Exploring health stakeholders' perceptions on moving towards comprehensive primary health care to address childhood malnutrition in Iran: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to the multifaceted aspect of child malnutrition, a comprehensive approach, taking social factors into account, has been frequently recommended in health literature. The Alma-Ata declaration explicitly outlined comprehensive primary health care as an approach that addresses the social, economic and political causes of poor health and nutrition.</p> <p>Iran as a signatory country to the Alma Ata Declaration has established primary health care since 1979 with significant progress on many health indicators during the last three decades. However, the primary health care system is still challenged to reduce inequity in conditions such as child malnutrition which trace back to social factors. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of the Iranian health stakeholders with respect to the Iranian primary health care performance and actions to move towards a comprehensive approach in addressing childhood malnutrition. Health stakeholders are defined as those who affect or can be affected by health system, for example health policy-makers, health providers or health service recipients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Stakeholder analysis approach was undertaken using a qualitative research method. Different levels of stakeholders, including health policy-makers, health providers and community members were interviewed as either individuals or focus groups. Qualitative content analysis was used to interpret and compare/contrast the viewpoints of the study participants.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results demonstrated that fundamental differences exist in the perceptions of different health stakeholders in the understanding of comprehensive notion and action. Health policy-makers mainly believed in the need for a secure health management environment and the necessity for a whole of the government approach to enhance collaborative action. Community health workers, on the other hand, indicated that staff motivation, advocacy and involvement are the main challenges need to be addressed. Turning to community stakeholders, greater emphasis has been placed on community capabilities, informal link with other social sectors based on trust and local initiatives.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This research provided a picture of the differences in the perceptions and values of different stakeholders with respect to primary health care concepts. The study suggests that a top-down approach, which still exists among health policy-makers, is a key obstacle that delays, and possibly worse, undermines the implementation of the comprehensive strategy codified by the Alma-Ata Declaration. A need to revitalise primary health care to use its full potential and to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches by narrowing the gap between perceptions of policy makers and those who provide and receive health-related services is crucial.</p

Where’s WALY? : A proof of concept study of the ‘wellbeing adjusted life year’ using secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data

Background The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is a measure that combines life extension and health improvement in a single score, reflecting preferences around different types of health gain. It can therefore be used to inform decision-making around allocation of health care resources to mutually exclusive options that would produce qualitatively different health benefits. A number of quality-of-life instruments can be used to calculate QALYs. The EQ-5D is one of the most commonly used, and is the preferred option for submissions to NICE (https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/). However, it has limitations that might make it unsuitable for use in areas such as public and mental health where interventions may aim to improve well-being. One alternative to the QALY is a Wellbeing-Adjusted Life Year. In this study we explore the need for a Wellbeing-Adjusted Life Year measure by examining the extent to which a measure of wellbeing (the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) maps onto the EQ-5D-3L. Methods Secondary analyses were conducted on data from the Coventry Household Survey in which 7469 participants completed the EQ-5D-3L, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, and a measure of self-rated health. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlations, linear regression, and receiver operating characteristic curves. Results Approximately 75 % of participants scored the maximum on the EQ-5D-3L. Those with maximum EQ-5D-3L scores reported a wide range of levels of mental wellbeing. Both the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale and the EQ-5D-3L were able to detect differences between those with higher and lower levels of self-reported health. Linear regression indicated that scores on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale and the EQ-5D-3L were weakly, positively correlated (with R2 being 0.104 for the index and 0.141 for the visual analogue scale). Conclusion The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale maps onto the EQ-5D-3L to only a limited extent. Levels of mental wellbeing varied greatly amongst participants who had the maximum score on the EQ-5D-3L. To evaluate the relative effectiveness of interventions that impact on mental wellbeing, a new measure – a Wellbeing Adjusted Life Year – is needed