a systematic review

publishersversionpublishe

Capacity of health facilities for diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia

Background: There are dearth of literature on the capacity of the health system to diagnose and treat HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia. In this study we evaluated the capacity of health facilities for HIV/AIDS care, its spatial distribution and variations by regions and zones in Ethiopia. Methods: We analyzed the Service Provision Assessment plus (SPA+) survey data that were collected in 2014 in all regions of Ethiopia. We assessed structural, process and overall capacity of the health system based on the Donabedian quality of care model. We included 5 structural and 8 process indicators and overall capacity score was constructed by taking the average of all indicators. Multiple linear regression was done using STATA 14 to assess the association of the location and types of health facilities with overall capacity score. Maps displaying the average capacity score at Zonal level were produced using ArcGIS Desktop v10.3 (Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc., Redlands CA, USA). Results: A total of 873 health facilities were included in the analysis. Less than 5% of the private facilities provided antiretroviral therapy (ART); had national ART guideline, baseline CD4 count or viral load and tuberculosis screening mechanisms. Nearly one-third of the health centers (34.9%) provided ART. Public hospitals have better capacity score (77.1%) than health centers (45.9%) and private health facilities (24.8%). The overall capacity score for urban facilities (57.1%) was higher than that of the rural (38.2%) health facilities (β = 15.4, 95% CI: 11.7, 19.2). Health centers (β = − 21.4, 95% CI: -25.4, − 17.4) and private health facilities (β = − 50.9, 95% CI: -54.8, − 47.1) had lower overall capacity score than hospitals. Facilities in Somali (β = − 13.8, 95% CI: -20.6, − 7.0) and SNNPR (β = − 5.0, 95% CI: -9.8, − 0.1) regions had lower overall capacity score than facilities in the Oromia region. Zones located in emerging regions such as Gambella and Benishangul Gumz and in remote areas of Oromia and SNNPR had lower capacity score in terms of process indicators. Conclusions: There is a significant geographical heterogeneity on the capacity of health facilities for HIV/AIDS care and treatment in Ethiopia. Targeted capacity improvement initiatives are recommended with focus on health centers and private health facilities, and emerging Regions and the rural and remote areas

Development of a Core Outcome Set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes

Background: Prescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS). Methods: A long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7–9 and <15% scoring 1–3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1–3 and <15% 7–9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved. Results: A long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS. Conclusions: We have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context