RESUMEN
Aims: A proof-of- concept pilot investigating the profile of person who engaged with remote testing for their annual diabetes review, and service user (SU) and primary care practice acceptability for completing annual diabetes review tests remotely (blood pressure, finger-stick blood test and urine test). Method(s): A mixed methods evaluation based on SU surveys sent to all 144 pilot participants, semi-structured SU and staff interviews, and demographic and clinical data extraction from primary care electronic patient record system. Result(s): Profile: The pathway was considered suitable for people who were working, digitally capable, younger, had household support to complete the tests, had non-complex diabetes, or a combination of these attributes. It was deemed less suitable for the very elderly, the less digitally capable, those with complex health needs or socially isolated. SU Acceptability: Interviewees and survey respondents overall deemed the remote tests acceptable for use. Convenience and reduced exposure to Covid-19 were motivating factors for participation. Preference for face-to- face care or concerns around using digital technologies were key reasons for decline. Staff Acceptability: The pathway was deemed acceptable and was successfully implemented at both practices. Support from a designated pathway co-ordinator and project manager were key factors linked to acceptability and success. The remote pathway was seen as an opportunity to reduce primary care pressures on in-person care. Conclusion(s): It is possible to successfully conduct annual diabetes reviews remotely. Although not appropriate nor desirable to everyone, remote testing provides a viable alternative to in-person testing for certain individuals.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Disease transmission models are used in impact assessment and economic evaluations of infectious disease prevention and treatment strategies, prominently so in the COVID-19 response. These models rarely consider dimensions of equity relating to the differential health burden between individuals and groups. We describe concepts and approaches which are useful when considering equity in the priority setting process, and outline the technical choices concerning model structure, outputs, and data requirements needed to use transmission models in analyses of health equity. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on equity concepts and approaches to their application in economic evaluation and undertook a technical consultation on how equity can be incorporated in priority setting for infectious disease control. The technical consultation brought together health economists with an interest in equity-informative economic evaluation, ethicists specialising in public health, mathematical modellers from various disease backgrounds, and representatives of global health funding and technical assistance organisations, to formulate key areas of consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: We provide a series of recommendations for applying the Reference Case for Economic Evaluation in Global Health to infectious disease interventions, comprising guidance on 1) the specification of equity concepts; 2) choice of evaluation framework; 3) model structure; and 4) data needs. We present available conceptual and analytical choices, for example how correlation between different equity- and disease-relevant strata should be considered dependent on available data, and outline how assumptions and data limitations can be reported transparently by noting key factors for consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Current developments in economic evaluations in global health provide a wide range of methodologies to incorporate equity into economic evaluations. Those employing infectious disease models need to use these frameworks more in priority setting to accurately represent health inequities. We provide guidance on the technical approaches to support this goal and ultimately, to achieve more equitable health policies.