RESUMO
Background: Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of death in Indonesia, causing a significant societal burden. This study aims to quantify the burden of cervical cancer in terms of years of life lost (YLL) and productivity cost to support the idea that cervical cancer has substantial economic implications. Methods: Using an epidemiological approach on the prevalence data of 2018, the productivity cost and YLL were estimated by calculating the number of cervical cancer deaths, life expectancy, annual earnings and employment participation rate. Cervical cancer mortality data were obtained from the Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) 2018, life expectancy for Indonesia from the WHO Life Tables (2019), and the annual earnings and participation rate of Indonesia were retrieved from the National Statistics Bureau (2018). Results: In 2018, there were 17,253 deaths due to cervical cancer in Indonesia, resulting in 246,350 YLL with a total productivity cost of Indonesian Rupiah (IDR)23,174 trillion. The age group of 50 years old-64 years old experienced the greatest loss of earnings (IDR12,149 trillion), followed by the 35 years old-49 years old (IDR8,944 trillion) and 20 years old-34 years old (IDR8,944 trillion) age groups. Conclusion: The productivity impact of loss of earning due to cervical cancer mortality is significant. This information may assist decision makers in allocating scarce resources among competing priorities.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There have been no existing performance indicators to measure the overall quality of pharmacy services, including the aspects of drug management and clinical pharmacy services, at primary health centres in Indonesia. This study aimed to obtain these indicators based on a consensus of experts. METHODS: The modified Delphi method was used to obtain the consensus. The initial indicators, based on a literature review, were evaluated and assessed by members of the expert panel through three rounds of repetition until the consensus was reached. The expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge of or expertise in pharmacy service performance and geographical considerations. Analysis of the expert panel consensus level was determined by calculating the mean and interquartile range. RESULTS: Fifteen expert panel members started the first round (93.7% of the 16 targets) with 12 of them (75%) completing the third round of the modified Delphi method. Three expert panel members were representatives of the Regency Health Office, and the others were pharmacist practitioners at primary health centres from three different regencies. The consensus results were 26 indicators of drug management, 19 indicators of clinical pharmacy services, and two indicators of overall pharmacy performance. CONCLUSION: The consensus indicators for measuring drug management, clinical pharmacy services, and overall pharmacy performance can be used as a reference and standard to measure the quality of pharmacy services at primary health centres. Therefore, the measurement results are more relevant if compared between one and other studies.
