Frontiers in health services最新文献

Integrated healthcare systems are continually pitched as major contributors towards better distribution of health outcomes and enhanced well-being. Under emergency conditions, integrated healthcare services can guarantee better access to the target population. In recent years, several crises, i.e., economic collapse, the fuel crisis, the Beirut blast, a large refugee population, and the COVID-19 pandemic, in Lebanon have led to a major shift in the health-seeking behavior of the communities, with preventive services being downprioritized despite being available and curative healthcare services being sought out as late as possible. An extensive drop in immunization coverage and an overstretched public health system presents the risk of Vaccine-Preventable Disease outbreaks and urgent intervention is needed to bridge the immunity gap. The Ministry of Public Health, Lebanon, and UNICEF Lebanon successfully demonstrated the use of an immunization platform as an entry point to reach communities for service delivery, identification and referral, screening, awareness generation, and a host of other services that can be copied for other programs including but not limited to those for Maternal and Child health, nutrition, early childhood development, COVID-19, children with disabilities, social protection, education, health emergencies like cholera, etc., and these can provide bi-directional support to each other. UNICEF along with the MoPH (Ministry of Public Health) has been working towards reaching the most vulnerable population with a bouquet of services through existing immunization touchpoints for favorable healthcare outcomes.

Introduction: Despite remarkable strides in global efforts to reduce maternal mortality, low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to grapple with a disproportionate burden of maternal mortality, with malnutrition emerging as a significant contributing factor to this enduring challenge. Shockingly, malnourished women face a mortality risk that is twice as high as their well-nourished counterparts, and a staggering 95% of maternal deaths in 2020 occurred within LMICs. The critical importance of addressing maternal malnutrition in resource-constrained settings cannot be overstated, as compelling research studies have demonstrated that such efforts could potentially save thousands of lives. However, the landscape is marred by a scarcity of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) specifically tailored for pregnant individuals aimed at combatting maternal malnutrition and reducing mortality rates. It is against this backdrop that our study endeavors to dissect the feasibility, adoption, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness of EBIs designed to combat maternal malnutrition.

Methods: Our comprehensive search encompassed eight prominent databases covering the period from 2003 to 2022 in LMICs. We began our study with a comprehensive search across multiple databases, yielding a total of 149 studies. From this initial pool, we eliminated duplicate entries and the remaining studies underwent a thorough screening process resulting in the identification of 63 full-text articles that aligned with our predefined inclusion criteria.

Results: The meticulous full-text review left us with a core selection of six articles that shed light on interventions primarily centered around supplementation. They underscored a critical issue -the limited understanding of effective implementation in these countries, primarily attributed to inadequate monitoring and evaluation of interventions and insufficient training of healthcare professionals. Moreover, our findings emphasize the pivotal role of contextual factors, such as cultural nuances, public trust in healthcare, the prevalence of misinformation, and concerns regarding potential adverse effects of interventions, which profoundly influence the successful implementation of these programs.

Discussion: While the EBIs have shown promise in reducing maternal malnutrition, their true potential for feasibility, adoption, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability hinges on their integration into comprehensive programs addressing broader issues like food insecurity and the prevention of both communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Background: Financial navigation (FN) is an evidence-based intervention designed to address financial toxicity for cancer patients. FN's success depends on organizations' readiness to implement and other factors that may hinder or support implementation. Tailored implementation strategies can support practice change but must be matched to the implementation context. We assessed perceptions of readiness and perceived barriers and facilitators to successful implementation among staff at nine cancer care organizations (5 rural, 4 non-rural) recruited to participate in the scale-up of a FN intervention. To understand differences in the pre-implementation context and inform modifications to implementation strategies, we compared findings between rural and non-rural organizations.

Methods: We conducted surveys (n = 78) and in-depth interviews (n = 73) with staff at each organization. We assessed perceptions of readiness using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale. In-depth interviews elicited perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing FN in each context. We used descriptive statistics to analyze ORIC results and deductive thematic analysis, employing a codebook guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to synthesize themes in barriers and facilitators across sites, and by rurality.

Results: Results from the ORIC scale indicated strong perceptions of organizational readiness across all sites. Staff from rural areas reported greater confidence in their ability to manage the politics of change (87% rural, 76% non-rural) and in their organization's ability to support staff adjusting to the change (96% rural, 75% non-rural). Staff at both rural and non-rural sites highlighted factors reflective of the Intervention Characteristics (relative advantage) and Implementation Climate (compatibility and tension for change) domains as facilitators. Although few barriers to implementation were reported, differences arose between rural and non-rural sites in these perceived barriers, with non-rural staff more often raising concerns about resistance to change and compatibility with existing work processes and rural staff more often raising concerns about competing time demands and limited resources.

Conclusions: Staff across both rural and non-rural settings identified few, but different, barriers to implementing a novel FN intervention that they perceived as important and responsive to patients' needs. These findings can inform how strategies are tailored to support FN in diverse oncology practices.

Background: Teledermatology has been utilized in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for decades but continues to have incomplete penetration. VA has funded an initiative to enhance access to dermatology services since 2017 to support asynchronous teledermatology for Veterans living in rural areas. As part of an ongoing evaluation of this program, we assessed the teledermatology activity between the fiscal years 2020 and 2022. We focused on the second cohort of the initiative, comprising six VA facilities and their 54 referral clinics.

Methods: We studied teledermatology programs at cohort facilities using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework. We used a mixed-methods design including annual online reports completed by participating facilities and VA administrative data. When possible, we compared the data from the 3 years of teledermatology funding with the baseline year prior to the start of funding.

Findings: Reach: Compared with the baseline year, there was a 100% increase in encounters and a 62% increase in patients seen at the funded facilities. Over 500 clinicians and support staff members were trained. Effectiveness: In FY 2022, primary or specialty care clinics affiliated with the funded facilities had more dermatology programs than primary or specialty care clinics across the VA (83% vs. 71% of sites). Adoption: By the end of the funding period, teledermatology constituted 16% of dermatology encounters at the funded facilities compared with 12% nationally. This reflected an increase from 9.2% at the funded facilities and 10.3% nationally prior to the funding period. Implementation: The continued funding for staff and equipment facilitated the expansion to rural areas. Maintenance: By the end of the funding period, all facilities indicated that they had fully implemented their program for patients of targeted primary care providers. The Program Sustainability Index scores generally increased during the funding period.

Conclusions: Targeted funding to support asynchronous teledermatology implementation for rural Veterans increased its reach, adoption, and implementation, ultimately improving access. Providing program guidance with staffing and training resources can increase the impact of these programs. Ongoing efforts to maintain and increase communication between primary care and dermatology will be needed to sustain success.