Search

Abstract Background Development and use of core outcome set(s) (COS) in research can reduce research wastage by ensuring that a minimum set of outcomes are always reported on. Neonatal morbidity and mortality are a big burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research is continuously being undertaken to reduce this burden. Currently, there is no COS for neonatal research in LMICs but there exists one for neonatal research in high-income countries (HICs). Objectives To determine outcomes that are useful for neonatal care in Kenya to inform whether an existing COS should be adopted or adapted. To assess the feasibility of a routine data collection system to collect data of the agreed-on COS. Methods A review of existing literature on neonatal research in LMICs followed by a qualitative study of key stakeholders in neonatal care. To explore whether to adapt or adopt, in two hospitals, two focus group discussions with 6–8 parents/caregivers will be undertaken (one each in two hospitals). Key informant interviews will also be conducted with 6 health care providers in each of the hospitals. At the policy-making level, we will conduct 10 key informant interviews. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically. A consensus meeting will be undertaken with key stakeholders, who will be presented with an overview of the COS developed for HICs, key findings from the literature, and the qualitative study to determine context-appropriate COS. The agreed-on outcomes will be counterchecked against the case records in the two hospitals. The feasibility of collecting the outcomes on a routine electronic research database, the Clinical Information Network that collects standardized data at admission and discharge, will be explored. The congruence (or not) of the outcomes will be documented and be used to enrich the discussion and provide a snapshot of the feasibility of the health information system to collect routine data on the COS. Conclusions A COS for use in neonatal care in Kenya will help enhance outcome measurements and reporting not just in research but also in routine practice. This will enhance the comparability of interventions in trials and routine settings leading to reduced research wastage and likely improved quality of care. Additionally, the methodology used for this work can be adopted in other settings as a means of adopting or adapting an existing COS.

Core outcome set (COS) development and use enhances comparability of research findings. It may also enhance the translation of research into practice and reduce research waste. However, there is limited involvement of stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in COS development and use. In this study, we explored the experiences of researchers in COS development projects who included stakeholders from LMICs. Online survey conducted in English of 70 COS developers from HICs who had included LMIC stakeholders in the process of developing a COS, published before the end of 2019. Respondents were identified from the COMET database and sent a link to the survey via a personalised email. Quantitative data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. Qualitative data analysis was based on qualitative content analysis. There were 37 respondents yielding a 53% overall response rate. Analysis was limited to the responses related to 29 COS developed in the years 2015 to 2019, to reduce the potential for recall bias for earlier COS. Most respondents 20/29 (69%) were researchers. Determining 'what to measure' was reported as the most common stage of inclusion of LMIC stakeholders. Respondents cited (24/29, 83%) their ongoing collaborations with LMIC stakeholders such as clinicians or researchers as their main rationale for including LMICs stakeholders and reported that translation of the Delphi into languages other than English may be useful to enhance wider stakeholder participation. Involvement of LMIC stakeholders only in the later stages of COS development, lack of adequate resources to support their involvement, and lack of networks and contacts were thought to limit fuller participation of stakeholders from LMICs. To improve the involvement of LMIC stakeholders in COS development and use, COS developers need to raise awareness on the utility of COS. The need for and feasibility of translation into multiple languages warrants further discussion.

Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.

Objective Our study aims to describe differences or similarities in the scope, participant characteristics and methods used in core outcome sets (COS) development when only participants from high-income countries (HICs) were involved compared with when participants from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were also involved.Design Systematic review.Data sources Annual Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials systematic reviews of COS which are updated based on SCOPUS and MEDLINE, searches. The latest systematic review included studies published up to the end of 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included studies reporting development of a COS for use in research regardless of age, health condition or setting. Studies reporting the development of a COS for patient-reported outcomes or adverse events or complications were also included.Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted in relation to scope of the COS study, participant categories and the methods used in outcome selection.Results Studies describing 370 COS were identified in the database. Of these, 75 (20%) included participants from LMICs. Only four COS were initiated from an LMIC setting. More than half of COS with LMIC participants were developed in the last 5 years. Cancer and rheumatology were the dominant disease domains. Overall, over 259 (70%) of COS explicitly reported including clinical experts; this was higher where LMIC participants were also included 340 (92%). Most LMIC participants were from China, Brazil and South Africa. Mixed methods for consensus building were used across the two settings.Conclusion Progress has been made in including LMIC participants in the development of COS, however, there is a need to explore how to enable initiation of COS development from a range of LMIC settings, how to ensure prioritisation of COS that better reflects the burden of disease in these contexts and how to improve public participation from LMICs.

Abstract Background Female genital mutilation (FGM) is prevalent in communities of migration. Given the harmful effects of the practice and its illegal status in many countries, there have been concerted primary, secondary and tertiary prevention efforts to protect girls from FGM. However, there is paucity of evidence concerning useful strategies and approaches to prevent FGM and improve the health and social outcomes of affected women and girls. Methods We analysed peer-reviewed and grey literature to extract the evidence for FGM prevention interventions from a public health perspective in high income countries by a systematic search of bibliographic databases and websites using appropriate keywords. Identified publications were screened against selection criteria, following the PRISMA guidelines. We examined the characteristics of prevention interventions, including their programmatic approaches and strategies, target audiences and evaluation findings using an apriori template. Findings Eleven documents included in this review described primary and secondary prevention activities. High income countries have given attention to legislative action, bureaucratic interventions to address social injustice and protect those at risk of FGM, alongside prevention activities that favour health persuasion, foster engagement with the local community through outreach and the involvement of community champions, healthcare professional training and capacity strengthening. Study types are largely process evaluations that include measures of short-term outcomes (pre- and post-changes in attitude, knowledge and confidence or audits of practices). There is a dearth of evaluative research focused on empowerment-oriented preventative activities that involve individual women and girls who are affected by FGM. Beattie’s framework provides a useful way of articulating negotiated and authoritative prevention actions required to address FGM at national and local levels. Conclusion FGM is a complex and deeply rooted sociocultural issue that requires a multifaceted response that encompasses socio-economic, physical and environmental factors, education and learning, health services and facilities, and community mobilisation activities. Investment in the rigorous longitudinal evaluation of FGM health prevention efforts are needed to provide strong evidence of impact to guide future decision making. A national evidence-based framework would bring logic, clarity, comprehension, evidence and economically more effective response for current and future prevention interventions addressing FGM in high income countries.

Medicine prices are a major determinant of access to healthcare. Owing to low availability of medicines in the public health facilities and poor accessibility to these facilities, most low-income residents pay out-of-pocket for health services and transport to the private health facilities. In low-income settlements, high retail prices are likely to push the population further into poverty and ill health. This study assessed the retail pricing, availability, and affordability of medicines in private health facilities in low-income settlements within Nairobi County. Medicine prices and availability data were collected between September and December 2016 at 45 private healthcare facilities in 14 of Nairobi’s low-income settlements using electronic questionnaires. The International Medical Products Price Guide provided international medicine reference prices for comparison. Affordability and availability proxies were calculated according to existing methods. Innovator brands were 13.8 times more expensive than generic brands. The lowest priced generics and innovator brands were, on average, sold at 2.9 and 32.6 times the median international reference prices of corresponding medicines. Assuming a 100% disposable income, it would take 0.03 to 1.33 days’ wages for the lowest paid government employee to pay for treatment courses of selected single generic medicines. Medicine availability in the facilities ranged between 2% and 76% (mean 43%) for indicator medicines. Prices of selected medicines varied within the 14 study regions. Retail medicine prices in the low-income settlements studied were generally higher than corresponding international reference prices. Price variations were observed across different regions although the regions comprise similar socioeconomic populations. These factors are likely to impact negatively on healthcare access.

Regular assessment of quality of care allows monitoring of progress towards system goals and identifies gaps that need to be addressed to promote better outcomes. We report efforts to initiate routine assessments in a low-income country in partnership with government.A cross-sectional survey undertaken in 22 'internship training' hospitals across Kenya that examined availability of essential resources and process of care based on review of 60 case-records per site focusing on the common childhood illnesses (pneumonia, malaria, diarrhea/dehydration, malnutrition and meningitis).Availability of essential resources was 75% (45/61 items) or more in 8/22 hospitals. A total of 1298 (range 54-61) case records were reviewed. HIV testing remained suboptimal at 12% (95% CI 7-19). A routinely introduced structured pediatric admission record form improved documentation of core admission symptoms and signs (median score for signs 22/22 and 8/22 when form used and not used respectively). Correctness of penicillin and gentamicin dosing was above 85% but correctness of prescribed intravenous fluid or oral feed volumes for severe dehydration and malnutrition were 54% and 25% respectively. Introduction of Zinc for diarrhea has been relatively successful (66% cases) but use of artesunate for malaria remained rare. Exploratory analysis suggests considerable variability of the quality of care across hospitals.Quality of pediatric care in Kenya has improved but can improve further. The approach to monitoring described in this survey seems feasible and provides an opportunity for routine assessments across a large number of hospitals as part of national efforts to sustain improvement. Understanding variability across hospitals may help target improvement efforts.