Skip to main content

Negative health system effects of Global Fund's investments

In a systematic review published in JRSM Short Reports, Josip Car and colleagues collated and critically evaluate the available scientific evidence on the negative health system effects of global health initiatives in developing countries. They identified 24 studies commenting on adverse effects on health systems arising from Global Fund investments. Sixteen were quantitative studies, six were qualitative and two used both quantitative and qualitative methods, but none explicitly stated that the studies were originally designed to capture or to assess health system effects (positive or negative).

Only anecdotal evidence or authors’ perceptions/interpretations of circumstances could be extracted from the included studies. Dr Car and colleagues concluded that that much of the currently available evidence generated between 2002 and 2009 on global health initiatives potential negative health system effects is not of the quality expected or needed to best serve the academic or broader community. The majority of the reviewed research did not fulfil the requirements of rigorous scientific evidence.

While this insight into the field is valuable in informing short-term decision-making, it should only serve as an initial step before acquiring more rigorous research. The weight of the current debate around the should move away from non-peer reviewed materials, such as organizational reports, commentaries and ‘descriptive’ discussion papers without verifiable data. The lack of methodological standards for reporting health system effects of complex interventions in developing countries also contributes to the subsequent suboptimal level of quality of reporting observed in this review.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Improving discharge planning in NHS hospitals

Factors that need to be considered in discharge planning that have been identified in previous projects include:

Ensuring that discharge arrangements are discussed with patients, family members and carers; and that they are given a copy of the discharge summary.Adequate coordination between the hospital, community health services, general practices, and the providers of social care services.There is a follow-up after discharge of patients at high risk of complications or readmission - either in person or by telephone - to ensure that the discharge arrangements are working well. Medicines reconciliation is carried out. This is the process of verifying patient medication lists at a point-of-care transition, such as hospital discharge, to identify which medications have been added, discontinued, or changed from pre-admission medication lists.Ensuring that any outstanding test results at discharge are obtained and passed on to primary care teams; and ensuring there are clear arrangements …

Can GPs issue private prescriptions to NHS patients?

The NHS prescription charge in England is currently £8.40 per item. At this level, many commonly prescribed drugs will cost less than the prescription charge and so some NHS patients may occasionally ask if they can have a private prescription rather than an NHS prescription.

In the past, some GPs have been advised that they could issue both an NHS FP10 and a private prescription, and let the patient decide which to use. But the British Medical Association's General Practice Committee has obtained legal advice that said under the current primary care contract, GPs in England may not issue a private prescription alongside or as an alternative to an NHS FP10 prescription. In any consultation where a GP needs to issue an FP10, the concurrent issue of a private prescription would be a breach of NHS regulations.

The issuing of a private prescription in such circumstances could also be seen as an attempt to deprive the NHS of the funds it would receive from the prescription charge. Fur…

What impact will Brexit have on the UK's life sciences sector?

On Thursday 3 November 2016, I spoke at a seminar at the Imperial College Business School on the topic of the impact of Brexit on the UK's life sciences sector (the NHS, universities, and pharmaceutical and biomedical companies). I emphasised the important role played in the life sciences sector by EU-trained professionals and the need to ensure that the UK continued to attract highly-qualified professionals to work, for example, in our National Health Service. I also discussed the need to increase spending on research and development to ensure that the UK remained a world leader in the biomedical industry. The other speakers at the seminar were Andrew Lansley (former Secretary of State for Health) and Richard Phillips (Director of Healthcare Policy at the Association of British Healthcare industries). The event was chaired by Andrew Brown. A copy of my talk can be viewed on Slideshare.