Person:

Atun, Rifat

Background: The burden of non-communicable disease (NCDs) has grown rapidly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where populations are ageing, with rising prevalence of multimorbidity (more than two co-existing chronic conditions) that will significantly increase pressure on already stretched health systems. We assess the impact of NCD multimorbidity on healthcare utilisation and out-of-pocket expenditures in six middle-income countries: China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa. Methods: Secondary analyses of cross-sectional data from adult participants (>18 years) in the WHO Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) 2007–2010. We used multiple logistic regression to determine socio-demographic correlates of multimorbidity. Association between the number of NCDs and healthcare utilisation as well as out-of-pocket spending was assessed using logistic, negative binominal and log-linear models. Results: The prevalence of multimorbidity in the adult population varied from 3∙9% in Ghana to 33∙6% in Russia. Number of visits to doctors in primary and secondary care rose substantially for persons with increasing numbers of co-existing NCDs. Multimorbidity was associated with more outpatient visits in China (coefficient for number of NCD = 0∙56, 95% CI = 0∙46, 0∙66), a higher likelihood of being hospitalised in India (AOR = 1∙59, 95% CI = 1∙45, 1∙75), higher out-of-pocket expenditures for outpatient visits in India and China, and higher expenditures for hospital visits in Russia. Medicines constituted the largest proportion of out-of-pocket expenditures in persons with multimorbidity (88∙3% for outpatient, 55∙9% for inpatient visit in China) in most countries. Conclusion: Multimorbidity is associated with higher levels of healthcare utilisation and greater financial burden for individuals in middle-income countries. Our study supports the WHO call for universal health insurance and health service coverage in LMICs, particularly for vulnerable groups such as the elderly with multimorbidity.

Background: We report the first study that analyses public and philanthropic investments awarded to UK institutions for research related to sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Methods: We systematically searched award data from the major funders for information on all infectious disease research funding awarded in 1997–2013. The STI–related projects were identified and categorised by pathogen, disease and type of science along the research pipeline from preclinical to translational research. Findings: We identified 7393 infection–related awards with total investment of GBP 3.5 billion. Of these, 1238 awards (16.7%) covering funding of GBP 719.1 million (20.5%) were for STI research. HIV as an STI received GBP 465 million across 719 studies; non–HIV STIs received GBP 139 million across 378 studies. The Medical Research Council provided greatest investment (GBP 193 million for HIV, GBP 45 million for non–HIV STIs). Preclinical awards totalled GBP 233 million (37.1%), whilst translational research received GBP 286 million (39.7%). Substantial proportions of HIV investment addressed global health research (GBP 265 million), vaccinology (GBP 110 million) and therapeutics (GBP 202 million). For other STIs, investments focused on diagnostics (GBP 45 million) and global health (GBP 27 million). Human Papilloma Virus research received GBP 58 million and chlamydia GBP 24 million. Funding for non–HIV STIs has declined in the three most recent years of this data set. Conclusions: The investment for HIV research awarded to UK institutions correlates with the high global burden, but other STIs are relatively neglected, including gonorrhoea and syphilis. Future STI funding should be better aligned with burden while addressing the emerging risk of antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and outbreaks of other pathogens.

Objectives: To assess the level of research funding awarded to UK institutions specifically for antimicrobial resistance-related research and how closely the topics funded relate to the clinical and public health burden of resistance. Methods: Databases and web sites were systematically searched for information on how infectious disease research studies were funded for the period 1997–2010. Studies specifically related to antimicrobial resistance, including bacteriology, virology, mycology and parasitology research, were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen and disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Results: The overall dataset included 6165 studies receiving a total investment of £2.6 billion, of which £102 million was directed towards antimicrobial resistance research (5.5% of total studies, 3.9% of total spend). Of 337 resistance-related projects, 175 studies focused on bacteriology (40.2% of total resistance-related spending), 42 focused on antiviral resistance (17.2% of funding) and 51 focused on parasitology (27.4% of funding). Mean annual funding ranged from £1.9 million in 1997 to £22.1 million in 2009. Conclusions: Despite the fact that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance threatens our future ability to treat many infections, the proportion of the UK infection-research spend targeting this important area is small. There are encouraging signs of increased investment in this area, but it is important that this is sustained and targeted at areas of projected greatest burden. Two areas of particular concern requiring more investment are tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.

Objectives: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum. Design: Systematic comparison. Methods: Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. Results: 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). Conclusions: There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.

Anna Vassall and colleagues discuss the need for, and challenges facing, innovative and sustainable financing of the HIV response. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Objectives: Fungal infections cause significant global morbidity and mortality. We have previously described the UK investments in global infectious disease research, and here our objective is to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for mycology research and outline potential funding gaps in the UK portfolio. Design: Systematic analysis. Setting: UK institutions carrying out infectious disease research. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome is the amount of funding and number of studies related to mycology research. Secondary outcomes are describing the investments made to specific fungal pathogens and diseases, and also the type of science along the R&D value chain. Methods: We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from public and philanthropic funding institutions awarded between 1997 and 2010, and highlighted the mycology-related projects. Results: Of 6165 funded studies, we identified 171 studies related to mycology (total investment £48.4 million, 1.9% of all infection research, with mean annual funding £3.5 million). Studies related to global health represented 5.1% of this funding (£2.4 million, compared with 35.6% of all infectious diseases). Leading funders were the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (£14.8 million, 30.5%) and Wellcome Trust (£12.0 million, 24.7%). Preclinical studies received £42.2 million (87.3%), with clinical trials, intervention studies and implementation research in total receiving £6.2 million (12.7%). By institution, University of Aberdeen received most funding (£16.9 million, 35%). Studies investigating antifungal resistance received £1.5 million (3.2%). Conclusions: There is little translation of preclinical research into clinical trials or implementation research in spite of substantial disease burden globally, and there are few UK institutions that carry out significant quantities of mycology research of any type. In the context of global health and the burden of disease in low-income countries, more investment is required for mycology research.

Background: Millions of dollars are invested annually under the umbrella of national health systems strengthening. Global health initiatives provide funding for low- and middle-income countries through disease-oriented programmes while maintaining that the interventions simultaneously strengthen systems. However, it is as yet unclear which, and to what extent, system-level interventions are being funded by these initiatives, nor is it clear how much funding they allocate to disease-specific activities – through conventional ‘vertical-programming’ approach. Such funding can be channelled to one or more of the health system building blocks while targeting disease(s) or explicitly to system-wide activities. Methods: We operationalized the World Health Organization health system framework of the six building blocks to conduct a detailed assessment of Global Fund health system investments. Our application of this framework framework provides a comprehensive quantification of system-level interventions. We applied this systematically to a random subset of 52 of the 139 grants funded in Round 8 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (totalling approximately US$1 billion). Results: According to the analysis, 37% (US$ 362 million) of the Global Fund Round 8 funding was allocated to health systems strengthening. Of that, 38% (US$ 139 million) was for generic system-level interventions, rather than disease-specific system support. Around 82% of health systems strengthening funding (US$ 296 million) was allocated to service delivery, human resources, and medicines & technology, and within each of these to two to three interventions. Governance, financing, and information building blocks received relatively low funding. Conclusions: This study shows that a substantial portion of Global Fund’s Round 8 funds was devoted to health systems strengthening. Dramatic skewing among the health system building blocks suggests opportunities for more balanced investments with regard to governance, financing, and information system related interventions. There is also a need for agreement, by researchers, recipients, and donors, on keystone interventions that have the greatest system-level impacts for the cost-effective use of funds. Effective health system strengthening depends on inter-agency collaboration and country commitment along with concerted partnership among all the stakeholders working in the health system.

The role of multilateral donor agencies in global health is a new area of research, with limited research on how these agencies differ in terms of their governance arrangements, especially in relation to transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, and responsiveness to civil society. We argue that historical analysis of the origins of these agencies and their coalition formation processes can help to explain these differences. We propose an analytical approach that links the theoretical literature discussing institutional origins to path dependency and institutional theory relating to proto institutions in order to illustrate the differences in coalition formation processes that shape governance within four multilateral agencies involved in global health. We find that two new multilateral donor agencies that were created by a diverse coalition of state and non-state actors, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and GAVI, what we call proto-institutions, were more adaptive in strengthening their governance processes. This contrasts with two well-established multilateral donor agencies, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, what we call Bretton Woods (BW) institutions, which were created by nation states alone; and hence, have different origins and consequently different path dependent processes.

Background: The world is short of 7.2 million health–care workers and this figure is growing. The shortage of teachers is even greater, which limits traditional education modes. eLearning may help overcome this training need. Offline eLearning is useful in remote and resource–limited settings with poor internet access. To inform investments in offline eLearning, we need to establish its effectiveness in terms of gaining knowledge and skills, students’ satisfaction and attitudes towards eLearning. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of offline eLearning for students enrolled in undergraduate, health–related university degrees. We included randomised controlled trials that compared offline eLearning to traditional learning or an alternative eLearning method. We searched the major bibliographic databases in August 2013 to identify articles that focused primarily on students’ knowledge, skills, satisfaction and attitudes toward eLearning, and health economic information and adverse effects as secondary outcomes. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. We synthesized the findings using a thematic summary approach. Findings: Forty–nine studies, including 4955 students enrolled in undergraduate medical, dentistry, nursing, psychology, or physical therapy studies, met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of the 33 studies testing knowledge gains found significantly higher gains in the eLearning intervention groups compared to traditional learning, whereas 21 did not detect significant differences or found mixed results. One study did not test for differences. Eight studies detected significantly higher skill gains in the eLearning intervention groups, whilst the other 5 testing skill gains did not detect differences between groups. No study found offline eLearning as inferior. Generally no differences in attitudes or preference of eLearning over traditional learning were observed. No clear trends were found in the comparison of different modes of eLearning. Most of the studies were small and subject to several biases. Conclusions: Our results suggest that offline eLearning is equivalent and possibly superior to traditional learning regarding knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Although a robust conclusion cannot be drawn due to variable quality of the evidence, these results justify further investment into offline eLearning to address the global health care workforce shortage.

Background: Medication error is a frequent, harmful and costly patient safety incident. Research to date has mostly focused on medication errors in hospitals. In this study, we aimed to identify the main causes of, and solutions to, medication error in primary care. Methods: We used a novel priority-setting method for identifying and ranking patient safety problems and solutions called PRIORITIZE. We invited 500 North West London primary care clinicians to complete an open-ended questionnaire to identify three main problems and solutions relating to medication error in primary care. 113 clinicians submitted responses, which we thematically synthesized into a composite list of 48 distinct problems and 45 solutions. A group of 57 clinicians randomly selected from the initial cohort scored these and an overall ranking was derived. The agreement between the clinicians’ scores was presented using the average expert agreement (AEA). The study was conducted between September 2013 and November 2014. Results: The top three problems were incomplete reconciliation of medication during patient ‘hand-overs’, inadequate patient education about their medication use and poor discharge summaries. The highest ranked solutions included development of a standardized discharge summary template, reduction of unnecessary prescribing, and minimisation of polypharmacy. Overall, better communication between the healthcare provider and patient, quality assurance approaches during medication prescribing and monitoring, and patient education on how to use their medication were considered the top priorities. The highest ranked suggestions received the strongest agreement among the clinicians, i.e. the highest AEA score. Conclusions: Clinicians identified a range of suggestions for better medication management, quality assurance procedures and patient education. According to clinicians, medication errors can be largely prevented with feasible and affordable interventions. PRIORITIZE is a new, convenient, systematic, and replicable method, and merits further exploration with a view to becoming a part of a routine preventative patient safety monitoring mechanism. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0552-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.