Dataset Information

The impact of a novel franchise clinic network on access to medicines and vaccinations in Kenya: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study the impact of a new franchise health clinic model (The HealthStore Foundation's CFWShops) on access to vaccinations and treatment for acute illnesses in a nationally representative sample of children in Kenya.

Design

The authors used multivariate linear and count regressions to examine associations between receipt of vaccinations or treatment and proximity to a franchise health clinic, adjusting for individual, household and clinic attributes as well as region fixed effects.

Setting

Demographic and Health Survey data from Kenya, 2008-2009.

Participants

6079 Kenyan children younger than 5 years, of whom 2310 reported recent acute illness.

Main outcome measures

Outcomes for all children were number of polio doses received, number of DPT doses received, receipt of BCG vaccine, receipt of measles vaccine and number of total vaccinations received. Outcomes for acutely ill children were receipt of any medical treatment, treatment for fever, treatment for malaria and treatments specifically stocked by CFWShops.

Results

Children living within 30 km of a CFWShop received 0.129 (p=0.017) and 0.113 (p=0.025) more DPT and polio doses, respectively; and 0.285 more total vaccinations (p=0.023). Among acutely ill children, CFWShop proximity was associated with significant increases in the probabilities of receiving any medical treatment (0.142; p<0.001), treatment for fever (0.117; p=0.007) and treatments specifically stocked by CFWShops (0.064; p=0.015). Use of CFWShop services was not significantly different for lower-income vis-a-vis higher-income households.

Conclusions

The franchise health clinic model could substantially increase access to essential vaccinations and treatments in low-income countries. Moreover, the model's benefits may accrue to lesser- and higher-income households alike.

SUBMITTER: Berk J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3400066 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of a novel franchise clinic network on access to medicines and vaccinations in Kenya: a cross-sectional study.

Berk Justin J Adhvaryu Achyuta A

BMJ open 20120710 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>To study the impact of a new franchise health clinic model (The HealthStore Foundation's CFWShops) on access to vaccinations and treatment for acute illnesses in a nationally representative sample of children in Kenya.<h4>Design</h4>The authors used multivariate linear and count regressions to examine associations between receipt of vaccinations or treatment and proximity to a franchise health clinic, adjusting for individual, household and clinic attributes as well as region ...[more]

PMID: 22786948

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice.MethodsThis international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries.Findings87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries.InterpretationThese data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundAround the world government agencies responsible for the selection and reimbursement of prescribed medicines and other health technologies are considering how best to bring community preferences into their decision making. In particular, community views about the distribution or equity of funding across the population. These official committees and agencies often have access to the best available and latest evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety and cost from large clinical trials and population-based studies. All too often they do not have access to high quality evidence about community views. We therefore, conducted a large and representative population-based survey in Australia to determine what community members think about the factors that do and should influence government spending on prescribed medicines.MethodsA choice-based survey was designed to elicit the importance of individual criteria when considering the equity of government spending on prescribed medicines. A representative sample of 3080 adult Australians completed the survey by allocating a hypothetical budget to different combinations of money spent on two patient populations. Societal preferences were inferred from absolute majority responses i.e. populations with more than 50% of respondents' allocation for a particular allocation criterion.ResultsThis study shows that, all else being equal, severity of disease, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off, and life-style unrelated diseases are supported by the public as resource allocation criteria. Where 'all else is not equal', participants allocated more resources to the patient population that gained considerable improvement in health and fewer resources to those that gained little improvement in health. This result held under all scenarios except for 'end-of-life treatments'. Responses to cost (and corresponding number of patients treated) trade-off scenarios indicated a significant reduction in the proportion of respondents choosing to divide resources equally and a shift in preference towards devoting resources to the population that were more costly to treat for all criteria with the exception of severity of disease.ConclusionsThe general public have clear views on what's fair in terms of government spending on prescribed medicines. In addition to supporting the application of the 'rule of rescue', important considerations for government spending included the severity of disease being treated, diseases for which there is no alternative treatment available on the government formulary, diseases that affect patients who are not financially well off and life-style unrelated diseases. This study shows that the general public are willing to share their views on what constitutes an equitable allocation of the government's drug budget. The challenge remains to how best to consider those views alongside clinical and economic considerations.

Project description:IntroductionNovartis recently launched Novartis Access, an initiative to provide a basket of reduced price medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to be sold through the public and private non-profit sectors in programme countries. This study will evaluate the impact of Novartis Access on the availability and price of NCD medicines at health facilities and households in Kenya, the first country to receive the programme.Methods and analysisThis study will be a cluster-randomised controlled trial. 8 counties in Kenya will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group using a covariate constrained randomisation method to maximise balance on demographic and health characteristics. In intervention counties, public and private non-profit health facilities will be able to order Novartis Access NCD medicines from the Mission for Essential Drugs and Supplies (MEDS). Data will be collected from a random sample of 384 health facilities and 800 households at baseline, midline after 1-year of intervention, and end-line after 2 years. Quarterly surveillance data will also be collected from health facilities and a subsample of households through phone-based interviews. Households will be eligible if at least one resident has been previously diagnosed and prescribed a medicine for an NCD addressed by Novartis Access, including hypertension and diabetes. The primary outcomes will be availability and price of NCD medicines at health facilities, and availability, price, and expenditures on NCD medicines at households. Impacts will be estimated using intention-to-treat analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Strathmore University and at Boston University. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants at the start of the trial. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, international conferences, and meetings and events organised with local stakeholders.Trial registration numberNCT02773095.

Dataset Information

The impact of a novel franchise clinic network on access to medicines and vaccinations in Kenya: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The impact of a novel franchise clinic network on access to medicines and vaccinations in Kenya: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets