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]

Introduction: The treatment gap for mental health disorders persists in low- and middle-income countries despite overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of tasksharing mental health interventions. Key barriers in the uptake of these innovations include the absence of policy to support implementation and diverting of staff from usual routines in health systems that are already overstretched. South Africa enjoys a conducive policy environment; however, strategies for operationalizing the policy ideals are lacking. This paper describes the Mental health INTegration Programme (MhINT), which adopted a health system strengthening approach to embed an evidence-based task-sharing care package for depression to integrate mental health care into chronic care at primary health care (PHC). Methods: The MhINT care package consisting of psycho-education talks, nurse-led mental health assessment, and a structured psychosocial counselling intervention provided by lay counsellors was implemented in Amajuba district in KwaZulu-Natal over a 2-year period. A learning health systems approach was adopted, using continuous quality improvement (CQI) strategies to facilitate embedding of the intervention. MhINT was implemented along five phases: the project phase wherein teams to drive implementation were formed; the diagnostic phase where routinely collected data were used to identify system barriers to integrated mental health care; the intervention phase consisting of capacity building and using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to address implementation barriers and the impact and sustaining improvement phases entailed assessing the impact of the program and initiation of system-level interventions to sustain and institutionalize successful change ideas. Results: Integrated planning and monitoring were enabled by including key mental health service indicators in weekly meetings designed to track the performance of noncommunicable diseases and human immunovirus clinical programmes. Lack of standardization in mental health screening prompted the validation of a mental health screening tool and testing feasibility of its use in centralized screening stations. A culture of collaborative problem-solving was promoted through CQI data-driven learning sessions. The province-level screening rate increased by 10%, whilst the district screening rate increased by 7% and new patients initiated to mental health treatment increased by 16%. Conclusions: The CQI approach holds promise in facilitating the attainment of integrated mental health care in resource-scarce contexts. A collaborative relationship between researchers and health system stakeholders is an important strategy for facilitating the uptake of evidence-based innovations. However, the lack of interventions to address healthcare workers' own mental health poses a threat to integrated mental health care at PHC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]