Introduction of article-processing charges for Population Health Metrics

Population Health Metrics is an open-access online electronic journal published by BioMed Central – it is universally and freely available online to everyone, its authors retain copyright, and it is archived in at least one internationally recognised free repository. To fund this, from November 1 2003, authors of articles accepted for publication will be asked to pay an article-processing charge of US$500. This editorial outlines the reasons for the introduction of article-processing charges and the way in which this policy will work. Waiver requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis, by the Editor-in-Chief. Article-processing charges will not apply to authors whose institutions are 'members' of BioMed Central. Current members include NHS England, the World Health Organization, the US National Institutes of Health, Harvard, Princeton and Yale universities, and all UK universities. No charge is made for articles that are rejected after peer review. Many funding agencies have also realized the importance of open access publishing and have specified that their grants may be used directly to pay APCs

Challenges and experiences in linking community level reported out-of-pocket health expenditures to health provider recorded health expenditures: experience from the iHOPE project in Northern Ghana

Out of pocket health payment (OOPs) has been identified by the System of Health Accounts (SHA) as the largest source of health care financing in most low and middle-income countries. This means that most low and middle-income countries will rely on user fees and co-payments to generate revenue, rationalize the use of services, contain health systems costs or improve health system efficiency and service quality. However, the accurate measurement of OOPs has been challenged by several limitations which are attributed to both sampling and non-sampling errors when OOPs are estimated from household surveys, the primary source of information in LICs and LMICs. The incorrect measurement of OOP health payments can undermine the credibility of current health spending estimates, an otherwise important indicator for tracking UHC, hence there is the need to address these limitations and improve the measurement of OOPs. In an attempt to improve the measurement of OOPs in surveys, the INDEPTH-Network Household out-of-pocket expenditure project (iHOPE) developed new modules on household health utilization and expenditure by repurposing the existing Ghana Living Standards Survey instrument and validating these new tools with a 'gold standard' (provider data) with the aim of proposing alternative approaches capable of producing reliable data for estimating OOPs in the context of National Health Accounts and for the purpose of monitoring financial protection in health. This paper reports on the challenges and opportunities in using and linking household reported out-of-pocket health expenditures to their corresponding provider records for the purpose of validating household reported out-of-pocket health expenditure in the iHOPE project

Welcome to Implementation Science

Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services and care. This relatively new field includes the study of influences on healthcare professional and organisational behaviour. Implementation Science will encompass all aspects of research in this field, in clinical, community and policy contexts. This online journal will provide a unique platform for this type of research and will publish a broad range of articles – study protocols, debate, theoretical and conceptual articles, rigorous evaluations of the process of change, and articles on methodology and rigorously developed tools – that will enhance the development and refinement of implementation research. No one discipline, research design, or paradigm will be favoured. Implementation Science looks forward to receiving manuscripts that facilitate the continued development of the field, and contribute to healthcare policy and practice

Projected health-care resource needs for an effective response to COVID-19 in 73 low-income and middle-income countries: a modelling study

BACKGROUND; : Since WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, more than 20 million cases have been reported, as of Aug 24, 2020. This study aimed to identify what the additional health-care costs of a strategic preparedness and response plan (SPRP) would be if current transmission levels are maintained in a status quo scenario, or under scenarios where transmission is increased or decreased by 50%.; METHODS; : The number of COVID-19 cases was projected for 73 low-income and middle-income countries for each of the three scenarios for both 4-week and 12-week timeframes, starting from June 26, 2020. An input-based approach was used to estimate the additional health-care costs associated with human resources, commodities, and capital inputs that would be accrued in implementing the SPRP. FINDINGS: The total cost estimate for the COVID-19 response in the status quo scenario was US$52.45 billion over 4 weeks, at$8.60 per capita. For the decreased or increased transmission scenarios, the totals were $33.08 billion and$61.92 billion, respectively. Costs would triple under the status quo and increased transmission scenarios at 12 weeks. The costs of the decreased transmission scenario over 12 weeks was equivalent to the cost of the status quo scenario at 4 weeks. By percentage of the overall cost, case management (54%), maintaining essential services (21%), rapid response and case investigation (14%), and infection prevention and control (9%) were the main cost drivers.; INTERPRETATION; : The sizeable costs of a COVID-19 response in the health sector will escalate, particularly if transmission increases. Instituting early and comprehensive measures to limit the further spread of the virus will conserve resources and sustain the response.; FUNDING; : WHO, and UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office

The state of international collaboration for health systems research: what do publications tell?

AIM: International collaboration for health system development has been identified as a critical input to meet pressing global health needs. North-South collaboration has the potential to benefit both parties, while South-South collaboration offers promise to strengthen capacity rapidly and efficiently across developing countries. There is an emerging trend to analyze the fruits of such collaboration. This paper builds on this trend by applying an innovative concept-based bibliometric method to identify the international scope of collaboration within the field of health policy and systems research. Two key questions are addressed: to what extent are papers comparing developing countries as against reporting on single country studies? To what extent are papers in either case being produced by researchers within their respective countries or through North-South or South-South collaboration? METHODS: A total of 8,751 papers published in Medline between 1999 and 2003 with data on health systems and policies in developing countries were identified and content-analyzed using an innovative concept-based search technology. A sample of 13% of papers was used to identify the corresponding institution and countries covered. The sampled data was then analyzed by income group. RESULTS: Papers with an international, cross-country focus account for only 10% of the total. Just over a third of all papers are led by upper middle income country authors, closely followed by authors from high income countries. Just under half of all papers target low income countries. Cross-country papers are led mostly by institutions in high income countries, with 74% of the total. Only seven countries concentrate 60% of the papers led by developing country institutions. Institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom concentrate between them as many as 68% of the papers led by high income countries. Only 11% of all single-country papers and 21% of multi-country studies are the product of South-South collaboration. Health Financing is the topic with the greatest international scope, with 26% of all papers in the topic. Topics such as Costing and Cost Effectiveness, Finance, Sector Analysis and Insurance, regardless of their national or international scope, are led in 38% to 54% of cases by high income authors. CONCLUSION: While there is modest health systems research capacity in many developing countries for single country studies, capacity is severely limited for multi-country studies. While North-South collaboration is important, the number of international studies is still very limited to produce the kind of knowledge required to learn from experiences across countries. The fact that lead institutions as well as study countries are concentrated in a handful of mostly middle income countries attests to great disparities in research capacity. However, disparities in research capacity and interest are also evident in the North. It is urgent to build cross-country research capacity including appropriate forms of South-South and North-South collaboration

Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage: applying principles to difficult cases

Progress towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) requires making difficult trade-offs. In this journal, Dr. Margaret Chan, the WHO Director-General, has endorsed the principles for making such decisions put forward by the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and UHC. These principles include maximizing population health, priority for the worse off, and shielding people from health-related financial risks. But how should one apply these principles in particular cases and how should one adjudicate between them when their demands conflict? This paper by some members of the Consultative Group and a diverse group of health policy professionals addresses these questions. It considers three stylized versions of actual policy dilemmas. Each of these cases pertains to one of the three principal dimensions of progress towards UHC: which services to cover first, which populations to prioritize for coverage, and how to move from out-of-pocket expenditures to pre-payment with pooling of funds. Our cases are simplified to highlight common trade-offs. While we make specific recommendations, our primary aim is to demonstrate both the form and substance of the reasoning involved in striking a fair balance between competing interests on the road to UHC

Cómo tomar decisiones justas en el camino hacia la cobertura universal de salud

La cobertura universal de salud está en el centro de la acción actual para fortalecer los sistemas de salud y mejorar el nivel y la distribución de la salud y los servicios de salud. Este documento es el informe fi nal del Grupo Consultivo de la OMS sobre la Equidad y Cobertura Universal de Salud. Aquí se abordan los temas clave de la justicia (fairness) y la equidad que surgen en el camino hacia la cobertura universal de salud. Por lo tanto, el informe es pertinente para cada agente que infl uye en ese camino y en particular para los gobiernos, ya que se encargan de supervisar y guiar el progreso hacia la cobertura universal de salud