Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The UK government committed to undertaking impact assessments of its policies on the health of populations in low and middle-income countries in its cross-government strategy "Health is Global". To facilitate this process, the Department of Health, in collaboration with the National Heart Forum, initiated a project to pilot the use of a global health impact assessment guidance framework and toolkit for policy-makers. This paper aims to stimulate debate about the desirability and feasibility of global health impact assessments by describing and drawing lessons from the first stage of the project. DISCUSSION: Despite the attraction of being able to assess and address potential global health impacts of policies, there is a dearth of existing information and experience. A literature review was followed by discussions with policy-makers and an online survey about potential barriers, preferred support mechanisms and potential policies on which to pilot the toolkit. Although policy-makers were willing to engage in hypothetical discussions about the methodology, difficulties in identifying potential pilots suggest a wider problem in encouraging take up without legislative imperatives. This is reinforced by the findings of the survey that barriers to uptake included lack of time, resources and expertise. We identified three lessons for future efforts to mainstream global health impact assessments: 1) Identify a lead government department and champion--to some extent, this role was fulfilled by the Department of Health, however, it lacked a high-level cross-government mechanism to support implementation. 2) Ensure adequate resources and consider embedding the goals and principles of global health impact assessments into existing processes to maximise those resources. 3) Develop an effective delivery mechanism involving both state actors, and non-state actors who can ensure a "voice" for constituencies who are affected by government policies and also provide the "demand" for the assessments. SUMMARY: This paper uses the initial stages of a study on global health impact assessments to pose the wider question of incentives for policy-makers to improve global health. It highlights three lessons for successful development and implementation of global health impact assessments in relation to stewardship, resources, and delivery mechanisms.

Integration of services for patients with more than one diagnosed condition has intuitive appeal but it has been argued that the empirical evidence to support it is limited. We report the findings of a systematic review that sought to identify health system factors, extrinsic to the integration process, which either facilitated or hindered the integration of services for two common disorders, HIV and chronic non-communicable diseases. Findings were initially extracted and organized around a health system framework, followed by a thematic cross-cutting analysis and validation steps. Of the 150 articles included, 67% (n = 102) were from high-income countries. The articles explored integration with services for one or several chronic disorders, the most studied being alcohol or substance use disorders (47.7%), and mental health issues (29.5%). Four cross-cutting themes related to the health system were identified. The first and most common theme was the requirement for effective collaboration and coordination: formal and informal productive relationships throughout the system between providers and within teams, and between staff and patients. The second was the need for adequate and appropriately skilled and incentivized health workers-with the right expertise, training and operational support for the programme. The third was the need for supportive institutional structures and dedicated resources. The fourth was leadership in terms of political will, effective managerial oversight and organizational culture, indicating that actual implementation is as important as programme design. A fifth theme, outside the health system, but underpinning all aspects of the system operation, was that placing the patient at the centre of service delivery and responding holistically to their diverse needs. This was an important facilitator of integration. These findings confirm that integration processes in service delivery depend substantially for their success on characteristics of the health systems in which they are embedded.

AbstractIntroduction: Substance use is an important risk factor for HIV, with both concentrated in certain vulnerable and marginalized populations. Although their management differs, there may be opportunities to integrate services for substance use and HIV. In this paper we systematically review evidence from studies that sought to integrate care for people living with HIV and substance use problems.Methods: Studies were included if they evaluated service integration for substance use and HIV. We searched multiple databases from inception until October 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers and assessed for risk of bias.Results and discussion: 11,057 records were identified, with 7616 after removal of duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts, 51 met the inclusion criteria. Integration models were categorized by location (HIV, substance use and other facilities), level of integration from mirco (integrated care delivered to individuals) to macro (system level integrations) and degree of integration from least (screening and counselling only) to most (care for HIV, substance use and/or other illnesses at the same facility). Most reported descriptive or cohort studies; in four randomized control trials integrated activities improved patient outcomes. There is potential for integrating services at all facility types, including mobile health services. While services offering screening only can achieve synergies, there are benefits from delivering integrated treatment for HIV and substance use, including ease of referral to other mental health and social services.Conclusions: Our review used a wide range of databases and conference archives to increase representation of papers from low‐ and middle‐income countries. Limitations include the overrepresentation of studies from the United States, and the descriptive nature of the majority of papers. The evidence reviewed shows that greater integration offers important benefits in both patient and service outcomes but further research and outcome reporting is needed to better understand innovative and holistic care models at the complex intersection of substance use and HIV services.