Priority setting for universal health coverage: We need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness

Priority setting of health interventions is generally considered as a valuable approach to support low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their strive for universal health coverage (UHC). However, present initiatives on priority setting are mainly geared towards the development of more cost-effectiveness information, and this evidence does not sufficiently support countries to make optimal choices. The reason is that priority setting is in reality a value-laden political process in which multiple criteria beyond cost-effectiveness are important, and stakeholders often justifiably disagree about the relative importance of these criteria. Here, we propose the use of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ as an approach that does explicitly recognise priority setting as a political process and an intrinsically complex task. In these processes, deliberation between stakeholders is crucial to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. Such processes then result in the use of a broader range of explicit criteria that can be seen as the product of both international learning (‘core’ criteria, which include eg, cost-effectiveness, priority to the worse off, and financial protection) and learning among local stakeholders (‘contextual’ criteria). We believe that, with these evidence-informed deliberative processes in place, priority setting can provide a more meaningful contribution to achieving UHC

Predictors of undergoing multivisceral resection, margin status and survival in Dutch patients with locally advanced colorectal cancer

Background: The aim of this nationwide observational study was to evaluate factors associated with multivisceral resection (MVR), margin status and overall survival in locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Material and methods: Patients with (y)pT4, cM0 CRC between 2006 and 2017 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cox-proportional hazards modelling was used for survival analysis, stratified for T4a and T4b. Annual hospital volume cut-off was 75 for colon and 40 for rectal resections. Results: A total of 11.930 patients were included and 2410 patients (20.2%) underwent MVR. Factors associated with MVR for colon and rectal cancer besides cT4 category were more recent diagnosis (OR 3.61, CI 95% 3.06–4.25 (colon) and OR 2.72, CI 95% 1.82–4.08 (rectum)) and high hospital volume (OR 1.20, CI 95% 1.05–1.38 (colon) and OR 2.17, CI 95% 1.55–3.04 (rectum)). Patients ≥70 year were less likely to undergo MVR for colon cancer (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.90). Risk factors for incomplete resection were cT4 (OR 3.08, CI 95% 2.35–4.04 (colon) and OR 1.82, CI 95% 1.13–2.94 (rectum)) and poor/undifferentiated tumors (OR 1.41, CI 95% 1.14–1.72 (colon) and OR 1.69, CI 95% 1.05–2.74 (rectum)). More recent diagnosis was independently associated with less incomplete resections in colon cancer (OR 0.58, CI 95% 0.40–0.76). Independent predictors of survival were age, resection margin, nodal status and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not MVR. Conclusion: Treatment of locally advanced CRC with MVR at population level was influenced by year of diagnosis and hospital volume. Margin status in colon cancer improved substantially over time.</p

Groepshuisvesting kan, maar niet voor iedereen

Het Praktijkonderzoek Varkenshouderij heeft vier bedrijfssystemen voor guste en drachtige zeugen vergeleken: het voerligboxsysteem, het voerligboxsysteem met uitloop, het groepshuisvestingssysteem met voerstations en het biofixsysteem. Het onderzoek betrof de periode januari 1994 tot en met maart 1996

We are also dying like any other people, we are also people: perceptions of the impact of HIV/AIDs on health workers in two distrcits in Zambia

Item does not contain fulltextIn countries with a high AIDS prevalence, the health workforce is affected by AIDS in several ways. In Zambia, which has a prevalence rate of 16.5%, a study was carried out in 2004 with the aim to: explore the impact of HIV/AIDS on health workers, describe their coping mechanisms and recommend supportive measures. The qualitative study was complemented by a survey using self-administered questionnaires in four selected health facilities in two rural districts in Zambia, Mpika and Mazabuka. It is one of the few studies to have explored the impact of HIV/AIDS from the perspective of health workers and managers in the region. Thirty-four in-depth interviews and five group discussions were conducted with health workers, managers and volunteers, and 82 self-administered questionnaires were filled out by health workers. In addition, burnout among 42 health workers was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). The MBI measures three components that contribute to burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment. The results show that in both districts, HIV/AIDS has had a negative impact on workload and has considerably changed or added tasks to already overburdened health workers. In Mpika, 76% of respondents (29/38), and in Mazabuka, 79% (34/44) of respondents, expressed fear of infection at the workplace. HIV-positive health workers remained 'in hiding', did not talk about their illness and suffered in silence. Despite the fact that health workers were still relatively motivated, emotional exhaustion occurred among 62% of the respondents (26/42). The interviews revealed that counsellors and nurses were especially at risk for emotional exhaustion. In each of the selected facilities, organizational support for health workers to deal with HIV/AIDS was either haphazardly in place or not in place at all. AIDS complicates the already difficult work environment. In addition to health workers, management also needs support in dealing with AIDS at the workplace

The capability set for work: Development and validation of a new questionnaire

__Objectives__ The aim of this study was to develop a questionnaire to measure work capabilities based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach and evaluate its validity. __Methods__ The development of the questionnaire was based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods: interviews, literature study, and an expert meeting. Additionally, in a survey, the validity was evaluated by means of hypotheses testing (using correlations and regression analyses). __Results__ The questionnaire consists of a set of seven capability aspects for work. For each aspect, it is determined whether it is part of a worker’s capability set, ie, when the aspect is considered valuable, is enabled in work, and is realized. The capability set was significantly correlated with work role functioning-flexibility demands (-0,187), work ability (-0.304), work performance (-0.282), worked hours (-0.073), sickness absence (yes/no) (0.098), and sickness absence days (0.105). The capability set and the overall capability item are significantly associated with all work outcomes (P<0.010). __Conclusions__ The new capability set for work questionnaire appears to be a valid instrument to measure work capabilities. The questionnaire is unique because the items include the valued aspects of work and incorporate whether a worker is able to achieve what (s)he values in his/her work. The questionnaire can be used to evaluate the capability set of workers in organizations to identify aspects that need to be addressed in interventions