Primary health care facility readiness to implement primary eye care in Nigeria: equipment, infrastructure, service delivery and health management information systems
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Background
Over two-thirds of Africans have no access to eye care services. To increase access,
the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends integrating eye care into primary health
care, and the WHO Africa region recently developed a package for primary eye care.
However, there are limited data on the capacities needed for delivery, to guide policymakers
and implementers on the feasibility of integration. The overall purpose of this study
was to assess the technical capacity of the health system at primary level to deliver
the WHO primary eye care package. Findings with respect to service delivery, equipment
and health management information systems (HMIS) are presented in this paper.
Methods
This was a mixed-methods, cross sectional feasibility study in Anambra State, Nigeria.
Methods included a desk review of relevant Nigerian policies; a survey of 48 primary
health facilities in six districts randomly selected using two stage sampling, and
semi-structured interviews with six supervisors and nine purposively selected facility
heads. Quantitative study tools included observational checklists and questionnaires.
Survey data were analysed descriptively using STATA V.15.1 (Statcorp, Texas). Differences
between health centres and health posts were analysed using the z-test statistic.
Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis assisted by Open Code Software
V.4.02.
Results
There are enabling national health policies for eye care, but no policy specifically
for primary eye care. 85% of facilities had no medication for eye conditions and one
in eight had no vitamin A in stock. Eyecare was available in < 10% of the facilities.
The services delivered focussed on maternal and child health, with low attendance
by adults aged over 50 years with over 50% of facilities reporting ≤10 attendances
per year per 1000 catchment population. No facility reported data on patients with
eye conditions in their patient registers.
Conclusion
A policy for primary eye care is needed which aligns with existing eye health policies.
There are currently substantial capacity gaps in service delivery, equipment and data
management which will need to be addressed if eye care is to be successfully integrated
into primary care in Nigeria.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07359-3.
Summary Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0–100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0–100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8–98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9–97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5–97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1–24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3–23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2–26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1–93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4–53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6–68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3–38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view—and subsequent provision—of quality health care for all populations. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Public health decision-making is critically dependent on the timely availability of sound data. The role of health information systems is to generate, analyse and disseminate such data. In practice, health information systems rarely function systematically. The products of historical, social and economic forces, they are complex, fragmented and unresponsive to needs. International donors in health are largely responsible for the problem, having prioritized urgent needs for data over longer-term country capacity-building. The result is painfully apparent in the inability of most countries to generate the data needed to monitor progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. Solutions to the problem must be comprehensive; money alone is likely to be insufficient unless accompanied by sustained support to country systems development coupled with greater donor accountability and allocation of responsibilities. The Health Metrics Network, a global collaboration in the making, is intended to help bring such solutions to the countries most in need.
[1
]GRID grid.10757.34, ISNI 0000 0001 2108 8257, Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, , University of Nigeria, ; Enugu, Nigeria
[2
]GRID grid.8991.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0425 469X, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine,
; London, UK
[3
]GRID grid.8991.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0425 469X, Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , ; London, UK
[4
]GRID grid.413131.5, ISNI 0000 0000 9161 1296, Department of Ophthalmology, , University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital, ; Enugu, Nigeria
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium
or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to
the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence
and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view
a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a
credit line to the data.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.