RESUMO
Tuberculosis (TB) remains a deadly challenge globally and Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) are among the countries with the highest TB burden. The objective of this study is to identify and describe ongoing, planned and completed TB trials conducted in the BRICS countries registered in WHO-International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP); to report selective outcome reporting by comparing primary outcomes in published trials with their prespecified outcomes in registry records and to evaluate the time to publication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched the WHO-ICTRP portal (20 January 2019) and the Russian Federation Registry (30 March 2019) to identify TB trials conducted in BRICS countries. We included only registered clinical trials conducted wholly in BRICS countries or with at least one recruitment centre in one of the BRICS countries that were investigating TB treatment. RESULTS: The search of the WHO-ICTRP yielded 408 trials and additional 32 trials were identified from the Russian registry. Of those, 253 were included in the analysis. We found that 77 trials were multicountry trials, followed by trials in China (55), India (53), South Africa (34), Russia (23) and Brazil (11). 163 trials were registered prospectively, 69 retrospectively and 21 trials had no registration status. Most trials (207) evaluated TB treatment, followed by 29 behaviour change interventions, 13 nutritional supplementation, 4 surgical treatment and 2 assessing rehabilitation. Based on ICJME recommendation of publishing 12 months after completion of trial, we found that 156 trials were completed 12 or more months by date and 101 trials had publications. Thirty-one of the 101 trials with publication had evidence of selective outcome reporting. The median time to publication was 25 months (IQR 15-37) from the time of anticipated end date stated in the registry. CONCLUSION: TB trials conducted in BRICS countries are collaborative, mostly drug treatment oriented, potentially affecting policies. Selective outcome reporting remains a problem both for prospectively and retrospectively registered trials, only small fraction of which gets to publication.
Assuntos
Tuberculose , Brasil , China/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Índia/epidemiologia , Federação Russa , África do Sul/epidemiologia , Tuberculose/tratamento farmacológico , Tuberculose/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Contracting out of governmental health services is a financing strategy that governs the way in which public sector funds are used to have services delivered by non-governmental health service providers (NGPs). It represents a contract between the government and an NGP, detailing the mechanisms and conditions by which the latter should provide health care on behalf of the government. Contracting out is intended to improve the delivery and use of healthcare services. This Review updates a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of contracting out governmental clinical health services to non-governmental service provider/s, on (i) utilisation of clinical health services; (ii) improvement in population health outcomes; (iii) improvement in equity of utilisation of these services; (iv) costs and cost-effectiveness of delivering the services; and (v) improvement in health systems performance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, ProQuest, and Global Health on 07 April 2017, along with two trials registers - ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform - on 17 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually randomised and cluster-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies, comparing government-delivered clinical health services versus those contracted out to NGPs, or comparing different models of non-governmental-delivered clinical health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the net effect for all outcomes. A positive value favours the intervention whilst a negative value favours the control. Effect estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a Summary of Findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, a cluster-randomised trial conducted in Cambodia, and a controlled before-after study conducted in Guatemala. Both studies reported that contracting out over 12 months probably makes little or no difference in (i) immunisation uptake of children 12 to 24 months old (moderate-certainty evidence), (ii) the number of women who had more than two antenatal care visits (moderate-certainty evidence), and (iii) female use of contraceptives (moderate-certainty evidence).The Cambodia trial reported that contracting out may make little or no difference in the mortality over 12 months of children younger than one year of age (net effect = -4.3%, intervention effect P = 0.36, clustered standard error (SE) = 3.0%; low-certainty evidence), nor to the incidence of childhood diarrhoea (net effect = -16.2%, intervention effect P = 0.07, clustered SE = 19.0%; low-certainty evidence). The Cambodia study found that contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending over 12 months on curative care (net effect = $ -19.25 (2003 USD), intervention effect P = 0.01, clustered SE = $ 5.12; moderate-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report equity in the use of clinical health services and in adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update confirms the findings of the original review. Contracting out probably reduces individual out-of-pocket spending on curative care (moderate-certainty evidence), but probably makes little or no difference in other health utilisation or service delivery outcomes (moderate- to low-certainty evidence). Therefore, contracting out programmes may be no better or worse than government-provided services, although additional rigorously designed studies may change this result. The literature provides many examples of contracting out programmes, which implies that this is a feasible response when governments fail to provide good clinical health care. Future contracting out programmes should be framed within a rigorous study design to allow valid and reliable measures of their effects. Such studies should include qualitative research that assesses the views of programme implementers and beneficiaries, and records implementation mechanisms. This approach may reveal enablers for, and barriers to, successful implementation of such programmes.
Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Serviços Terceirizados , Avaliação de Processos em Cuidados de Saúde , Camboja , Anticoncepcionais Femininos/administração & dosagem , Estudos Controlados Antes e Depois , Diarreia/epidemiologia , Guatemala , Gastos em Saúde , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde/economia , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Imunização/economia , Lactente , Mortalidade Infantil , Serviços Terceirizados/economia , Serviços Terceirizados/estatística & dados numéricos , Cuidado Pré-Natal/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Policy makers, health staff and communities recognise that health services in lower- and middle-income countries need to improve people's access to HIV treatment and retention to treatment programmes. One strategy is to move antiretroviral delivery from hospitals to more peripheral health facilities or even beyond health facilities. This could increase the number of people with access to care, improve health outcomes, and enhance retention in treatment programmes. On the other hand, providing care at less sophisticated levels in the health service or at community-level may decrease quality of care and result in worse health outcomes. To address these uncertainties, we summarised the research studies examining the risks and benefits of decentralising antiretroviral therapy service delivery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of various models that decentralised HIV treatment and care to more basic levels in the health system for initiating and maintaining antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: Search methods: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress) from 1 January 1996 to 31 March 2013, and contacted relevant organisations and researchers. The search terms included "decentralisation", "down referral", "delivery of health care", and "health services accessibility". Selection criteria: Our inclusion criteria were controlled trials (randomised and non-randomised), controlled-before and after studies, and cohorts (prospective and retrospective) in which HIV-infected people were either initiated on antiretroviral therapy or maintained on therapy in a decentralised setting in lower- and middle-income countries. We define decentralisation as providing treatment at a more basic level in the health system to the comparator. Data collection and analysis: Two authors applied the inclusion criteria and extracted ...