Search

In many countries, community pharmacies have played an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing essential medicines and personal protective equipment (PPE), disseminating information on disease prevention and management, and referring clients to health facilities. In recognition of this, there are increasing calls for an improved understanding of the challenges and experiences faced by these providers during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a view to providing them with better support and guidance now and during future emergencies. Between January and February 2021 we conducted 21 qualitative interviews to explore the experiences, safety concerns, and attitudes of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians during the COVID-19 crisis in Indonesia, a country that has recorded more than four million cases since the start of the pandemic. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic content analysis. Findings indicate that COVID-19 has had a significant impact on pharmacy practices in Indonesia. Most participants implemented preventive measures and adapted their business models to the changing circumstances. The shift to remote sales and home delivery allowed many pharmacies to maintain, and even increase their profit margins due to greater demand for medicines and PPE. However, many participants were concerned about the increased risk of infection due to limited social distancing and prolonged interactions with clients, many of whom displayed COVID-19 symptoms. Importantly, there was a general perception that the government did not sufficiently recognize these risks. In conclusion, the government should consider developing additional operational guidelines and regulatory frameworks to improve the safety, operation, and involvement of community pharmacies in the current pandemic response efforts and any future public health emergencies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Wulandari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

There is limited evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cash transfer programmes to improve maternal and child health in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries. This article presents the economic evaluation results of the Afya trial, assessing the costs, cost-effectiveness and equity impact of a demand-side financing intervention that promotes utilisation of maternal health services in rural Kenya. The cost of implementing the Afya intervention was estimated from a provider perspective. Cost data were collected prospectively from all implementing and non-implementing partners, and from health service providers. Cost-efficiency was analysed using cost-transfer ratios and cost per mother enrolled into the intervention. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per additional eligible antenatal care visit as a result of the intervention, when compared with standard care. The equity impact of the intervention was also assessed using a multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Programme cost per mother enrolled was International (INT)$313 of which INT$ 92 consisted of direct transfer payments, suggesting a cost transfer ratio of 2.4. Direct healthcare utilisation costs reflected a small proportion of total provider costs, amounting to INT$ 21,756. The total provider cost of the Afya intervention was INT$808,942. The provider cost per additional eligible ANC visit was INT$1,035. This is substantially higher than estimated annual health expenditure per capita at the county level of $INT61. MPI estimates suggest around 27.4% of participant households were multidimensionally poor. MPI quintiles did not significantly modify the intervention effect, suggesting the impact of the intervention did not differ by socioeconomic status. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude whether the Afya intervention was cost-effective. A simple comparison with current health expenditure in Siaya county suggests that the intervention as implemented is likely to be unaffordable. Consideration needs to be given to strengthening the supply-side of the cash transfer intervention before replication or uptake at scale., Competing Interests: We have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright: © 2022 Palmer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Point-of-care tests for these infections facilitate testing and treatment in a single antenatal clinic visit and may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes. Successful implementation and scale-up depends on understanding comparative effectiveness of such programmes and their comparative costs and cost effectiveness. This systematic review synthesises and appraises evidence from economic evaluations of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries., Methods: Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched using pre-determined criteria. Additional literature was identified by searching Google Scholar and the bibliographies of all included studies. Economic evaluations were eligible if they were set in low- and middle-income countries and assessed antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis, and/or bacterial vaginosis. Studies were analysed using narrative synthesis. Methodological and reporting standards were assessed using two published checklists., Results: Sixteen economic evaluations were included in this review; ten based in Africa, three in Latin and South America and three were cross-continent comparisons. Fifteen studies assessed point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, while one evaluated chlamydia. Key drivers of cost and cost-effectiveness included disease prevalence; test, treatment, and staff costs; test sensitivity and specificity; and screening and treatment coverage. All studies met 75% or more of the criteria of the Drummond Checklist and 60% of the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards., Conclusions: Generally, point-of-care testing and treatment was cost-effective compared to no screening, syndromic management, and laboratory-based testing. Future economic evaluations should consider other common infections, and their lifetime impact on mothers and babies. Complementary affordability and equity analyses would strengthen the case for greater investment in antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests.