Contact tracing in Austria, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and Kosovo† during the COVID-19 pandemic: response review and good practices

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, effective contact tracing was recognized as a crucial public health response to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, particularly before widespread vaccination. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended implementing active surveillance strategies to trace and quarantine contacts of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.

METHODS

A detailed review and analysis of the COVID-19 contact tracing responses was conducted in five European countries and territories, between March 2021 and August 2022. The countries and territories were selected to ensure geographical representation across the WHO European Region and applied a mixed-methods approach of in-depth interviews with various stakeholders across different administrative levels to identify good practices in COVID-19 contact tracing. The interviews covered 12 themes, including methods and procedures for COVID-19 contact tracing, information technology, quality assurance and key performance indicators.

RESULTS

The findings demonstrate that the policy approach, digitalization capabilities and implementation approach varied in the countries and territories and were dynamic throughout the pandemic. The analysis revealed that some practices were applicable across all countries and territories, while others were context-specific, catering to each country's and territory's unique needs. The study highlighted a need for all countries to institutionalize contact tracing as an essential function of existing health systems, to digitalize contact tracing practices and processes, and to build and retain contact tracing capacities for better pandemic preparedness.

CONCLUSION

The lessons related to COVID-19 contact tracing should be utilized to strengthen future outbreak response operations as part of epidemic and pandemic preparedness.

Knowledge management tools and mechanisms for evidence-informed decision-making in the WHO European Region: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management (KM) emerged as a strategy to promote evidence-informed decision-making. This scoping review aims to map existing KM tools and mechanisms used to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in the WHO European Region and identify knowledge gaps.

METHODS

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting scoping reviews, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Open Grey. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and conducted narrative analysis of the included studies and categorized studies according to KM type and phase.

RESULTS

Out of 9541 citations identified, we included 141 studies. The KM tools mostly assessed are evidence networks, surveillance tools, observatories, data platforms and registries, with most examining KM tools in high-income countries of the WHO European region. Findings suggest that KM tools can identify health problems, inform health planning and resource allocation, increase the use of evidence by policymakers and stimulate policy discussion.

CONCLUSION

Policymakers and funding agencies are called to support capacity-building activities, and future studies to strengthen KM in the WHO European region particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. An updated over-arching strategy to coordinate KM activities in the WHO European region will be useful in these efforts.

Capacity building of health care professionals to perform interprofessional management of non-communicable diseases in primary care - experiences from Ukraine

BACKGROUND

Non-communicable diseases are leading causes of death and disability across the world. Countries with the highest non-communicable disease (NCD) burden in the WHO European Region are often those that have some of the greatest health system challenges for achieving good outcomes in prevention and care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an interprofessional capacity building intervention carried out in Ukraine to improve the management non-communicable diseases in primary health care.

METHODS

A mixed-methods evaluation study was performed in 2018 to analyse the effect of a capacity building intervention carried out for over 10,000 primary care professionals in Ukraine in 2018. Quantitative data were collected from primary health care records of intervention and control areas preceding the intervention and 1.5 to 2 years after the intervention. Altogether 2798 patient records before and 2795 after the intervention were reviewed. In control areas, 1202 patient records were reviewed. Qualitative data were collected carrying out focus group interviews for health professionals, clinic managers and patients. Also, observations of clinical practice and patient pathways were performed.

RESULTS

The capacity building intervention improved the capacity of professionals in detection and management of non-communicable disease risk factors. Significant improvement was seen in detection rates of both behavioural and biological risk factors and in medication prescription rates in the intervention areas. However, almost similar improvement in prescription rates was also observed in control clinics. Improvements in control of blood pressure, blood glucose and cholesterol were not seen during the evaluated implementation period. Qualitative analyses highlighted the improved knowledge and skills but challenges in changing the current practice.

CONCLUSIONS

A large scale capacity building intervention improved primary health care professionals' knowledge, skills and clinical practice on NCD risk detection and reduction. We were not able to detect improvements in treatment outcomes - at least within 1.5 to 2 years follow-up. Improvement of treatment outcomes would most likely need more comprehensive systems change.

Assessing the impact of law enforcement to reduce over-the-counter (OTC) sales of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries; a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are moving towards enforcing prescription-only access to antibiotics. This systematic literature review aims to assess the interventions used to enforce existing legislation prohibiting over-the-counter (OTC) sales of antibiotics in LMICs, their impact and examine the methods chosen for impact measurement including their strengths and weaknesses.

METHODS

Both PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies reporting on impact measurement in moving towards prescription only access to antibiotics in LMICs. The PRISMA methodological review framework was used to ensure systematic data collection and analysis of literature. Narrative data synthesis was used due to heterogeneity of study designs.

RESULTS

In total, 15 studies were included that assessed policy impact in 10 different countries. Strategies employed to enforce regulations prohibiting OTC sales of systemic antibiotics included retention of prescriptions for antibiotics by pharmacies, government inspections, engaging pharmacists in the design of interventions, media campaigns for the general public and educational activities for health care workers. A variety of outcomes was used to assess the policy impact; changes in antimicrobial resistance rates, changes in levels of antibiotic use, changes in trends of antibiotic use, changes in OTC supply of antibiotics, and changes in reported practices and knowledge of pharmacists, medicine sellers and the general public. Differences in methodological approaches and outcome assessment made it difficult to compare the effectiveness of law enforcement activities. Most effective appeared to be multifaceted approaches that involved all stakeholders. Monitoring of the impact on total sales of antibiotics by means of an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis and analysis of pharmacies selling antibiotics OTC using mystery clients were the methodologically strongest designs used.

CONCLUSIONS

The published literature describing activities to enforce prescription-only access to antibiotics in LMICs is sparse and offers limited guidance. Most likely to be effective are comprehensive multifaceted interventions targeting all stakeholders with regular reinforcement of messages. Policy evaluation should be planned as part of implementation to assess the impact and effectiveness of intervention strategies and to identify targets for further activities. Robust study designs such as ITS analyses and mystery client surveys should be used to monitor policy impact.

Protocol for the evaluation of a pilot implementation of essential interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases in primary healthcare in the Republic of Moldova

INTRODUCTION

Nearly 90% of all deaths in the Republic of Moldova are caused by non-communicable diseases, the majority of which (55%) are caused by cardiovascular diseases (CVD). In addition to reducing premature mortality from CVD, it is estimated that strengthening primary healthcare could cut the number of hypertension-related hospital admissions and diabetes-related hospitalisations in half. The aim of this evaluation is to determine the feasibility of implementing and evaluating essential interventions for the prevention of CVD in primary healthcare in the Republic of Moldova, with a view towards national scale-up.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A national steering group including international experts will be convened to adapt WHO Package of Essential NCD Intervention from Primary Healthcare in Low Resource Settings protocols 1 and 2 to the health system of the Republic of Moldova, develop and conduct training of primary healthcare workers and test a core set of indicators to monitor the quality of care and change in clinical practice. To evaluate the impact of this pilot implementation, a pragmatic, sequential mixed methods explanatory design, composed of quantitative and qualitative strands of equal weight, will be used. Twenty primary healthcare centres will be selected and randomised to the training and implementation arm (n=10) and the usual care arm (n=10). At baseline and 12 months follow-up, a standardised data collection form will be piloted to extract data directly from patient paper records in order to estimate the change in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews and interclinic peer workshops will be conducted at 12 months follow-up, and qualitative data collected from these formats will be analysed thematically for explanatory themes that relate to the quantitative findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical review and approval has been obtained. Findings of the evaluation will be shared in a project report to key stakeholders, presented back to participants and written into a manuscript for an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal.

A WHO-HPH operational program versus usual routines for implementing clinical health promotion: an RCT in health promoting hospitals (HPH)

BACKGROUND

Implementation of clinical health promotion (CHP) aiming at better health gain is slow despite its effect. CHP focuses on potentially modifiable lifestyle risks such as smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity. An operational program was created to improve implementation. It included patients, staff, and the organization, and it combined existing standards, indicators, documentation models, a performance recognition process, and a fast-track implementation model. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the operational program improved implementation of CHP in clinical hospital departments, as measured by health status of patients and staff, frequency of CHP service delivery, and standards compliance.

METHODS

Forty-eight hospital departments were recruited via open call and stratified by country. Departments were assigned to the operational program (intervention) or usual routine (control group). Data for analyses included 36 of these departments and their 5285 patients (median 147 per department; range 29-201), 2529 staff members (70; 10-393), 1750 medical records (50; 50-50), and standards compliance assessments. Follow-up was measured after 1 year. The outcomes were health status, service delivery, and standards compliance.

RESULTS

No health differences between groups were found, but the intervention group had higher identification of lifestyle risk (81% versus 60%, p < 0.01), related information/short intervention and intensive intervention (54% versus 39%, p < 0.01 and 43% versus 25%, p < 0.01, respectively), and standards compliance (95% versus 80%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The operational program improved implementation by way of lifestyle risk identification, CHP service delivery, and standards compliance. The unknown health effects, the bias, and the limitations should be considered in implementation efforts and further studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01563575. Registered 27 March 2012. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01563575.

Staff experiences with strategic implementation of clinical health promotion: A nested qualitative study in the WHO-HPH Recognition Process RCT

OBJECTIVES

Health promotion is on the global agenda. The risks targeted include smoking, hazardous alcohol consumption, nutrition and insufficient physical activity. Implementation of clinical health promotion, however, remains a major challenge. While several processes, models and frameworks for strategic implementation exist, very few have been tested in randomized designs. Testing a strategic implementation process for clinical health promotion was only recently attempted via a randomized clinical trial on the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals Recognition Process. The randomized clinical trial showed that the process improved central parts of implementation. To complement these findings, this nested qualitative study aimed to explore experiences and perceptions of staff and managers, who had completed the process, and generate hypotheses for improvements.

METHODS

We interviewed a purposeful sample of 45 key informants from four countries, who worked at clinical departments and had undertaken the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals implementation process. The informants included 14 managers, 14 medical doctors, 13 nurses and 4 other clinical staff. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and an inductive approach to coding and categorization supported by QSR NVivo.

RESULTS

The informants' experiences and perceptions centered around four global themes concerning (1) awareness, cultural re-orientation and integration; (2) learnings; (3) normalization and legitimacy and (4) a more evidence-based, structured and systematic approach to clinical health promotion. Informants were positive toward the implementation process, although it was sometimes challenging. The suggested improvements to increase acceptability related to the patient survey, time consumption, translation, tailoring to local circumstances and in-advance training.

CONCLUSIONS

Managers and staff were positive toward the World Health Organization Health Promotion Hospitals process, which was perceived to bring about positive changes and learnings. The findings also suggest that the implementation process may be improved by minor adjustments to process elements and design. It is our recommendation to use the process in clinical departments to further implementation of clinical health promotion.

What is the quality of the maternal near-miss case reviews in WHO European Region? Cross-sectional study in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Republic of Moldova and Uzbekistan

OBJECTIVES

The maternal near-miss case review (NMCR) cycle is a type of clinical audit aiming at improving quality of maternal healthcare by discussing near-miss cases. In several countries this approach has been introduced and supported by WHO and partners since 2004, but information on the quality of its implementation is missing. This study aimed at evaluating the quality of the NMCR implementation in selected countries within WHO European Region.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTINGS

Twenty-three maternity units in Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Moldova and Uzbekistan.

ASSESSMENT TOOLS

A predefined checklist including 50 items, according to WHO methodology. Quality in the NMCR implementation was defined by summary scores ranging from 0 (totally inappropriate) to 3 (appropriate).

RESULTS

Quality of the NMCR implementation was heterogeneous among different countries, and within the same country. Overall, the first part of the audit cycle (from case identification to case analysis) was fairly well performed (mean score 2.00, 95% CI 1.94 to 2.06), with the exception of the 'inclusion of users' views' (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22), while the second part (developing recommendations, implementing them and ensuring quality) was poorly performed (mean score 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22). Each country had at least one champion facility, where quality of the NMCR cycle was acceptable. Quality of the implementation was not associated with its duration. Gaps in implementation were of technical, organisational and attitudinal nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring quality in the NMCR may be difficult but achievable. The high heterogeneity in results within the same country suggests that quality of the NMCR implementation depends, to a large extent, from hospital factors, including staff's commitment, managerial support and local coordination. Efforts should be put in preventing and mitigating common barriers that hamper successful NMCR implementation.