Dataset Information

The Management of HIV Care Services in Central and Eastern Europe: Data from the Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging time for medical care, especially in the field of infectious diseases (ID), but it has also provided an opportunity to introduce new solutions in HIV management. Here, we investigated the changes in HIV service provision across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries before and after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Methods

The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of ID from 24 countries within the CEE region. Between 11 September and 29 September 2021, the group produced an on-line survey, consisting of 32 questions on models of care among HIV clinics before and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

Results

Twenty-three HIV centers from 19 countries (79.2% of all countries invited) participated in the survey. In 69.5% of the countries, there were more than four HIV centers, in three countries there were four centers (21%), and in four countries there was only one HIV center in each country. HIV care was based in ID hospitals plus out-patient clinics (52%), was centralized in big cities (52%), and was publicly financed (96%). Integrated services were available in 21 clinics (91%) with access to specialists other than ID, including psychologists in 71.5% of the centers, psychiatrists in 43%, gynecologists in 47.5%, dermatologists in 52.5%, and social workers in 62% of all clinics. Patient-centered care was provided in 17 centers (74%), allowing consultations and tests to be planned for the same day. Telehealth tools were used in 11 centers (47%) before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and in 18 (78%) after (p = 0.36), but were represented mostly by consultations over the telephone or via e-mail. After the COVID-19 outbreak, telehealth was introduced as a new medical tool in nine centers (39%). In five centers (28%), no new services or tools were introduced.

Conclusions

As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, tools such as telehealth have become popularized in CEE countries, challenging the traditional approach to HIV care. These implications need to be further evaluated in order to ascertain the best adaptations, especially for HIV medicine.

SUBMITTER: Skrzat-Klapaczynska A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9265352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The objective of this paper is to identify the key conditions that positively affect the use of e-health services in Central Eastern Europe (CEE) countries. CEE countries after the political and economic transformation in 1989/90 implemented slightly different national health care models. The research question of the study is: how do the various institutional conditions at the national level affect the use of e-health services in CEE countries? METHODS:The e-health description was derived from papers indexed in Web of Science and Scopus. The data for computation were collected from the 2015 global survey by the WHO Global Observatory for eHealth. We used a narrative literature review in order to identify key terms associated to e-health and conditions for the implementation of e-health services. The search terms were "e-health" and "*" where * was particular thematic section of e-health according to WHO GOeH. The inclusion criterion was relevance of the paper to e-health and searched phase. Eligibility criteria for countries for being described as CEE countries: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Croatia (we omitted Slovakia from the analysis because this country was not covered by the WHO Survey). We applied qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to analyse the necessary order of conditions. The dependent variable of the study is the national rate of use of e-health services. RESULTS:QCA shows that legal medical jurisdiction, teleprogramme and electronic health records supplemented by adequate training constitute critical conditions to achieve success in e-health implementation. CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that the more formalised a framework for e-health service delivery is, the more likely it will be used. Therefore formalisation fosters the diffusion, dissemination and implementation of e-health solutions in this area. Formalisation must be accompanied by tailored training for health care professionals and patients. Our analyses are related only to the paths of e-health implementation in CEE countries thus consequently the findings and conclusions cannot be directly applied to other countries. The limitations of this study are related the absence of a broader context of e-health development, including the development of ICT infrastructure and ICT literacy.

Project description:IntroductionThe broad and sustained efficacy of apremilast for psoriasis has been demonstrated in randomized and real-world observational studies. Data from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are lacking. Moreover, apremilast use in this region is limited by country-specific reimbursement criteria. This is the first study to report data on the real-world use of apremilast in the region.MethodsAPPRECIATE (NCT02740218) was an observational, retrospective, cross-sectional study assessing psoriasis patients 6 (± 1) months after apremilast treatment initiation. The study aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with psoriasis receiving apremilast, estimate treatment outcomes, including Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), Body Surface Area (BSA), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and assess dermatologists' and patients' perspectives on treatment using questionnaires including the Patient Benefit Index (PBI). Adverse event reports were taken from the medical records.ResultsFifty patients (Croatia: 25; Czech Republic: 20; Slovenia: 5) were enrolled. In patients continuing apremilast at 6 (± 1) months, mean (± SD) PASI score was reduced from 16.2 ± 8.7 points at treatment initiation to 3.1 ± 5.2 at 6 (± 1) months; BSA from 11.9% ± 10.3% to 0.8% ± 0.9%; DLQI from 13.7 ± 7.4 points to 1.6 ± 3.2. PASI 75 was reached by 81% of patients. Physicians reported that the overall treatment success fulfilled their expectations in more than two thirds of patients (68%). At least three-quarters of patients reported apremilast had a quite or very high benefit on the needs they identified as being most important. Apremilast was well tolerated; no serious or fatal adverse events were identified.ConclusionApremilast was effective in reducing skin involvement and improving quality of life in CEE patients having severe disease. Treatment satisfaction among physicians and patients was very high. These data add to the growing body of evidence showing consistent effectiveness of apremilast across the continuum of psoriasis disease severity and manifestations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02740218.

Project description:Globally, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, including in the WHO European region. Within this region, the Member States with the greatest cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden are also some of the lowest resourced. As the need for technical support for the implementation of essential CVD/NCD interventions in primary healthcare (PHC) in these regions grew urgent, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has been directly supporting national governments in the development, assessment, scale-up and quality improvement of large scale PHC interventions for CVD. Herein, we synthesise the key learnings from providing technical support to national governments under the auspices of the WHO across the European region and share these learnings as a resource for public health professionals to consider when increasing coverage of quality essential health services. Based on our experience providing technical support to a diversity of Member States in the European Region (eg, Tajikistan, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan), we have identified six key lessons: prioritising NCDs for public health intervention, identifying and mapping existing resources, engaging key stakeholders, tailoring interventions to the local health system, generating local evidence and ensuring quality improvement while mainstreaming. Common challenges across all phases of implementation include multiple and inconsistent international toolkits and guidance, lack of national capacity for evidence-based healthcare, limited access to essential medicines and technologies, inconsistent national guidelines and limited experience in evaluation methodology, clinical epidemiology and guideline implementation. We map the lessons to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and highlight key learnings and challenges specific to the region. Member States in the region are at various stages of implementation; however, several are currently conducting pragmatic clinical trials to generate local evidence for health policy. As this work expands, greater engagement with peer-to-peer sharing of contextual wisdom, sharing of resources, publishing methodology and results and development of region-specific resources is planned.