Progress Update: Development of Palliative Care From 2017 to 2020 in Five Countries in Eurasia.

CONTEXT: In the early 2000s, palliative care was largely unknown in the Eurasian region. For a period of twenty years starting around 2002, Open Society Foundations (OSF) supported palliative care pioneers in the region to establish palliative care services, train health providers, and advocate for the integration into health services. OBJECTIVES: To report on the development of palliative care in Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine during the period 2017-2021 and explore the impact of OSF's sustained funding for palliative care in these countries. Activities and developments to 2017 were described in country-specific papers in 2018. METHODS: A retrospective case study analysis was used to examine how palliative care developed in each country. We reviewed theories of change, funding and advocacy strategies, implemented activities and interventions, and their outputs and outcomes, and compared them to legal, policy and service developments in practice. RESULTS: By the mid-2010s, each country had laid the foundations for rolling out palliative care-basic policies and guidelines were in place; palliative care medications were available; key health providers were trained; and training capacity and models of care had been created-but service availability remained limited. In subsequent years, advocates increasingly embraced public advocacy to hold governments accountable for meeting their commitments and to include palliative care in universal health insurance. By 2021, Armenia, Moldova, and Ukraine had significantly scaled up service availability and palliative care was firmly embedded in universal health coverage in Moldova and Ukraine whereas progress in Georgia and Tajikistan was more modest. CONCLUSION: Experiences in these countries suggest that a strategy that initially emphasizes training, technical assistance, and engagement to create the building blocks for palliative care combined with or followed by public advocacy and campaigning to demand roll out of services can result in significant advances. Continued progress, however, is not guaranteed, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and dwindling donor support.

Advancing Global Palliative Care Over Two Decades: Health System Integration, Access to Essential Medicines, and Pediatrics.

CONTEXT: Between 2000 and 2020 Open Society Foundations was one of very few funders that supported global palliative care development and advocacy. OBJECTIVES: To describe progress made in three priority areas-the integration of palliative care into public health systems, access to controlled medicines, and pediatric palliative care-during those 20 years. METHODS: Activities and developments between 2000 and 2020 on global integration of palliative care into health systems, access to and availability of controlled medicines, and pediatric palliative care are described and analyzed. RESULTS: Major progress has been made in each area. Whereas in 2000, integration of palliative care into public healthcare systems was on the agenda in just a few pioneering countries, by 2020 a global consensus had emerged that palliative care should be integral to all health systems including in universal health coverage and countries were increasingly taking steps to integrate it into national health systems. While limited availability of these medicines was barely recognized as a public health or drug control issue in 2000, it had become an important priority in global drug policy debates by 2020 and numerous countries had taken steps to improve access to these medicines. Pediatric palliative care, available mostly in a small number of wealthy countries in the 1990s, has seen rapid growth, especially in low- and middle-income countries, and now has a solid foothold in all world regions. CONCLUSION: Despite this progress, significant challenges remain as funding for palliative care advocacy is limited, the overdose crisis in the US has recently had a chilling effect on efforts to improve availability of opioid analgesics, and economic crises related to the COVID-19 pandemic create uncertainty over the future of universal health coverage.

Progress Update: Palliative Care Development Between 2017 and 2020 in Five African Countries.

CONTEXT: This article provides a progress update on the development of palliative care in five countries in Africa-Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda-between 2017 and 2021, and explores the role of palliative care advocates and the Open Society Foundations in this process. OBJECTIVES: To provide a progress update on the development of palliative care in Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda between 2017 and 2021 and to examine the impact of twenty years of Open Society Foundations support for palliative care in the region on the integration of palliative care into publicly funded health systems. METHODS: In the mid-2000s, palliative care pioneers in these five countries, supported by Open Society Foundations, began to train health care providers and engage policy makers to ensure that people with life-limiting illnesses and their families had access to appropriate services and essential medicines. In the late 2010s, it embraced an approach that mixed strategic communications and advocacy for inclusion of palliative care into universal health coverage with technical assistance. RESULTS: By the mid-2010s, a vibrant palliative care community existed that worked closely with governments to develop palliative care policies, train providers, and ensure access to morphine. By 2021, Kenya and Rwanda had made significant progress scaling up palliative care services as part of the public health care system, and Uganda's government had instructed public hospitals to start providing these services. In South Africa and Tanzania, governments had yet to commit to publicly funded palliative care services. CONCLUSION: The experiences in these countries suggest that mixing advocacy, communications, and technical assistance can lead to substantial progress for patient access although full inclusion in universal health coverage remained uncertain in all but Rwanda.

Switzerland's Narcotics Regulation Jungle: Off-Label Use, Counterfoil Prescriptions, and Opioid Agonist Therapy in the French-Speaking Cantons.

The word "narcotic" is often first associated with "illicit drugs". Yet, many "narcotic" and psychotropic substances are, in fact, medicines. Controlled medicines (CM) are products that meet the legal definition of both a "narcotic" under the Swiss Narcotics Act and of a medicine under the Therapeutic Products Act. We aim to examine how similar and how different, respectively, the implementation of CM regulations is throughout French-speaking Switzerland. Based on a legal analysis of the cantonal regulations, we conducted semi-structured interviews with cantonal pharmacists and cantonal physicians. We asked them how they perceive and implement the federal legal requirements. We find that some of these requirements have fallen into disuse, notably the federal duty to notify off-label use of CM. We observe that counterfoil prescriptions in their current paper format are a veritable data graveyard in the sense that they are not actively used to monitor or supervise the market. Moreover, we detect different conditions for opioid agonist treatment authorization. Some cantons require additional physicians' training or written commitments by the person treated. Our mapping of the CM regulation implementation can serve as a basis for cantons to review their practices.

Barriers to Accessing Internationally Controlled Essential Medicines in Uganda: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Access to internationally controlled essential medicines is a problem worldwide. More than five billion people cannot access opioids for pain and palliative care or do not have access to surgical care or anesthetics, 25 million people living with epilepsy do not have access to their medicines, and 120,000 women die annually owing to postpartum hemorrhage. In Uganda, access to controlled medicines is also problematic, but a lack of data on factors that influence access exists. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify the social, cultural, and regulatory barriers that influence access to internationally controlled essential medicines in Uganda. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 15 key stakeholders with knowledge on controlled medicines from relevant institutions in Uganda. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the Access to Medicines from a Health System Perspective framework. RESULTS: Barriers in accessing controlled medicines were experienced owing to lack of prioritization, difficulties in finding the balance between access and control, deficiencies in the workings of the estimate and distribution system, lack of knowledge, inadequate human resources, expenses related to use and access, and stigma. It was believed that some abuse of specific controlled medicines occurred. CONCLUSION: The findings of this research indicate that to improve access to internationally controlled essential medicines in Uganda, health system strengthening is needed on multiple fronts. Active engagement and concerted efforts are needed from all stakeholders to ensure access and prevent abuse.

Adequacy of opioid analgesic consumption at country, global, and regional levels in 2010, its relationship with development level, and changes compared with 2006.

CONTEXT: In most countries, patients do not have adequate access to opioid analgesics because of barriers resulting from the abuse potential of these medicines. OBJECTIVES: To provide an analysis for the adequacy of the consumption of opioid analgesics for countries and World Health Organization regions in 2010 as compared with 2006. METHODS: We calculated the Adequacy of Consumption Measure using data for 2010 based on a method established by Seya et al. This method calculates the morbidity-corrected needs per capita for relevant strong opioid analgesics and the actual use for the top 20 Human Development Index countries. It determines the adequacy of the consumption for each country, World Health Organization region, and the world by comparing the actual consumption with the calculated need. Furthermore, the method allows us to calculate the number of people living in countries at various levels of adequacy. We compared our outcomes with data from Seya et al. for 2006. RESULTS: Most people have no access to opioids for pain relief in case of need; 66% of the world population has virtually no consumption, 10% very low, 3% low, 4% moderate, and only 7.5% adequate. For 8.9%, no data are available. Between 2006 and 2010, 67 countries increased the adequacy of opioid consumption per capita. These changes are independent of countries' level of development. CONCLUSION: The consumption of opioid analgesics remains inadequate in most of the world and, as a result, patients with moderate and severe pain do not receive the treatment they need. Governments, health organizations, and nongovernmental organizations must collaborate to address this situation, targeting their efforts at educational, cultural, health policy and regulatory levels.

Consensus building on access to controlled medicines: a four-stage Delphi consensus procedure.

CONTEXT: In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the policy guidelines Ensuring Balance in National Controlled Substances Policies-Guidance for Availability and Accessibility of Controlled Medicines, presenting a revised version of the previous guidelines from 2000. OBJECTIVES: To describe the consensus process that guided the revision of the guidelines. METHODS: A four-stage revision process was undertaken with a panel of 29 international experts from palliative care, public health, and harm reduction: 1) a qualitative inventory of required changes by means of a structured checklist, 2) & 3) a two-round online consensus Delphi process about the draft revision of the guidelines, and 4) a WHO advisory meeting for the discussion of remaining controversies and final issues. RESULTS: The qualitative inventory resulted in a draft revision of the guidelines meeting requirements on different levels, such as a broader focus and more accurate evidence. Operationalization of the guidelines was improved by specifying measures, procedures, and responsibilities. The Delphi procedure provided concrete indications for the rewording of both the guidelines and the associated text. During the advisory meeting, any persistent disagreements were systematically discussed to achieve consensus on the new version of the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The four-stage multimethod consensus process resulted in a substantial revision to the WHO guidelines. This takes into account the increase in knowledge about opioid medication since the first edition of the guidelines. Disagreement emerging from the process underlines the complexity of preparing guidance because of the delicate balance between need and control.

Use of drugs subject to controlled prescriptions: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Use of drugs that may lead to abuse or dependence are subject to controlled prescriptions (CPs) in many countries, and these are closely monitored by health authorities. According to national regulations in Turkey, CPs may be red coloured (RCPs) or green coloured (GCPs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of such drugs in Istanbul. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During the study period (01/01-31/12 2009), 502874 CPs were reported. Among these, 4000 CPs each month were randomly selected and evaluated. RESULTS: The majority of GCPs were issued to women (55.6%), while the majority of RCPs were issued to men (68.4%). GCPs were most frequently prescribed by physicians working in private hospitals (33.6%) while RCPs by physicians working in university hospitals (39.7%). GCPs were mostly prescribed by psychiatrists (37.6%) while for RCPs were child and adolescent psychiatrists (35.9%). Psycholeptics (ATC code N05) were the most prescribed controlled drugs (CDs) (43.8%). Methylphenidate (53.9%) was the mostly prescribed on RCPs and alprazolam (39.6%) was on GCPs. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that utilization of CDs shows demographical and institutional differences. These data could be of help to improve surveillance of CDs as well as to train prescribers and patients.