Stakeholder perceptions of current practices and challenges in priority setting for non-communicable disease control in Kenya: a qualitative study

Perceptions of diabetes risk and prevention in Nairobi, Kenya: A qualitative and theory of change development study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is increasing in Kenya, especially in urban settings, and prevention interventions based on local evidence and context are urgently needed. Therefore, this study aimed to explore diabetes risk and co-create a diabetes prevention theory of change in two socioeconomically distinct communities to inform future diabetes prevention interventions.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with middle-aged residents in two communities in Nairobi (one low-income (n = 15), one middle-income (n = 14)), and thematically analysed. The theory of change for diabetes prevention was informed by analysis of the in-depth interviews and the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, and reviewed by a sub-set (n = 13) of interviewees.

RESULTS

The key factors that influenced diabetes preventive practices in both communities included knowledge and skills for diabetes prevention, understanding of the benefits/consequences of (un)healthy lifestyle, social influences (e.g., upbringing, societal perceptions), and environmental contexts (e.g., access to (un)healthy foods and physical activity facilities). The proposed strategies for diabetes prevention included: increasing knowledge and understanding about diabetes risk and preventive measures particularly in the low-income community; supporting lifestyle modification (e.g., upskilling, goal setting, action planning) in both communities; identifying people at high risk of diabetes through screening in both communities; and creating social and physical environments for lifestyle modification (e.g., positive social influences on healthy living, access to healthy foods and physical activity infrastructure) particularly in the low-income community. Residents from both communities agreed that the strategies were broadly feasible for diabetes prevention but proposed the addition of door-to-door campaigns and community theatre for health education. However, residents from the low-income community were concerned about the lack of government prioritisation for implementing population-level interventions, e.g., improving access to healthy foods and physical activity facilities/infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

Diabetes prevention initiatives in Kenya should involve multicomponent interventions for lifestyle modification including increasing education and upskilling at individual level; promoting social and physical environments that support healthy living at population level; and are particularly needed in low-income communities.

[Evolution and Application of Disease Control Priorities]

Disease control priority (DCP) is an important public health intervention strategy. Diseases that should be prioritized for prevention and control are first screened with a series of criteria, including the severity of the disease burden, the effectiveness of disease control technologies, the prevention and control capacity of the existing health system, etc. Then, the prevention and control technologies for these diseases undergo qualitative evaluation (eg, face-to-face interviews, expert consultation, workshops, etc) and quantitative evaluation (eg, cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis, etc). Finally, the public health initiatives that should be prioritized are identified. From the conception of the idea, to the formal proposition of the concept, to guidance for practice, DCP has gone through more than 70 years of development. Through DCP, significant contributions has been made to improving the efficiency of health care service systems and promoting the health of populations in developing countries. Herein, we systematically reviewed the background, development history, realization method, and practical applications of DCP, focusing on exploring the application potential of DCP in health governance and providing technical support and decision-making reference for the comprehensive promotion of the Healthy China Initiative.

Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review

Background

Programme evaluation is an essential and systematic activity for improving public health programmes through useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate methods. Finite budgets require prioritisation of which programmes can be funded, first, for implementation, and second, evaluation. While criteria for programme funding have been discussed in the literature, a similar discussion around criteria for which programmes are to be evaluated is limited. We reviewed the criteria and frameworks used for prioritisation in public health more broadly, and those used in the prioritisation of programmes for evaluation. We also report on stakeholder involvement in prioritisation processes, and evidence on the use and utility of the frameworks or sets of criteria identified. Our review aims to inform discussion around which criteria and domains are best suited for the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation.

Methods

We reviewed the peer-reviewed literature through OVID MEDLINE (PubMed) on 11 March 2022. We also searched the grey literature through Google and across key websites including World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) (14 March 2022). Articles were limited to those published between 2002 and March 2022, in English, French or German.

Results

We extracted over 300 unique criteria from 40 studies included in the analysis. These criteria were categorised into 16 high-level conceptual domains to allow synthesis of the findings. The domains most frequently considered in the studies were “burden of disease” (33 studies), “social considerations” (30 studies) and “health impacts of the intervention” (28 studies). We only identified one paper which proposed criteria for use in the prioritisation of public health programmes for evaluation. Few prioritisation frameworks had evidence of use outside of the setting in which they were developed, and there was limited assessment of their utility. The existing evidence suggested that prioritisation frameworks can be used successfully in budget allocation, and have been reported to make prioritisation more robust, systematic, transparent, and collaborative.

Conclusion

Our findings reflect the complexity of prioritisation in public health. Development of a framework for the prioritisation of programmes to be evaluated would fill an evidence gap, as would formal assessment of its utility. The process itself should be formal and transparent, with the aim of engaging a diverse group of stakeholders including patient/public representatives.

A qualitative evaluation of priority-setting by the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel in Kenya

Kenya's Ministry of Health established the Health Benefits Package Advisory Panel (HBPAP) in 2018 to develop a benefits package for universal health coverage. This study evaluated HBPAP's process for developing the benefits package against the normative procedural (acceptable way of doing things) and outcome (acceptable consequences) conditions of an ideal healthcare priority-setting process as outlined in the study's conceptual framework. We conducted a qualitative case study using in-depth interviews with national-level respondents (n = 20) and document reviews. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. HBPAP's process partially fulfilled the procedural and outcome conditions of the study's evaluative framework. Concerning the procedural conditions, transparency and publicity were partially met and were limited by the lack of publication of HBPAP's report. While HBPAP used explicit and evidence-based priority-setting criteria, challenges included lack of primary data and local cost-effectiveness threshold, weak health information systems, short timelines and political interference. While a wide range of stakeholders were engaged, this was limited by short timelines and inadequate financial resources. Empowerment of non-HBPAP members was limited by their inadequate technical knowledge and experience in priority-setting. Finally, appeals and revisions were limited by short timelines and lack of implementation of the proposed benefits package. Concerning the outcome conditions, stakeholder understanding was limited by the technical nature of the process and short timelines, while stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction were limited by lack of transparency. HBPAP's benefits package was not implemented due to stakeholder interests and opposition. Priority-setting processes for benefits package development in Kenya could be improved by publicizing the outcome of the process, allocating adequate time and financial resources, strengthening health information systems, generating local evidence and enhancing stakeholder awareness and engagement to increase their empowerment, understanding and acceptance of the process. Managing politics and stakeholder interests is key in enhancing the success of priority-setting processes.

Fighting Cancer around the World: A Framework for Action

Tackling cancer is a major challenge right on the global level. Europe is only the tip of an iceberg of cancer around the world. Prosperous developed countries share the same problems besetting Europe-and the countries and regions with fewer resources and less propitious conditions are in many cases struggling often heroically against a growing tide of disease. This paper offers a view on these geographically wider, but essentially similar, challenges, and on the prospects for and barriers to better results in this ceaseless battle. A series of panels have been organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) to identify different aspects of cancer care around the globe. There is significant diversity in key issues such as NGS, RWE, molecular diagnostics, and reimbursement in different regions. In all, it leads to disparities in access and diagnostics, patients' engagement, and efforts for a better understanding of cancer.

The avoidable disease burden associated with overweight and obesity in Kenya: A modelling study

BACKGROUND

Globally, there is a rising burden of non-communicable diseases related to high body mass index (BMI). Estimation of the magnitude of the avoidable disease burden related to high BMI in Kenya could inform priority setting in health.

METHODS

Using a proportional multistate life table model, we estimated the impact of the elimination of exposure to high BMI (>22·5 kg/m²) on health adjusted life years, health adjusted life expectancy, and burden of 27 obesity-related diseases. Participants were the 2019 Kenyan population modelled over their remaining lifetime.

FINDINGS

Elimination of high BMI could save approximately 83·5 million health-adjusted life years and increase the health-adjusted life expectancy by 2·3 (95% UI 2·0-2·8) years for females and 1·0 (95% UI 0·8-1·1) years for males. Over the first 25 years, over 7·4 million new cases of BMI-related diseases could be avoided and approximately half a million BMI related deaths postponed. The cumulative number of new cases of type 2 diabetes could reduce by approximately 1·6 million, cardiovascular diseases by over 1·3 million, chronic kidney disease by 850,473 and cancer would reduce by 55,624 estimated cases. In 2044, an estimated 867,664 prevalent cases of musculoskeletal disease would be prevented.

INTERPRETATION

The magnitude of avoidable high BMI-related disease burden in Kenya underscores the need to prioritise the control and prevention of overweight and obesity globally, especially in low- and middle-income settings, where obesity rates are rising rapidly. Reducing population BMI is challenging, but sustained and well-enforced system-wide approaches could be a great starting point.

FUNDING

Mary Njeri Wanjau is supported by the Griffith University International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (GUIPRS) and Griffith University Postgraduate Research Scholarship (GUPRS).