Search

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. Objective: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. Methods: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. Discussion: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. Public Contribution: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is known to require continuous clinical care and management that consumes significant health-care resources. These costs are not well understood, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the direct medical costs associated with T2DM in the South African public health sector and to project an estimate of the future direct costs of T2DM by 2030. Methods: A cost of illness study was conducted to estimate the direct medical costs of T2DM in South Africa in 2018 and to make projections for potential costs in 2030. Costs were estimated for diagnosis and management of T2DM, and related complications. Analyses were implemented in Microsoft Excel, with sensitivity analysis conducted on particular parameters. Results: In 2018, public sector costs of diagnosed T2DM patients were approximately ZAR 2.7 bn and ZAR 21.8 bn if both diagnosed and undiagnosed patients are considered. In real terms, the 2030 cost of all T2DM cases is estimated to be ZAR 35.1 bn. Approximately 51% of these estimated costs for 2030 are attributable to the management of T2DM, and 49% are attributable to complications. Conclusion: T2DM imposes a significant financial burden on the public healthcare system in South Africa. Treatment of all prevalent cases would incur a cost equivalent to approximately 12% of the total national health budget in 2018. With rising prevalence, direct costs will grow if current care regimes are maintained and case-finding improved. Increased financial resources are necessary in order to deliver effective services to people with T2DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]