What are the barriers to the diagnosis and management of chronic respiratory disease in sub-Saharan Africa? A qualitative study with healthcare workers, national and regional policy stakeholders in five countries.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRD) are among the top four non-communicable diseases globally. They are associated with poor health and approximately 4 million deaths every year. The rising burden of CRD in low/middle-income countries will strain already weak health systems. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of healthcare workers and other health policy stakeholders on the barriers to effective diagnosis and management of CRD in Kenya, Malawi, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTINGS: Primary, secondary and tertiary health facilities, government agencies and civil society organisations in five sub-Saharan African countries. PARTICIPANTS: We purposively selected 60 national and district-level policy stakeholders, and 49 healthcare workers, based on their roles in policy decision-making or health provision, and conducted key informant interviews and in-depth interviews, respectively, between 2018 and 2019. Data were analysed through framework approach. RESULTS: We identified intersecting vicious cycles of neglect of CRD at strategic policy and healthcare facility levels. Lack of reliable data on burden of disease, due to weak information systems and diagnostic capacity, negatively affected inclusion in policy; this, in turn, was reflected by low budgetary allocations for diagnostic equipment, training and medicines. At the healthcare facility level, inadequate budgetary allocations constrained diagnostic capacity, quality of service delivery and collection of appropriate data, compounding the lack of routine data on burden of disease. CONCLUSION: Health systems in the five countries are ill-equipped to respond to CRD, an issue that has been brought into sharp focus as countries plan for post-COVID-19 lung diseases. CRD are underdiagnosed, under-reported and underfunded, leading to a vicious cycle of invisibility and neglect. Appropriate diagnosis and management require health systems strengthening, particularly at the primary healthcare level.

Is quality affordable for community health systems? Costs of integrating quality improvement into close-to-community health programmes in five low-income and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Countries aspiring to universal health coverage view close-to-community (CTC) providers as a low-cost means of increasing coverage. However, due to lack of coordination and unreliable funding, the quality of large-scale CTC healthcare provision is highly variable and routine data about service quality are not trustworthy. Quality improvement (QI) approaches are a means of addressing these issues, yet neither the costs nor the budget impact of integrating QI approaches into CTC programme costs have been assessed. METHODS: This paper examines the costs and budget impact of integrating QI into existing CTC health programmes in five countries (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) between 2015 and 2017. The intervention involved: (1) QI team formation; (2) Phased training interspersed with supportive supervision; which resulted in (3) QI teams independently collecting and analysing data to conduct QI interventions. Project costs were collected using an ingredients approach from a health systems perspective. Based on project costs, costs of local adoption of the intervention were modelled under three implementation scenarios. RESULTS: Annualised economic unit costs ranged from $62 in Mozambique to $254 in Ethiopia per CTC provider supervised, driven by the context, type of community health model and the intensity of the intervention. The budget impact of Ministry-led QI for community health is estimated at 0.53% or less of the general government expenditure on health in all countries (and below 0.03% in three of the five countries). CONCLUSION: CTC provision is a key component of healthcare delivery in many settings, so QI has huge potential impact. The impact is difficult to establish conclusively, but as a first step we have provided evidence to assess affordability of QI for community health. Further research is needed to assess whether QI can achieve the level of benefits that would justify the required investment.