Cost-effectiveness of intensive care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: experience from South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Given projected shortages of critical care capacity in public hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, the South African government embarked on an initiative to purchase this capacity from private hospitals. In order to inform purchasing decisions, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of intensive care management for admitted COVID-19 patients across the public and private health systems in South Africa. METHODS: Using a modelling framework and health system perspective, costs and health outcomes of inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in (1) general ward and intensive care (GW + ICU) versus (2) general ward only (GW) were assessed. Disability adjusted life years (DALYs) were evaluated and the cost per admission in public and private sectors was determined. The model made use of four variables: mortality rates, utilisation of inpatient days for each management approach, disability weights associated with severity of disease, and the unit cost per general ward day and per ICU day in public and private hospitals. Unit costs were multiplied by utilisation estimates to determine the cost per admission. DALYs were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - representing difference in costs and health outcomes of the two management strategies - was compared to a cost-effectiveness threshold to determine the value for money of expansion in ICU services during COVID-19 surges. RESULTS: A cost per admission of ZAR 75,127 was estimated for inpatient management of severe and critical COVID-19 patients in GW as opposed to ZAR 103,030 in GW + ICU. DALYs were 1.48 and 1.10 in GW versus GW + ICU, respectively. The ratio of difference in costs and health outcomes between the two management strategies produced an ICER of ZAR 73,091 per DALY averted, a value above the cost-effectiveness threshold of ZAR 38,465. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that purchasing ICU capacity from the private sector during COVID-19 surges may not be a cost-effective investment. The 'real time', rapid, pragmatic, and transparent nature of this analysis demonstrates an approach for evidence generation for decision making relating to the COVID-19 pandemic response and South Africa's wider priority setting agenda.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of dementia prevalence in seven developing countries: A STRiDE project.

The STRiDE project sets out to support the development of effective dementia policy in middle-income countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, and South Africa). As part of this it will generate new data about the prevalence of dementia for a subset of these countries. This study aims to identify the current estimates of dementia prevalence in these countries and where the gaps lie in the current literature. A systematic review was completed on 30th April 2019 across electronic databases, identifying dementia prevalence literature originating from any of the seven countries. Four hundred and twenty-nine records were identified following de-duplication; 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Pooled estimates of dementia prevalence ranged from 2% to 9% based on DSM-IV criteria; these figures were generally higher in studies using other diagnostic criteria (e.g. the 10/66 algorithm). Available prevalence data varied between countries. Only Brazil, Mexico and India had data derived from studies judged as having a low risk of bias. Irrespective of country, studies often were not explicit in detailing the representativeness of their sample, or whether there was non-response bias. Further transparent and externally valid dementia prevalence research is needed across the STRiDE countries.

Managing the healthcare demand-supply gap during and after COVID-19: The need to review the approach to healthcare priority-setting in South Africa.

Healthcare demands are rising globally, and regardless of the approach to financing and delivering healthcare services, no country can meet all the healthcare demands of its population. The demand-supply gap for healthcare services in South Africa (SA) is large, particularly for the public sector. The objectives of this article are to examine some of the underlying factors contributing to this gap, and how the COVID- 19 pandemic is likely to impact on them, and to describe why SA needs to adopt an explicit and equity-informed approach to healthcare priority-setting to assist in managing the gap.

Potential strategies for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: In spite of the pronounced adverse economic consequences of mental, neurological, and substance use disorders on households in most low- and middle-income countries, service coverage and financial protection for these families is very limited. The aim of this study was to generate potential strategies for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda in an effort to move towards increased financial protection and service coverage for these families. METHODS: The process of identifying potential strategies for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda was guided by an analytical framework developed by the Emerging Mental health systems in low and middle income countries (EMERALD project). Data were collected through a situational analysis (public health burden assessment, health system assessment, macro fiscal assessment) and eight key informant interviews with selected stakeholders from sectors including health, finance and civil society. The situational analysis provided contextualization for the strategies, and was complimented by views from key informant interviews. RESULTS: Findings indicate that the following strategies have the greatest potential for moving towards more equitable and sustainable mental health financing in the Uganda context: implementing National Health Insurance Scheme; shifting to Results Based Financing; decentralizing mental health services that can be provided at community level; and continued advocacy with decision makers with evidence through research. CONCLUSION: Although several options were identified for sustainably financing mental health care in Uganda, the National Health Insurance Scheme seemed the most viable option. However, for the scheme to be effective, there is need for scale up to community health facilities and implementation in a manner that explicitly includes community level facilities.

Developing capacity-building activities for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners, and researchers.

There is increasing international recognition of the need to build capacity to strengthen mental health systems. This is a fundamental goal of the 'Emerging mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries' (Emerald) programme, which is being implemented in six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda). This paper discusses Emerald's capacity-building approaches and outputs for three target groups in mental health system strengthening: (1) mental health service users and caregivers, (2) service planners and policy-makers, and (3) mental health researchers. When planning the capacity-building activities, the approach taken included a capabilities/skills matrix, needs assessments, a situational analysis, systematic reviews, qualitative interviews and stakeholder meetings, as well as the application of previous theory, evidence and experience. Each of the Emerald LMIC partners was found to have strengths in aspects of mental health system strengthening, which were complementary across the consortium. Furthermore, despite similarities across the countries, capacity-building interventions needed to be tailored to suit the specific needs of individual countries. The capacity-building outputs include three publicly and freely available short courses/workshops in mental health system strengthening for each of the target groups, 27 Masters-level modules (also open access), nine Emerald-linked PhD students, two MSc studentships, mentoring of post-doctoral/mid-level researchers, and ongoing collaboration and dialogue with the three groups. The approach taken by Emerald can provide a potential model for the development of capacity-building activities across the three target groups in LMICs.

Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers.

Efforts to support the scale-up of integrated mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) need to focus on building human resource capacity in health system strengthening, as well as in the direct provision of mental health care. In a companion editorial, we describe a range of capacity-building activities that are being implemented by a multi-country research consortium (Emerald: Emerging mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries) for (1) service users and caregivers, (2) service planners and policy-makers and (3) researchers in six LMICs (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda). In this paper, we focus on the methodology being used to evaluate the impact of capacity-building in these three target groups. We first review the evidence base for approaches to evaluation of capacity-building, highlighting the gaps in this area. We then describe the adaptation of best practice for the Emerald capacity-building evaluation. The resulting mixed method evaluation framework was tailored to each target group and to each country context. We identified a need to expand the evidence base on indicators of successful capacity-building across the different target groups. To address this, we developed an evaluation plan to measure the adequacy and usefulness of quantitative capacity-building indicators when compared with qualitative evaluation. We argue that evaluation needs to be an integral part of capacity-building activities and that expertise needs to be built in methods of evaluation. The Emerald evaluation provides a potential model for capacity-building evaluation across key stakeholder groups and promises to extend understanding of useful indicators of success.

Scaling-up services for psychosis, depression and epilepsy in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: development and application of a mental health systems planning tool (OneHealth).

BACKGROUND: Although financing represents a critical component of health system strengthening and also a defining concern of efforts to move towards universal health coverage, many countries lack the tools and capacity to plan effectively for service scale-up. As part of a multi-country collaborative study (the Emerald project), we set out to develop, test and apply a fully integrated health systems resource planning and health impact tool for mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders. METHODS: A new module of the existing UN strategic planning OneHealth Tool was developed, which identifies health system resources required to scale-up a range of specified interventions for MNS disorders and also projects expected health gains at the population level. We conducted local capacity-building in its use, as well as stakeholder consultations, then tested and calibrated all model parameters, and applied the tool to three priority mental and neurological disorders (psychosis, depression and epilepsy) in six low- and middle-income countries. RESULTS: Resource needs for scaling-up mental health services to reach desired coverage goals are substantial compared with the current allocation of resources in the six represented countries but are not large in absolute terms. In four of the Emerald study countries (Ethiopia, India, Nepal and Uganda), the cost of delivering key interventions for psychosis, depression and epilepsy at existing treatment coverage is estimated at US$ 0.06-0.33 per capita of total population per year (in Nigeria and South Africa it is US$ 1.36-1.92). By comparison, the projected cost per capita at target levels of coverage approaches US$ 5 per capita in Nigeria and South Africa, and ranges from US$ 0.14-1.27 in the other four countries. Implementation of such a package of care at target levels of coverage is expected to yield between 291 and 947 healthy life years per one million populations, which represents a substantial health gain for the currently neglected and underserved sub-populations suffering from psychosis, depression and epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed and validated module of OneHealth tool can be used, especially within the context of integrated health planning at the national level, to generate contextualised estimates of the resource needs, costs and health impacts of scaled-up mental health service delivery.