preventable and treatable deaths from 36 cancers worldwide: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality globally. This study estimates premature deaths at ages 30-69 years and distinguishes these as deaths that are preventable (avertable through primary or secondary prevention) or treatable (avertable through curative treatment) in 185 countries worldwide. METHODS: For this population-based study, estimated cancer deaths by country, cancer, sex, and age groups were retrieved from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 database. Crude and age-adjusted cancer-specific years of life lost (YLLs) were calculated for 36 cancer types. FINDINGS: Of the estimated all-ages cancer burden of 265·6 million YLLs, 182·8 million (68·8%) YLLs were due to premature deaths from cancer globally in 2020, with 124·3 million (68·0%) preventable and 58·5 million (32·0%) treatable. Countries with low, medium, or high human development index (HDI) levels all had greater proportions of YLLs at premature ages than very high HDI countries (68·9%, 77·0%, and 72·2% vs 57·7%, respectively). Lung cancer was the leading contributor to preventable premature YLLs in medium to very high HDI countries (17·4% of all cancers, or 29·7 million of 171·3 million YLLs), whereas cervical cancer led in low HDI countries (26·3% of all preventable cancers, or 1·83 million of 6·93 million YLLs). Colorectal and breast cancers were major treatable cancers across all four tiers of HDI (25·5% of all treatable cancers in combination, or 14·9 million of 58·5 million YLLs). INTERPRETATION: Alongside tailored programmes of early diagnosis and screening linked to timely and comprehensive treatment, greater investments in risk factor reduction and vaccination are needed to address premature cancer inequalities. FUNDING: Erasmus Mundus Exchange Programme and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. TRANSLATIONS: For the German, French, Spanish and Chinese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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.

Understanding the treatment burden of people with chronic conditions in Kenya: A cross-sectional analysis using the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS) questionnaire.

In Kenya, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are an increasingly important cause of morbidity and mortality, requiring both better access to health care services and self-care support. Evidence suggests that treatment burdens can negatively affect adherence to treatment and quality of life. In this study, we explored the treatment and self-management burden among people with NCDs in in two counties in Western Kenya. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of people newly diagnosed with diabetes and/or hypertension, using the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management (PETS) instrument. A total of 301 people with diabetes and/or hypertension completed the survey (63% female, mean age = 57 years). They reported the highest treatment burdens in the domains of medical and health care expenses, monitoring health, exhaustion related to self-management, diet and exercise/physical therapy. Treatment burden scores differed by county, age, gender, education, income and number of chronic conditions. Younger respondents (<60 years) reported higher burden for medication side effects (p<0.05), diet (p<0.05), and medical appointments (p = 0.075). Those with no formal education or low income also reported higher burden for diet and for medical expenses. People with health insurance cover reported lower (albeit still comparatively high) burden for medical expenses compared to those without it. Our findings provide important insights for Kenya and similar settings where governments are working to achieve universal health coverage by highlighting the importance of financial protection not only to prevent the economic burden of seeking health care for chronic conditions but also to reduce the associated treatment burden.

Exploring the link between cancer policies and cancer survival: a comparison of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries.

Cancer policy differences might help to explain international variation in cancer survival, but empirical evidence is scarce. We reviewed cancer policies in 20 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership jurisdictions in seven countries and did exploratory analyses linking an index of cancer policy consistency over time, with monitoring and implementation mechanisms, to survival from seven cancers in a subset of ten jurisdictions from 1995 to 2014. All ten jurisdictions had structures in place to oversee or deliver cancer control policies and had published at least one major cancer plan. Few cancer plans had explicit budgets for implementation or mandated external evaluation. Cancer policy consistency was positively correlated with improvements in survival over time for six of the seven cancer sites. Jurisdictions that scored the highest on policy consistency had large improvements in survival for most sites. Our analysis provides an important first step to systematically capture and evaluate what are inherently complex policy processes. The findings can help guide policy makers seeking approaches and frameworks to improve cancer services and, ultimately, cancer outcomes.

Scaling up the primary health integrated care project for chronic conditions in Kenya: study protocol for an implementation research project.

INTRODUCTION: Amid the rising number of people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs), Kenya has invested in strengthening primary care and in efforts to expand existing service delivery platforms to integrate NCD care. One such approach is the AMPATH (Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare) model in western Kenya, which provides the platform for the Primary Health Integrated Care Project for Chronic Conditions (PIC4C), launched in 2018 to further strengthen primary care services for the prevention and control of hypertension, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer. This study seeks to understand how well PIC4C delivers on its intended aims and to inform and support scale up of the PIC4C model for integrated care for people with NCDs in Kenya. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is guided by a conceptual framework on implementing, sustaining and spreading innovation in health service delivery. We use a multimethod design combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, involving: (1) in-depth interviews with health workers and decision-makers to explore experiences of delivering PIC4C; (2) a cross-sectional survey of patients with diabetes or hypertension and in-depth interviews to understand how well PIC4C meets patients' needs; (3) a cohort study with an interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the degree to which PIC4C leads to health benefits such as improved management of hypertension or diabetes; and (4) a cohort study of households to examine the extent to which the national hospital insurance chronic care package provides financial risk protection to people with hypertension or diabetes within PIC4C. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approvals from Moi University Institutional Research and Ethics Committee (FAN:0003586) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (17940). Workshops with key stakeholders at local, county, national and international levels will ensure early and wide dissemination of our findings to inform scale up of this model of care. We will also publish findings in peer-reviewed journals.

"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.

Exploring the Role of Leadership in Facilitating Change to Improve Cancer Survival: An Analysis of Experiences in Seven High Income Countries in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: The differences in cancer survival across countries and over time are well recognised, with progress varying even among high-income countries with comparable health systems. Previous research has examined several possible explanations, but the role of leadership in systems providing cancer care has attracted little attention. As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), this study looked at diverse aspects of leadership to identify drivers of change and opportunities for improvement across seven high-income countries. METHODS: Key informants in 13 jurisdictions were interviewed: Australia (2 states), Canada (3 provinces), Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and United Kingdom (4 countries). Participants represented a range of stakeholders at different tiers of the system. They were recruited through a combination of purposive and 'snowball' strategies and participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically drawing on the World Health Organization (WHO) health systems framework and previous work analysing national cancer control programmes (NCCPs). RESULTS: Several facets of leadership were perceived as important for improving outcomes. These included political leadership to initiate and maintain progress, intellectual leadership to support those engaged in local implementation of national policies and drive change, and a coherent vision from leaders at different levels of the system. Clinical leadership was also viewed as vital for translating policy into action. CONCLUSION: Certain aspects of cancer care leadership emerged as underpinning and sustaining improvements, such as appointing a central agency, involving clinicians at every stage, ensuring strong leadership of cancer care with a consistent political mandate. Improving cancer outcomes is challenging and complex, but it is unlikely to be achieved without effective leadership, both political and clinical.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. METHODS: In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. FINDINGS: We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9-9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266-295) and 344 (329-358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392-1591) to 1563 (1534-1592) additional deaths, a 15·3-16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220-1254) to 1372 (1343-1401) additional deaths, a 4·8-5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324-335) to 342 (336-348) additional deaths, 5·8-6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291-3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204-63 229 years. INTERPRETATION: Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.

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.

Оценка ведения хронических заболеваний в европейских системах здравоохранения: Принципы и подходы

Растущее бремя хронических заболеваний, в частности быстрое увеличение числа людей с множественной патологией, – сложная проблема для систем здравоохранения во всех странах мира. Связанные с этим реждевременная смертность и сниженное физическое функционирование, а также повышенный спрос на услуги здравоохранения и сопряженные с этим расходы – лишь некоторые из основных причин для беспокойства у лиц, принимающих решения, и специалистов практического звена. Назрела явная необходимость переформатировать системы медико-санитарной помощи для более полного удовлетворения потребностей при хронических заболеваниях, что предполагает переход от традиционной модели оказания помощи при острых и эпизодических проблемах со здоровьем к модели, позволяющей лучше координировать работу специалистов и учреждений при активном участии самих получателей услуг и лиц, ухаживающих за ними. Многие страны уже начали работать в этом направлении, однако испытывают трудности с выбором наилучшего из возможных подходов: модели оказания помощи сильно зависят от местныхусловий, а научных оценок эффективности таких подходов пока нет. Оценка ведения хронических заболеваний в европейских системах здравоохранения рассматривает ряд ключевых вопросов – от интерпретации имеющейся базы фактических данных до оценки политического контекста и подходов к ведению хронических больных в Европе. По данным из 12 подробных отчетов о ситуации встранах (см. второй том в интернете), авторы исследования представляют глубокий анализ целого ряда моделей оказания помощи и функций вовлеченного в этот процесс персонала, механизмов оплаты и доступа пользователей к услугам, а также трудностей, которые страны вынуждены преодолевать в процессе внедрения и оценки этих новых подходов. В основу этой книги легли выводы проекта DISMEVAL (Разработка и подтверждение эффективности методов оценки ведения больных в европейских системах здравоохранения), осуществляемого под руководством исследовательского института RAND Europe и финансируемого за счет средств Седьмой рамочной программы (FP7) Европейского союза (Соглашение № 223277).