The impact of COVID-19 and national pandemic responses on health service utilisation in seven low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted health services worldwide, which may have led to increased mortality and secondary disease outbreaks. Disruptions vary by patient population, geographic area, and service. While many reasons have been put forward to explain disruptions, few studies have empirically investigated their causes. OBJECTIVE: We quantify disruptions to outpatient services, facility-based deliveries, and family planning in seven low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic and quantify relationships between disruptions and the intensity of national pandemic responses. METHODS: We leveraged routine data from 104 Partners In Health-supported facilities from January 2016 to December 2021. We first quantified COVID-19-related disruptions in each country by month using negative binomial time series models. We then modelled the relationship between disruptions and the intensity of national pandemic responses, as measured by the stringency index from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. RESULTS: For all the studied countries, we observed at least one month with a significant decline in outpatient visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also observed significant cumulative drops in outpatient visits across all months in Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. A significant cumulative decrease in facility-based deliveries was observed in Haiti, Lesotho, Mexico, and Sierra Leone. No country had significant cumulative drops in family planning visits. For a 10-unit increase in the average monthly stringency index, the proportion deviation in monthly facility outpatient visits compared to expected fell by 3.9% (95% CI: -5.1%, -1.6%). No relationship between stringency of pandemic responses and utilisation was observed for facility-based deliveries or family planning. CONCLUSIONS: Context-specific strategies show the ability of health systems to sustain essential health services during the pandemic. The link between pandemic responses and healthcare utilisation can inform purposeful strategies to ensure communities have access to care and provide lessons for promoting the utilisation of health services elsewhere

The next generation of Rwandan physicians with a primary health care mindset

No abstract available

The next generation of Rwandan physicians with a primary health care mindset

No abstract available

The relationship between primary healthcare providers and their external supervisors in Rwanda

Background: External supervision of Rwandan primary healthcare facilities unfolds as an interaction between supervisors and healthcare providers. Their relationship has not been thoroughly studied in Rwanda, and rarely in Africa. Aim: To explore perceived characteristics and effects of the relationship between providers in public primary healthcare facilities and their external supervisors in Rwanda. Setting: We conducted three focus group discussions with primary healthcare providers (n = 16), three with external supervisors (n = 15) and one mixed (n = 5). Methods: Focus groups were facilitated under low-moderator involvement. Findings were extracted thematically and discussed with participating and non-participating providers and supervisors. Results: While external supervision is intended as a source of motivation and professional development in addition to its managerial purpose, it appeared linked to excessive evaluation anxiety among Rwandan primary healthcare providers. Supervisors related this mainly to inescapable evaluations within performance-based financing, whereas providers additionally related it to communication problems. Conclusion: External supervision appeared driven by systematic performance evaluations, which may prompt a strongly asymmetric supervisory power relation and challenge intentions to explore providers’ experienced work problems. There is a risk that this may harm provider motivation, calling for careful attention to factors that influence the supervisory relationship. It is a dilemma that providers most in need of supervision to improve performance may be most unlikely to benefit from it. This study reveals a need for provider-oriented supportive supervision including constructive attention on providers who have performance difficulties, effective relationship building and communication, objective and diligent evaluation and two-way feedback channels

A global picture of family medicine: the view from a WONCA Storybooth

Background: Family Medicine is a novel discipline in many countries, where the motivation for training and value added to communities is not well-described. Our purpose was to understand the reason behind the choice of Family Medicine as a profession, the impact of Family Medicine on communities, and Family Medicine’s characterizing qualities, as perceived by family doctors around the world. Methods: One-question video interviews were conducted using an appreciative inquiry approach, with volunteer participants at the 2016 World Organization of Family Doctors conference in Rio de Janeiro. Qualitative data analysis applied the thematic, framework method. Results: 135 family doctors from 55 countries participated in this study. Three overarching themes emerged: 1) key attributes of Family Medicine, 2) core Family Medicine values and 3) shared traits of family doctors. Family Medicine attributes and values were the key expressed motivators to join Family Medicine as a profession and were also among expressed factors that contributed to the impact of Family Medicine globally. Major sub-themes included the principles of comprehensive care, holistic care, continuity of care, patient centeredness, and the patient-provider relationship. Participants emphasized the importance of universal care, human rights, social justice and health equity. Conclusion: Family doctors around the world shared stories about their profession, presenting a heterogeneous picture of global Family Medicine unified by its attributes and values. These stories may inspire and serve as positive examples for Family Medicine programs, prospective students, advocates and other stakeholders.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCFamily Practice, Department ofReviewedFacult

‘He should feel your pain’: Patient insights on patient–provider communication in Rwanda

Background: Patient–provider communication is an interpersonal interaction between a patient and a health care provider. Objective: This study explored patients’ communication preferences and perceptions on what factors influence the patient–provider communication in primary health care settings in Rwanda. Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals including 8 with limited literacy. A thematic inductive analysis was used. Results: Patients valued communication with providers and expressed the need for interacting with caring, empathic providers who can share all the information they want and involve them in their own care. Health literacy and power issues were factors that may influence patient–provider communication. Patients with limited literacy appeared to rely highly on health care providers for making decisions about and managing their health care. Conclusion: The expressed preferences, including those of patients with limited literacy, aligned well with the patient-centred care model. There were indications of a power imbalance weighing on the provider’s side. Although patients with limited literacy were reliant on providers for decision-making, they were ready to be more involved in the care, suggesting a potential for improved patient involvement even for patients with paternalistic care preferences. These patients’ insights can impact policies and curricula to optimise clinical practice. Generated knowledge will contribute to the indispensable yet underdeveloped field of health communication in sub-Saharan Africa. Practice implications: Findings call for more inclusion of patient perspectives in the patient–provider encounter. This could require more training of professionals and research on the topic, both in Rwanda and in other regions

Impact of facilitating continued accessibility to cancer care during COVID-19 lockdown on perceived wellbeing of cancer patients at a rural cancer center in Rwanda.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Rwanda, Partners In Health Inshuti Mu Buzima collaborated with the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (BCCOE) to mitigate disruptions to cancer care by providing patients with free transportation to treatment sites and medication delivery at patients' local health facilities. We assessed the relationship between facilitated access to care and self-reported wellbeing outcomes. This cross-sectional telephone survey included cancer patients enrolled at BCCOE in March 2020. We used linear regression to compare six dimensions of quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and financial toxicity (COST) among patients who did and did not receive facilitated access to care. We also assessed access to cancer care and whether patient wellbeing and its association with facilitated access to care differed by socioeconomic status. Of 214 respondents, 34.6% received facilitated access to care. Facilitated patients were more likely to have breast cancer and be on chemotherapy. Facilitation was significantly associated with more frequent in-person clinical encounters, improved perceived quality of cancer care, and reduced transportation-related barriers. Facilitated patients had significantly better global health status (β = 9.14, 95% CI: 2.3, 16.0, p <0.01) and less financial toxicity (β = 2.62, 95% CI: 0.2,5.0, p = 0.03). However, over half of patients reported missing or delaying appointment. Patient wellbeing was low overall and differed by patient socioeconomic status, with poor patients consistently showing worse outcomes. Socioeconomic status did not modify the association between facilitated access to care and wellbeing indicators. Further, facilitation did not lead to equitable wellbeing outcomes between richer and poorer patients. Facilitated access to care during COVID-19 pandemic was associated with some improvements in access to cancer care and patient wellbeing. However, cancer patients still experienced substantial disruptions to care and reported low overall levels of wellbeing, with socioeconomic disparities persisting despite facilitated access to care. Implementing more robust, equity-minded facilitation and better patient outreach programs during health emergencies may promote better care and strengthen patient care overall and effect better patients' outcomes

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources

BackgroundRadiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.ResultsParticipants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.ConclusionsMultiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views