Factors impacting sustained coverage in the context of donor transitions: experience from Sri Lanka.

Although not reliant on donor funding for health, the external assistance that Sri Lanka receives contributes to the improvement of the health system and health outcomes. In this study, we evaluated transition experiences of the expanded programme on immunization (EPI) that received Gavi funding to expand the vaccine portfolio and the Anti-Malaria Campaign (AMC) that received funding from the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to scale-up interventions to target and achieve malaria elimination. We assessed if EPI and AMC programmes were able to sustain coverage of previously donor-funded interventions post-transition and explain the facilitators and barriers that contribute to this. We used a mixed methods approach using quantitative data to assess coverage indicators and the financing mix of the health programmes and qualitative analysis guided by a framework informed by the Walt and Gilson policy triangle that brought together document review and in-depth interviews to identify facilitators and barriers to transition success. The EPI programme showed sustained coverage of Gavi-funded vaccines post-transition and the funding gap was bridged by mobilizing domestic financing facilitated by the Gavi co-financing mechanism, full integration within existing service delivery structures, well-established and favourable pharmaceutical procurement processes for the public sector and stewardship and financial advocacy by technically competent managers. Although the absence of indigenous cases of malaria since 2012 suggests overall programme success, the AMC showed mixed transition success in relation to its different programme components. Donor-supported programme components requiring mobilization of operational expenses, facilitated by early financial planning, were successfully transitioned (e.g. entomological and parasitological surveillance) given COVID-19-related constraints. Other key programme components, such as research, training, education and awareness that are dependent on non-operational expenses are lagging behind. Additionally, concerns of AMC's future financial sustainability within the current structure remain in the context of low malaria burden.

Sri Lanka's COVID-19 response and maintaining health services: implications for future pandemics.

This study examines how Sri Lanka, a lower-middle income country, managed its COVID-19 response and maintained health services. It draws on an extensive document review, key informant interviews and a national survey of public experience and opinion to assess what Sri Lanka did, its effectiveness and why.Owing to a strong health system and luck, Sri Lanka stopped the first wave of COVID-19 infections, and it adopted a 'Zero-COVID' approach with the explicit goal of stopping outbreaks. This was initially effective. Outbreaks reduced healthcare use, but with minimal impact on health outcomes. But from end-2020, Sri Lanka switched its approach to tolerating transmission and mitigation. It took proactive actions to maintain healthcare access, and it pursued a COVID-19 vaccination effort that was successful in covering its adult population rapidly and with minimal disparities. Despite this, widespread transmission during 2021-2022 disrupted health services through the pressure on health facilities of patients with COVID-19 and infection of healthcare workers, and because COVID-19 anxiety discouraged patients from seeking healthcare. This led to substantial mortality and more than 30 000 excess deaths by 2022.We find that Sri Lanka abandoned its initially successful approach, because it failed to understand that its chosen strategy required symptomatic PCR testing in primary care. Failure to invest in testing was compounded by groupthink and a medical culture averse to testing.Sri Lanka's experience confirms that strong public health capacities, robust healthcare systems and intersectoral action are critical for pandemic response. It shows that civilian-military collaboration can be beneficial but contested, and that lack of fiscal space will undermine any response. It also demonstrates that pandemic preparedness cannot guarantee a successful pandemic response. Policy and research must pay more attention to improving decision-making processes when faced with pandemics involving novel pathogens, rapid spread, and substantial scientific uncertainty.

Increased Intensity Of PCR Testing Reduced COVID-19 Transmission Within Countries During The First Pandemic Wave.

Experts agree that reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is critical in controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but decision makers disagree on how much testing is optimal. Controlling for interventions and ecological factors, we used linear regression to quantify testing's impact on COVID-19's average reproduction number, which represents transmissibility, in 173 countries and territories (which account for 99 percent of the world's COVID-19 cases) during March-June 2020. Among interventions, PCR testing had the greatest influence: a tenfold increase in the ratio of tests to new cases reported reduced the average reproduction number by 9 percent across a range of testing levels. Our results imply that mobility reductions (for example, shelter-in-place orders) were less effective in developing countries than in developed countries. Our results help explain how some nations achieved near-elimination of COVID-19 and the failure of lockdowns to slow COVID-19 in others. Our findings suggest that the testing benchmarks used by the World Health Organization and other entities are insufficient for COVID-19 control. Increased testing and isolation may represent the most effective, least costly alternative in terms of money, economic growth, and human life for controlling COVID-19.

Quality of inpatient care in public and private hospitals in Sri Lanka.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of inpatient clinical care in public and private hospitals in Sri Lanka. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional comparison was done of inpatient quality, in a sample of 11 public and 10 private hospitals in three of 25 districts. Data were collected for 55 quality indicators from medical records of 2523 public and 1815 private inpatient admissions. These covered treatment of asthma, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), childbirth and five other conditions, along with outcome indicators, and medicine prescribing indicators. RESULTS: Overall quality scores were better in the public sector than the private sector (77 vs 69%). Performance was similar for management of AMI and childbirth and somewhat better in the private sector for management of asthma. The public sector performed better in those indicators that are not constrained by resources (94 vs 81%), but worse in indicators that are highly resource intensive (10 vs 31%). Quality was comparable in assessment and investigation, but the public sector performed better in treatment and management (70 vs 62%) and drug prescribing (68 vs 60%), and modestly worse in terms of outcomes (92 vs 97%). CONCLUSIONS: For a range of indicators where comparisons were possible, quality of inpatient clinical care in Sri Lanka was comparable to levels reported from upper-middle income Asian countries, and often approaches that in developed countries, although the findings cannot be generalized. Quality in the public sector is better than in the private sector in many areas, despite spending being substantially less. Quality in public hospitals is resource constrained, and needs greater government investment for improvement, but when resource limitations are not critical, the public sector appears able to deliver equal or better quality than the private sector. Overall similarities in quality between the two sectors suggest the importance of physician training and other factors.

The quality of outpatient primary care in public and private sectors in Sri Lanka--how well do patient perceptions match reality and what are the implications?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of clinical care and patient satisfaction in public and private outpatient primary care services in Sri Lanka. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional comparison was done by direct observation of patient encounters and exit interviews of outpatients in 10 public hospital general outpatient clinics and 66 private practitioner clinics in three districts of Sri Lanka. A total of 1027 public sector patients and 944 private sector patients were surveyed. Data were collected for 39 quality indicators covering diarrhoea, cough, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) and five other conditions, along with prescribing indicators. The exit interviews collected data for 10 patient satisfaction indicators. RESULTS: The public sector performed better for some conditions (diarrhoea, cough and asthma) and the private sector performed better for others (hypertension, diabetes, URTI and tonsillitis). Overall quality was similar between the sectors in the domains of history taking, examination and investigations and management, but the private sector performed much better on patient education (57 vs 12%). Overall patient satisfaction was high in both sectors (98%), although the private sector performed much better in interpersonal satisfaction (94 vs 84%) and system-related indicators (95 vs 84%). Comparisons with studies from other countries suggest that both sectors perform considerably better than India, and similarly in many indicators to high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of outpatient primary care in Sri Lanka is generally high for a lower-middle income developing country. The public and private sectors perform similarly, except that private sector patients have longer consultations, are more likely to receive education and advice, and obtain better interpersonal satisfaction. The public system, with its limited funding, is able to deliver care in diagnosis and management that is similar to the private sector, while private sector patients, who spend more on their healthcare receive better quality care in non-clinical areas.