Dataset Information

General practice and pandemic influenza: a framework for planning and comparison of plans in five countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although primary health care, and in particular, general practice will be at the frontline in the response to pandemic influenza, there are no frameworks to guide systematic planning for this task or to appraise available plans for their relevance to general practice. We aimed to develop a framework that will facilitate planning for general practice, and used it to appraise pandemic plans from Australia, England, USA, New Zealand and Canada.

Methodology/principal findings

We adapted the Haddon matrix to develop the framework, populating its cells through a multi-method study that incorporated the peer-reviewed and grey literature, interviews with general practitioners, practice nurses and senior decision-makers, and desktop simulation exercises. We used the framework to analyse 89 publicly-available jurisdictional plans at similar managerial levels in the five countries. The framework identifies four functional domains: clinical care for influenza and other needs, public health responsibilities, the internal environment and the macro-environment of general practice. No plan addressed all four domains. Most plans either ignored or were sketchy about non-influenza clinical needs, and about the contribution of general practice to public health beyond surveillance. Collaborations between general practices were addressed in few plans, and inter-relationships with the broader health system, even less frequently.

Conclusions

This is the first study to provide a framework to guide general practice planning for pandemic influenza. The framework helped identify critical shortcomings in available plans. Engaging general practice effectively in planning is challenging, particularly where governance structures for primary health care are weak. We identify implications for practice and for research.

SUBMITTER: Patel MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2386973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza surveillance systems vary widely between countries and there is no framework to evaluate national surveillance systems in terms of data generation and dissemination. This study aimed to develop and test a comparative framework for European influenza surveillance.MethodsSurveillance systems were evaluated qualitatively in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) by a panel of influenza experts and researchers from each country. Seven surveillance sub-systems were defined: non-medically attended community surveillance, virological surveillance, community surveillance, outbreak surveillance, primary care surveillance, hospital surveillance, mortality surveillance). These covered a total of 19 comparable outcomes of increasing severity, ranging from non-medically attended cases to deaths, which were evaluated using 5 comparison criteria based on WHO guidance (granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, communication) to produce a framework to compare the five countries.ResultsFrance and the United Kingdom showed the widest range of surveillance sub-systems, particularly for hospital surveillance, followed by Germany, Spain, and Italy. In all countries, virological, primary care and hospital surveillance were well developed, but non-medically attended events, influenza cases in the community, outbreaks in closed settings and mortality estimates were not consistently reported or published. The framework also allowed the comparison of variations in data granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, and communication between countries. For data granularity, breakdown per risk condition were available in France and Spain, but not in the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. For data communication, there were disparities in the timeliness and accessibility of surveillance data.ConclusionsThis new framework can be used to compare influenza surveillance systems qualitatively between countries to allow the identification of structural differences as well as to evaluate adherence to WHO guidance. The framework may be adapted for other infectious respiratory diseases.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe changes in reported influenza activity associated with the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in European countries and determine whether there is a correlation between these changes and completeness of national strategic pandemic preparedness.DesignA retrospective correlational study.SettingCountries were included if their national strategic plans had previously been analysed and if weekly influenza-like illness (ILI) data from sentinel networks between week 21, 2006 and week 20, 2010 were more than 50% complete.Outcome measuresFor each country we calculated three outcomes: the percentage change in ILI peak height during the pandemic relative to the prepandemic mean; the timing of the ILI peak and the percentage change in total cases relative to the prepandemic mean. Correlations between these outcomes and completeness of a country's national strategic pandemic preparedness plan were assessed using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.ResultsNineteen countries were included. The ILI peak occurred earlier than the mean seasonal peak in 17 countries. In 14 countries the pandemic peak was higher than the seasonal peak, though the difference was large only in Norway, the UK and Greece. Nine countries experienced more total ILI cases during the pandemic compared with the mean for prepandemic years. Five countries experienced two distinct pandemic peaks. There was no clear pattern of correlation between overall completeness of national strategic plans and pandemic influenza outcome measures and no evidence of association between these outcomes and components of pandemic plans that might plausibly affect influenza outcomes (public health interventions, vaccination, antiviral use, public communication). Amongst the 17 countries with a clear pandemic peak, only the correlation between planning for essential services and change in total ILI cases significantly differed from zero: correlation coefficient (95% CI) 0.50 (0.02, 0.79).ConclusionsThe diversity of pandemic influenza outcomes across Europe is not explained by the marked variation in the completeness of pandemic plans.

Project description:The diabetes epidemic is associated with huge human and economic costs, with some groups, such as indigenous populations in industrialised countries, being at especially high risk. Monitoring and improving diabetes care at a population level are important to reduce diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. A set of diabetes indicators has been developed collaboratively among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries to monitor performance of diabetes care. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of diabetes management in five selected OECD countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US and the UK), based on data available for general and indigenous populations where appropriate.We searched websites of health departments and leading national organisations related to diabetes care in each of the five countries to identify publicly released reports relevant to diabetes care. We collected data relevant to 6 OECD diabetes indicators on processes of diabetes care (annual HbA1c testing, lipid testing, renal function screening and eye examination) and proximal outcomes (HbA1c and lipid control).Data were drawn from 29 websites, with 14 reports and 13 associated data sources included in this review. Australia, New Zealand, the US and the UK had national data available to construct most of the 6 OECD diabetes indicators, but Canadian data were limited to two indicators. New Zealand and the US had national level diabetes care data for indigenous populations, showing relatively poorer care among these groups when compared with general populations. The US and UK performed well across the four process indicators when compared with Australia and New Zealand. For example, annual HbA1c testing and lipid testing were delivered to 70-80% of patients in the US and UK; the corresponding figures for Australia and New Zealand were 50-60%. Regarding proximal outcomes, HbA1c control for patients in Australia and New Zealand tended to be relatively better than patients in the US and UK.Substantial efforts have been made in the five countries to develop routine data collection systems to monitor performance of diabetes management. Available performance data identify considerable gaps in clinical care of diabetes across countries. Policy makers and health service providers across countries can learn from each other to improve data collection and delivery of diabetes care at the population level.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) launched an initiative to plan for the sustainability of integrated community case management (iCCM) programmes supported by the Rapid Access Expansion (RAcE) Programme in five African countries in 2016. WHO contracted experts to facilitate sustainability planning among Ministries of Health, WHO, nongovernmental organisation grantees, and other stakeholders.MethodsWe designed an iterative and unique process for each RAcE project area which involved creating a sustainability framework to guide planning; convening meetings to identify and prioritise elements of the framework; forming technical working groups to build country ownership; and, ultimately, creating roadmaps to guide efforts to fully transfer ownership of the iCCM programmes to host countries. For this analysis, we compared priorities identified in roadmaps across RAcE project sites, examined progress against roadmaps via transition plans, and produced recommendations for short-term actions based on roadmap priorities that were unaddressed or needed further attention.ResultsThis article describes the sustainability planning process, roadmap priorities, progress against roadmaps, and recommendations made for each project area. We found a few patterns among the prioritised roadmap elements. Overall, every project area identified priorities related to policy and coordination of external stakeholders including funders; supply chain management; service delivery and referral system; and communication and social mobilisation, indicating that these factors have persisted despite iCCM programme maturity, and are also of concern to new programmes. We also found that a facilitated process to identify and document programme priorities in roadmaps, along with deliberately planning for transition from an external implementer to a national system could support the sustainability of iCCM programmes by facilitating teams of stakeholders to accomplish explicit tasks related to transitioning the programme.ConclusionsCertain common elements are of concern for sustaining iCCM programmes across countries, among them political leadership, supply chain management, data processes, human resources, and community engagement. Adapting and using a sustainability planning approach created an inclusive and comprehensive dialogue about systemic factors that influence the sustainability of iCCM services and facilitated changes to health systems in each country.

Project description:BackgroundFamily planning (FP) can lengthen birth intervals and potentially reduce the risk of foetal death, low birthweight, prematurity, and being small for gestational age. Effective FP is most easily achieved through access to and acceptability of modern contraceptive methods (MCMs). This study aimed to identify mechanisms of acceptability and the contexts in which they are triggered and to generate theories to improve the selection and implementation of effective interventions by studying an intervention integrating FP with childhood immunisation services.MethodsQualitative interpretative synthesis of findings from realist evaluations of FP interventions in five African countries was guided by an analytical framework. Empirical mechanisms of acceptability were identified from semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders (N = 253). The context in which these mechanisms were triggered was also defined. Empirical mechanisms of acceptability were matched to constructs of a theoretical framework of acceptability. Context-acceptability theories (CATs) were developed, which summarised constructs of acceptability triggered for specific actors in specified contexts. Examples of interventions that may be used to trigger acceptability for these actors were described.ResultsSeven CATs were developed for contexts with strong beliefs in religious values and with powerful religious leaders, a traditional desire for large families, stigmatisation of MCM use, male partners who are non-accepting of FP, and rumours or experiences of MCM side effects. Acceptability mechanisms included alignment with values and beliefs without requiring compromise, actors' certainty about their ability to avoid harm and make the intervention work, and understanding the intervention and how it works. Additionally, acceptability by one group of actors was found to alter the context, triggering acceptability mechanisms amongst others.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated the value of embedding realist approaches within implementation research. CATs are transferable theories that answer the question: given the context, what construct of acceptability does an intervention need to trigger, or more simply, what intervention do we need to apply here to achieve our outcomes? CATs facilitate transfer of interventions across geographies within defined contexts.