Yadav Harika, Shah Devanshi, Sayed Shahin, Horton Susan, Schroeder Lee F
Internal Medicine, University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Chattanooga, TN, USA.
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Nov;9(11):e1553-e1560. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00442-3. Epub 2021 Oct 6.
Pathology and laboratory medicine diagnostics and diagnostic imaging are crucial to achieving universal health coverage. We analysed Service Provision Assessments (SPAs) from ten low-income and middle-income countries to benchmark diagnostic availability.
Diagnostic availabilities were determined for Bangladesh, Haiti, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda, with multiple timepoints for Haiti, Kenya, Senegal, and Tanzania. A smaller set of diagnostics were included in the analysis for primary care facilities compared with those expected at hospitals, with 16 evaluated in total. Surveys spanned 2004-18, including 8512 surveyed facilities. Country-specific facility types were mapped to basic primary care, advanced primary care, or hospital tiers. We calculated percentages of facilities offering each diagnostic, accounting for facility weights, stratifying by tier, and for some analyses, region. The tier-level estimate of diagnostic availability was defined as the median of all diagnostic-specific availabilities at each tier, and country-level estimates were the median of all diagnostic-specific availabilities of each of the tiers. Associations of country-level diagnostic availability with country income as well as (within-country) region-level availability with region-specific population densities were determined by multivariable linear regression, controlling for appropriate covariates including tier.
Median availability of diagnostics was 19·1% in basic primary care facilities, 49·2% in advanced primary care facilities, and 68·4% in hospitals. Availability varied considerably between diagnostics, ranging from 1·2% (ultrasound) to 76·7% (malaria) in primary care (basic and advanced) and from 6·1% (CT scan) to 91·6% (malaria) in hospitals. Availability also varied between countries, from 14·9% (Bangladesh) to 89·6% (Namibia). Availability correlated positively with log(income) at both primary care tiers but not the hospital tier, and positively with region-specific population density at the basic primary care tier only.
Major gaps in diagnostic availability exist in many low-income and middle-income countries, particularly in primary care facilities. These results can serve as a benchmark to gauge progress towards implementing guidelines such as the WHO Essential Diagnostics List and Priority Medical Devices initiatives.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
病理学与检验医学诊断以及诊断成像对于实现全民健康覆盖至关重要。我们分析了来自10个低收入和中等收入国家的服务提供评估(SPA),以确定诊断服务的基准水平。
确定了孟加拉国、海地、马拉维、纳米比亚、尼泊尔、肯尼亚、卢旺达、塞内加尔、坦桑尼亚和乌干达的诊断服务可及性,海地、肯尼亚、塞内加尔和坦桑尼亚有多个时间点的数据。与医院预期提供的诊断项目相比,纳入初级保健机构分析的诊断项目较少,总共评估了16项。调查涵盖2004年至2018年,包括8512个被调查机构。将各国特定的机构类型划分为基础初级保健、高级初级保健或医院层级。我们计算了提供每项诊断服务的机构百分比,并考虑机构权重,按层级分层,部分分析还按地区分层。诊断服务可及性的层级估计值定义为各层级所有诊断项目特定可及性的中位数,国家层面的估计值为各层级所有诊断项目特定可及性的中位数。通过多变量线性回归确定国家层面诊断服务可及性与国家收入以及(国内)地区层面可及性与地区特定人口密度之间的关联,并控制包括层级在内的适当协变量。
基础初级保健机构诊断服务的中位数可及性为19.1%,高级初级保健机构为49.2%,医院为68.4%。不同诊断项目的可及性差异很大,在初级保健(基础和高级)中,从1.2%(超声)到76.7%(疟疾)不等,在医院中从6.1%(CT扫描)到91.6%(疟疾)不等。不同国家之间的可及性也有所不同,从14.9%(孟加拉国)到89.6%(纳米比亚)。在两个初级保健层级,可及性与对数收入呈正相关,但在医院层级不相关,仅在基础初级保健层级与地区特定人口密度呈正相关。
许多低收入和中等收入国家在诊断服务可及性方面存在重大差距,尤其是在初级保健机构。这些结果可作为一个基准,用于衡量在实施世界卫生组织基本诊断清单和优先医疗设备倡议等指南方面取得的进展。
比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会。