Disease Control Priorities

Non-adherence to antihypertensive medications is a major cause of uncontrolled hypertension, leading to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Ensuring consistent medication possession is crucial in addressing non-adherence. Community-based medication delivery is a strategy that may improve medication possession, adherence, and blood pressure (BP) reduction. Our program in Kenya piloted a community medication delivery program, coupled with blood pressure monitoring and adherence evaluation. Between September 2019 and March 2020, patients who received hypertension care from our chronic disease management program also received community-based delivery of antihypertensive medications. We calculated number of days during which each patient had possession of medications and analyzed the relationship between successful medication delivery and self-reported medication adherence and BP. A total of 128 patient records (80.5% female) were reviewed. At baseline, mean systolic blood pressure (...

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States. The designation employed and the presentation of material on any map in this work do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has been externally edited.

Background Despite a growing global commitment to universal health coverage, considerable vaccine coverage and uptake gaps persist in resource-constrained settings. One way of addressing the gaps is by ensuring product innovation is relevant and responsive to the needs of these contexts. Total Systems Effectiveness (TSE) framework has been developed to characterize preferred vaccine attributes from the perspective of country decision-makers to inform research and development (R&D) of products. A proof of concept pilot study took place in Thailand in 2018 to examine the feasibility and usefulness of the TSE approach using a rotavirus hypothetical test-case.

Background The majority of global cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden falls on people living in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs). In order to reduce preventable CVD mortality and morbidity, LMIC health systems and health care providers need to improve the delivery and quality of CVD care. Objectives As part of the Disease Control Priorities Three (DCP3) Study efforts addressing quality improvement, we reviewed and summarized currently available evidence on interventions to improve quality of clinic-based CVD prevention and management in LMICs. Methods We conducted a narrative review of published comparative clinical trials that evaluated efficacy or effectiveness of clinic-based CVD prevention and management quality improvement interventions in LMICs. Conditions selected a priori included hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, stroke, rheumatic heart disease, and congestive heart failure. MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were systematically searched. Studies were categorized as occurring at the system or patient/provider level and as treating the acute or chronic phase of CVD.

India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system. In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locallytailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.

India's rapid economic growth has been accompanied by slower improvements in population health. Given the need to reconcile the ambitious goal of achieving Universal Coverage with limited resources, a robust priority-setting mechanism is required to ensure that the right trade-offs are made and the impact on health is maximised. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is endorsed by the World Health Assembly as the gold standard approach to synthesizing evidence systematically for evidence-informed priority setting (EIPS). India is formally committed to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the EIPS process. The effective conduct and uptake of HTA depends on a well-functioning ecosystem of stakeholders adept at commissioning and generating policy-relevant HTA research, developing and utilising rigorous technical, transparent, and inclusive methods and processes, and a strong multisectoral and transnational appetite for the use of evidence to inform policy. These all require myriad complex and complementary capacities to be built at each level of the health system. In this paper we describe how a framework for targeted and locallytailored capacity building for EIPS, and specifically HTA, was collaboratively developed and implemented by an international network of priority-setting expertise, and the Government of India.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the OneHealth Tool (OHT) to help low and middle income countries to develop their capacities for sector-wide priority setting. In 2016, we sought to use the OHT to aid the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC), the national health insurer of the Philippines, in decisions to expand benefit packages using cost-effectiveness analyses. With technical support from the WHO, we convened health planning officers from the Philippine Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) conduct generalized cost-effective analyses (GCEA) of selected un-financed noncommunicable disease interventions using OHT. We collected epidemiological and cost data through health facility surveys, review of literature such as cost libraries and clinical practice guidelines, and expert consultations. Although we were unable to use GCEA results directly to set policy, we learnt important policy lessons which we outline here that...

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States. The designation employed and the presentation of material on any map in this work do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has been externally edited.

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States. The designation employed and the presentation of material on any map in this work do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has been externally edited.

Background: India recently launched the largest universal health coverage scheme in the world to address the gaps in providing healthcare to its population. Health technology assessment (HTA) has been recognised as a tool for setting priorities as the government seeks to increase public health expenditure. This study aims to understand the current situation for healthcare decision-making in India and deliberate on the opportunities for introducing HTA in the country. Methods: A paper-based questionnaire, adapted from a survey developed by the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI), was administered on the second day of the Topic Selection Workshop that was conducted as part of the HTA Awareness Raising Workshop held in New Delhi on 25-27 July, 2016. Participants were invited to respond to questions covering the need, demand and supply for HTA in their context as well as the role of their organisation vis-à-vis HTA. The response rate for the survey was about 68% with 41 participants having completed the survey. Results: Three quarters of the respondents (71%) stated that the government allocated healthcare resources on the basis of expert opinion. Most respondents indicated reimbursement of individual health technologies and designing a basic health benefit package (93% each) were important health policy areas while medical devices and screening programmes were cited as important technologies (98% and 92%, respectively). More than half of the respondents noted that relevant local data was either not available or was limited. Finally, technical capacity was seen as a strength and a constraint facing organisations. Conclusion: The findings from this study shed light on the current situation, the opportunities, including potential topics, and challenges in conducting HTA in India. There are limitations to the study and further studies may need to be conducted to inform the role that HTA will play in the design or implementation of universal health coverage in India.

Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders – not only the technical capacity to “do” research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers’ needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England’s National Institute for Health and Care Exce...

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Norheim OF. Priority setting on the path to UHC: time for stronger institutions and stronger health systems: response to recent commentaries.