1
|
Durão S, Effa E, Mbeye N, Mthethwa M, McCaul M, Naude C, Brand A, Blose N, Mabetha D, Chibuzor M, Arikpo D, Chipojola R, Kunje G, Vandvik PO, Esu E, Lewin S, Kredo T. Using a priority setting exercise to identify priorities for guidelines on newborn and child health in South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria. Health Res Policy Syst 2024; 22:48. [PMID: 38627761 PMCID: PMC11020907 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-024-01133-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Accepted: 03/30/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest under-five mortality rate globally. Child healthcare decisions should be based on rigorously developed evidence-informed guidelines. The Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project is enhancing capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant guidelines for newborn and child health in South Africa (SA), Malawi, and Nigeria. The first step in this process was to identify national priorities for newborn and child health guideline development, and this paper describes our approach. METHODS We followed a good practice method for priority setting, including stakeholder engagement, online priority setting surveys and consensus meetings, conducted separately in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria. We established national Steering Groups (SG), comprising 10-13 members representing government, academia, and other stakeholders, identified through existing contacts and references, who helped prioritise initial topics identified by research teams and oversaw the process. Various stakeholders were consulted via online surveys to rate the importance of topics, with results informing consensus meetings with SGs where final priority topics were agreed. RESULTS Based on survey results, nine, 10 and 11 topics were identified in SA, Malawi, and Nigeria respectively, which informed consensus meetings. Through voting and discussion within meetings, and further engagement after the meetings, the top three priority topics were identified in each country. In SA, the topics concerned anemia prevention in infants and young children and post-discharge support for caregivers of preterm and LBW babies. In Malawi, they focused on enteral nutrition in critically ill children, diagnosis of childhood cancers in the community, and caring for neonates. In Nigeria, the topics focused on identifying pre-eclampsia in the community, hand hygiene compliance to prevent infections, and enteral nutrition for LBW and preterm infants. CONCLUSIONS Through dynamic and iterative stakeholder engagement, we identified three priority topics for guideline development on newborn and child health in SA, Malawi and Nigeria. Topics were specific to contexts, with no overlap, which highlights the importance of contextualised priority setting as well as of the relationships with key decisionmakers who help define the priorities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Solange Durão
- Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
| | - Emmanuel Effa
- Cochrane Nigeria, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
| | - Nyanyiwe Mbeye
- Evidence Informed Decision-Making Centre, Department of Community and Environmental Health, School of Global and Public Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi
| | - Mashudu Mthethwa
- Cochrane Nigeria, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
| | - Michael McCaul
- Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Celeste Naude
- Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Amanda Brand
- Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Ntombifuthi Blose
- Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Denny Mabetha
- Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Moriam Chibuzor
- Cochrane Nigeria, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
| | - Dachi Arikpo
- Cochrane Nigeria, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
| | - Roselyn Chipojola
- Evidence Informed Decision-Making Centre, Department of Community and Environmental Health, School of Global and Public Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi
| | - Gertrude Kunje
- Evidence Informed Decision-Making Centre, Department of Community and Environmental Health, School of Global and Public Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi
| | - Per Olav Vandvik
- MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Medicine, Lovisenberg Diaconal Trust, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ekpereonne Esu
- Cochrane Nigeria, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
| | - Simon Lewin
- Department of Health Sciences Alesund, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Tamara Kredo
- Cochrane Nigeria, Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria
- Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
El-Harakeh A, Lotfi T, Ahmad A, Morsi RZ, Fadlallah R, Bou-Karroum L, Akl EA. The implementation of prioritization exercises in the development and update of health practice guidelines: A scoping review. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0229249. [PMID: 32196520 PMCID: PMC7083273 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229249] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2019] [Accepted: 02/02/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The development of trustworthy guidelines requires substantial investment of resources and time. This highlights the need to prioritize topics for guideline development and update. Objective To systematically identify and describe prioritization exercises that have been conducted for the purpose of the de novo development, update or adaptation of health practice guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and CINAHL electronic databases from inception to July 2019, supplemented by hand-searching Google Scholar and the reference lists of relevant studies. We included studies describing prioritization exercises that have been conducted during the de novo development, update or adaptation of guidelines addressing clinical, public health or health systems topics. Two reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to complete study selection and data extraction. We consolidated findings in a semi-quantitative and narrative way. Results Out of 33,339 identified citations, twelve studies met the eligibility criteria. All included studies focused on prioritizing topics; none on questions or outcomes. While three exercises focused on updating guidelines, nine were on de novo development. All included studies addressed clinical topics. We adopted a framework that categorizes prioritization into 11 steps clustered in three phases (pre-prioritization, prioritization and post-prioritization). Four studies covered more than half of the 11 prioritization steps across the three phases. The most frequently reported steps for generating initial list of topics were stakeholders’ input (n = 8) and literature review (n = 7). The application of criteria to determine research priorities was used in eight studies. We used and updated a common framework of 22 prioritization criteria, clustered in 6 domains. The most frequently reported criteria related to the health burden of disease (n = 9) and potential impact of the intervention on health outcomes (n = 5). All the studies involved health care providers in the prioritization exercises. Only one study involved patients. There was a variation in the number and type of the prioritization exercises’ outputs. Conclusions This review included 12 prioritization exercises that addressed different aspects of priority setting for guideline development and update that can guide the work of researchers, funders, and other stakeholders seeking to prioritize guideline topics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amena El-Harakeh
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Clinical Research Institute (CRI), American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Tamara Lotfi
- Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative (GESI) Secretariat, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Ali Ahmad
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Rami Z. Morsi
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Racha Fadlallah
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Department of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Lama Bou-Karroum
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Department of Health Management and Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A. Akl
- Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Clinical Research Institute (CRI), American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ju YJ, Park EC, Shin J, Lee SA, Choi Y, Lee HY. Association between re-admission rate and hospital characteristics for ischemic heart disease. Curr Med Res Opin 2018; 34:441-446. [PMID: 28994312 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1390448] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Hospital re-admission is considered an important marker of patient health outcomes and healthcare system performance. Korea introduced the Korean Diagnosis Procedure Combination (KDPC) for all regional public hospitals in July 2012. This study examined re-admission rates within 30 days to assess whether the hospital payment system is associated with the re-admission rate, focusing on ischemic heart disease. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted using national claims data for 2013. We analyzed data of patients with a major diagnosis of ischemic heart disease who were admitted to general hospitals with more than 500 beds in Korea. Of the eight general hospitals, two that have been operating under the new Korean payment system were public hospitals using the KDPC, and the remaining six were private general hospitals with fee for service (FFS) systems. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify associations between re-admission rate and hospital characteristics. RESULTS The study analyzed 4,290 cases (889 cases in KDPC and 3,401 cases in FFS). The 30-day unplanned re-admission rate was higher in KDPC than in FFS (7.9% vs 5.6%, respectively). The unplanned re-admission odds ratios of KDPC was 1.74. CONCLUSIONS KDPC had higher 30-day unplanned re-admissions rates than did FFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yeong Jun Ju
- a Department of Public Health , Graduate School, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
- b Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
| | - Eun-Cheol Park
- b Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
- c Department of Preventive Medicine , Yonsei University College of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea
| | - Jaeyong Shin
- b Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
- c Department of Preventive Medicine , Yonsei University College of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea
| | - Sang Ah Lee
- a Department of Public Health , Graduate School, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
- b Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
| | - Young Choi
- a Department of Public Health , Graduate School, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
- b Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University , Seoul , Republic of Korea
| | - Hoo-Yeon Lee
- d Department of Social Medicine , Dankook University College of Medicine , Cheonan , Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|