Religion and Measles Vaccination in Indonesia, 1991-2017

INTRODUCTION: Some Muslim religious councils in Indonesia have ruled that measles vaccines contain haram (i.e., forbidden materials). This study evaluates the changes in measles vaccination coverage between 1991 and 2017 and compares vaccination coverage between Muslims and non-Muslims in Indonesia. METHODS: A total of 7 cross-sectional in-person surveys of mothers in 1991-2017 in Indonesia were analyzed in 2019. Participants were asked about religion in 1991-2007, and 100 data sets of religion were imputed for 2012 and 2017. In this multiple imputation analysis, binomial regression models output prevalence differences adjusted for wealth, education, child\u27s sex, and mother\u27s age. A quadratic term for year (year X year) and an interaction term between year and religion evaluated changes in vaccination over time by religion. RESULTS: The 7 data sets included 23,106 children aged 12-23 months, with the proportion of those who were Muslims ranging between 85% and 89% across the survey years. Between 1991 and 2017, measles vaccination coverage increased from 57% to 79% among non-Muslims and from 59% to 79% among Muslims. In the multivariable regression model, measles vaccination coverage increased by 1.6% each year (with a quadratic term of -0.05%, indicating some leveling over time). At baseline in 1991, non-Muslims had a vaccination coverage of 6.2% higher than that of Muslims, but this disparity decreased by -0.2% each year. CONCLUSIONS: Measles vaccination increased in both Muslims and non-Muslims in Indonesia but has stagnated in recent years. Because of increased attention among Muslim groups on haram materials in vaccines since 2017, future studies should continue to examine the relationship between religion and vaccine uptake in Indonesia. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Global Vaccination Equity, which is sponsored by the Global Institute for Vaccine Equity at the University of Michigan School of Public Health

Improving Care Coordination between Accountable Care Organizations and Community Partners: Early Findings from the Massachusetts Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Program

Research Objective: The Massachusetts’ Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (MassHealth/MH) initiated the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) program in 2017, as part of its section 1115 Demonstration, to coordinate care for Medicaid members, reduce healthcare costs and improve patient outcomes. Central to this program was a requirement that Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) develop relationships with all behavioral health and at least 2 long-term care service MH contracted Community Partner agencies (CPs) operating in their service areas to be responsible for coordinating care and developing care plans for members. This presentation will describe barriers and facilitators to developing ACO-CP relationships identified in the first 1.5 years of program implementation. Study Design: This paper focuses on ways in which ACOs and CPs are responding to new contracting requirements and programmatic expectations related to the MA 1115 DSRIP. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals in leadership positions at all 17 ACOs and 27 CPs by pairs of trained interviewers, in person, or via video or teleconference. Interview data were analyzed qualitatively, using a framework approach informed by the literature, the program logic model, and the evaluation design. Population Studied: ACOs/CPs nominated 2 to 3 individuals best positioned to speak to implementation topics including governance and organizational structure, workforce development, ACO-CP relationships, provider engagement, care coordination, quality improvement, and environmental factors including the role of MassHealth. Ninety-four interviews were conducted with 99 interviewees across the 44 organizations. The majority of interviewees were female and typically held managerial roles, ranging from program managers to executives. A majority were with their organizations prior to or at the time of DSRIP inception. Principal Findings: Communication and information sharing were identified as key ingredients to coordinating member health care between ACOs and CPs; the absence of effective means to communicate and share information were identified as major barriers. Strategies for enhancing communication included scheduling regular meetings to discuss shared patients (i.e., within and between organizations), designating points of contact (e.g., staff liaisons), and clarifying roles regarding member-facing activities. Information sharing was found to be most effective when organizations agreed on processes, particularly around the use of electronic medical records or other information exchange technologies. ACO and CP interviewees indicated that successful communication and information sharing led to the development of stronger and more positive partner relationships (e.g., between an ACO and the CPs with which they share information and coordinate care well). Participants also described ways in which MassHealth has actively responded to challenges within the original design of the ACO-CP relationship to improve coordination and member experience. Conclusions: Designated points of contact, well-conceived and executed communication strategies, and effective information exchange are essential for developing relationships and coordinating care between ACOs and community-based organizations. Implications for Policy or Practice: States need to consider the complexity of coordinating care with multiple community-based agencies and the importance of standardized processes for effective information sharing when promoting care coordination between health care and human service entities. States should also incorporate means of ongoing technical support and rapid cycle feedback to allow for continuous policy improvement in Medicaid delivery systems

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Value-Based Care Models in New Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations in Massachusetts: A Study Protocol

Introduction: Massachusetts established 17 new Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs) and 24 affiliated Community Partners (CPs) in 2018 as part of a large-scale healthcare reform effort to improve care value. The new ACOs will receive $1.8 billion dollars in state and federal funding over 5 years through the Delivery System Reform Incentive Program (DSRIP). The multi-faceted study described in this protocol aims to address gaps in knowledge about Medicaid ACOs\u27 impact on healthcare value by identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of the DSRIP-funded programs. Methods and analysis: The study\u27s four components are: (1) Document Review to characterize the ACOs and CPs; (2) Semi-structured Key Informant Interviews (KII) with ACO and CP leadership, state-level Medicaid administrators, and patients; (3) Site visits with selected ACOs and CPs; and (4) Surveys of ACO clinical teams and CP staff. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research\u27s (CFIR) serves as the study\u27s conceptual framework; its versatile menu of constructs, arranged across five domains (Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Processes) guides identification of barriers and facilitators across multiple organizational contexts. For example, KII interview guides focus on understanding how Inner and Outer Setting factors may impact implementation. Document Review analysis includes extraction and synthesis of ACO-specific DSRIP-funded programs (i.e., Intervention Characteristics); KIIs and site visit data will be qualitatively analyzed using thematic analytic techniques; surveys will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (e.g., counts, frequencies, means, and standard deviations). Discussion: Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining Medicaid ACOs with varied organizational structures will provide critical context for understanding the overall impact of the Medicaid ACO experiment in Massachusetts. It will also provide important insights for other states considering the ACO model for their Medicaid programs. Ethics and dissemination: IRB determinations were that the overall study did not constitute human subjects research and that each phase of primary data collection should be submitted for IRB review and approval. Study results will be disseminated through traditional channels such as peer reviewed journals, through publicly available reports on the mass.gov website; and directly to key stakeholders in ACO and CP leadership

The association of religion with maternal and child health outcomes in South Asian countries

Objective Theological beliefs play an important role in cultural norms and could impact women’s prenatal and postpartum decisions in South Asia, which has a high burden of disease in children and pregnant women. The aim of this study is to identify any associations religion may have in affecting a woman’s decision-making ability, and how that in turn affects maternal and child health, at a group level in multiple South Asian countries. Study design Cross-sectional study utilizing secondary data analysis. Methods We used Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) between 2014 and 2018 in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan. Not every country’s survey asked about religion, so we imputed these results based on Census data. We assessed maternal and child health through a composite coverage index (CCI), which accounts for family planning, attendance of a skilled attendant at birth, antenatal care, BCG vaccinations, 3 doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine, measles vaccine, oral rehydration therapy, and seeking care if the child has pneumonia. The relationship between religion, women’s empowerment, and CCI was assessed through linear regression models. Results The sample included 57,972 mothers who had children aged 12–23 months. CCI is observed to be affected by family income, in addition to religion and country. CCI was higher in Hindus (2.8%, 95% CI: 2.4%, 3.1%) and Buddhists (2.0%, 95% CI: 1.2%, 2.9%) than Muslims. Mother’s age, education, income, decision-making autonomy, and attitude towards beatings were all related to CCI. In a model stratified by religion, age, education, and income were significant predictors of CCI for both Muslims and non-Muslims, but were more impactful among Muslims. Conclusion Though multiple imputation had to be used to fill in gaps in religion data, this study demonstrates that maternal and child health outcomes continue to be a concern in South Asia, especially for Muslim women. Given the importance of religious beliefs, utilizing a simple indicator, such as the CCI could be helpful for monitoring these outcomes and provides a tangible first step for communities to address gaps in care resulting from disparities in maternal empowerment