Effects of policies or interventions that influence the school food environment on children's health and nonhealth outcomes: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Globally, 1 in 3 children under 5 years is undernourished or overweight, and 1 in 2 suffers from hidden hunger due to nutrient deficiencies. As children spend a considerable time at school, school-based policies that aim to improve children's dietary intake may help address this double burden of malnutrition. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of implementing policies or interventions that influence the school food environment on children's health and nonhealth outcomes. DATA SOURCES, EXTRACTION, AND ANALYSIS: Eleven databases were searched up to April 2020 and the World Health Organization (WHO) released a call for data due in June 2020. Records were screened against the eligibility criteria, and data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were conducted by 1 reviewer and checked by another. The synthesis was based on effect direction, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-four studies reporting 10 different comparisons were included. The body of evidence indicates that interventions addressing the school food environment may have modest beneficial effects on certain key outcomes. Nutrition standards for healthy foods and beverages at schools, interventions that change how food is presented and positioned, and fruit and vegetable provision may have a beneficial effect on the consumption of healthy foods and beverages. Regarding effects on the consumption of discretionary foods and beverages, nutrition standards may have beneficial effects. Nutrition standards for foods and beverages, changes to portion size served, and the implementation of multiple nudging strategies may have beneficial effects on energy intake. Regarding effects of purchasing or selecting healthier foods, changes to how food is presented and positioned may be beneficial. This review was commissioned and supported by the WHO (registration 2020/1001698-0). WHO reviewed and approved the protocol for the systematic review and reviewed the initial report of the completed systematic review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42020186265.

Health Technology Assessment in Support of National Health Insurance in South Africa.

South Africa has embarked on major health policy reform to deliver universal health coverage through the establishment of National Health Insurance (NHI). The aim is to improve access, remove financial barriers to care, and enhance care quality. Health technology assessment (HTA) is explicitly identified in the proposed NHI legislation and will have a prominent role in informing decisions about adoption and access to health interventions and technologies. The specific arrangements and approach to HTA in support of this legislation are yet to be determined. Although there is currently no formal national HTA institution in South Africa, there are several processes in both the public and private healthcare sectors that use elements of HTA to varying extents to inform access and resource allocation decisions. Institutions performing HTAs or related activities in South Africa include the National and Provincial Departments of Health, National Treasury, National Health Laboratory Service, Council for Medical Schemes, medical scheme administrators, managed care organizations, academic or research institutions, clinical societies and associations, pharmaceutical and devices companies, private consultancies, and private sector hospital groups. Existing fragmented HTA processes should coordinate and conform to a standardized, fit-for-purpose process and structure that can usefully inform priority setting under NHI and for other decision makers. This transformation will require comprehensive and inclusive planning with dedicated funding and regulation, and provision of strong oversight mechanisms and leadership.

Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa. METHODS: This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified. RESULTS: The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement. CONCLUSIONS: HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.