No abstract

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious threat that affects all countries. The Global Action Plan on antimicrobial resistance and the United Nations Political Declaration on antimicrobial resistance set standards for countries to resolve antimicrobial resistance challenges under the One Health approach. We assess progress and challenges in implementing Thailand’s national strategic plan on antimicrobial resistance 2017–2022, discuss interim outcomes and share lessons learnt. Major progress includes: establishing a national governance mechanism that leads high-impact policy on antimicrobial resistance and consolidates actions and multisectoral collaboration; creating a monitoring system and platform to track implementation of the strategic plan; and converting strategies of the strategic plan into actions such as controlling the distribution and use of antimicrobials in humans and animals. Interim results indicate that antimicrobial consumption in animals has nearly halved (exceeding the national goal of a 30% reduction) whereas other goals have not yet reached their targets. We have learnt that elevating antimicrobial resistance to high-level visibility and establishing a national governance mechanism is an important first step, and a monitoring and evaluation system should be developed in parallel with implementation. Securing funds is crucial. Policy coherence is needed to avoid duplication of actions. Highly ambitious goals, although yet to be achieved, can advance actions beyond expectations. Political commitment and collaboration across different sectors will continue to play important roles but might not be sustained without a well-designed governance structure to support long-term actions to address antimicrobial resistance.

Background Despite substantial positive impacts of Thailand’s tobacco control policies on reducing the prevalence of smoking, current trends suggest that further reductions are needed to ensure that WHO’s 2025 voluntary global target of a 30% relative reduction in tobacco use is met. In order to confirm this hypothesis, we aim to estimate the effect of tobacco control policies in Thailand on the prevalence of smoking and attributed deaths and assess the possibilities of achieving WHO’s 2025 global target. This paper addresses this knowledge gap which will contribute to policy control measures on tobacco control. Results of this study can help guide policy makers in implementing further interventions to reduce the prevalence of smoking in Thailand. Method A Markov chain model was developed to examine the effect of tobacco control policies, such as accessibility restrictions for youths, increased tobacco taxes and promotion of smoking cessation programs, from 2015 to 2025. Outcomes included smoking prevalence and the number of smoking-attributable deaths. Due to the very low prevalence of female smokers in 2014, this study applied the model to estimate the smoking prevalence and attributable mortality among males only. Results Given that the baseline prevalence of smoking in 2010 was 41.7% in males, the target of a 30% relative reduction requires that the prevalence be reduced to 29.2% by 2025. Under a baseline scenario where smoking initiation and cessation rates among males are attained by 2015, smoking prevalence rates will reduce to 37.8% in 2025. The combined tobacco control policies would further reduce the prevalence to 33.7% in 2025 and 89,600 deaths would be averted. Conclusion Current tobacco control policies will substantially reduce the smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths. The combined interventions can reduce the smoking prevalence by 19% relative to the 2010 level. These projected reductions are insufficient to achieve the committed target of a 30% relative reduction in smoking by 2025. Increased efforts to control tobacco use will be essential for reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases in Thailand.

BackgroundThailand’s policy to promote long-stay tourism encourages Japanese retirees to relocate to Thailand. One concern of such an influx is the impact of these elderly foreign residents on the Thai health system. This study aims to reveal the current use of and needs for health services amongst Japanese retirees residing in various locations in Thailand.MethodsIn collaboration with nine Japanese self-help clubs in Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, and Phuket, questionnaire surveys of Japanese long-stay retirees were conducted from January to March 2015. The inclusion criteria were being ≥ 50 years of age and staying in Thailand for ≥30 days in the previous 12 months while the main exclusion criteria included relocation by company, relocation due to marriage, or working migrants.ResultsThe mean age of the 237 eligible participants was 68.8, with 79.3% of them being male, 57.8% having stayed in Thailand for ≥5 years, 63.3% having stayed in Thailand for ≥300 days in the previous 12 months and 33% suffering from chronic diseases or sequelae. Of the 143 who had health check-ups in the previous 12 months, 48.3% did so in Thailand. The top 3 diseases treated either in Thailand or Japan in the previous 12 months were dental diseases (50 patients), hypertension (44 patients), and musculoskeletal disorders (41 patients), with the rate of treatment in Thailand standing at 46.0, 47.7, and 65.9%, respectively. Of the 106 who saw a doctor in Thailand in the same period, 70.8% did so less than once a month. Only 23.2% of the participants preferred to receive medical treatment for serious conditions in Thailand. However, this number rose to 32.9% for long-term care (LTC) use.ConclusionThe usage of Thai health services amongst Japanese long-stay retirees is currently limited as they prefer going back to Japan for health screenings and treatment of chronic or serious diseases. However, the number of Japanese residents requiring health services including LTC and end-of-life care is expected to increase. The potential impact of promoting long-stay tourism on the Thai public health should be acknowledged and investigated by the Thai government, including the tourism authority.

BackgroundThis study aims to determine the maximum price at which HIV vaccination is cost-effective in the Thai healthcare setting. It also aims to identify the relative importance of vaccine characteristics and risk behavior changes among vaccine recipients to determine how they affect this cost-effectiveness.MethodsA semi-Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and health outcomes of HIV prevention programs combined with HIV vaccination in comparison to the existing HIV prevention programs without vaccination. The estimation was based on a lifetime horizon period (99 years) and used the government perspective. The analysis focused on both the general population and specific high-risk population groups. The maximum price of cost-effective vaccination was defined by using threshold analysis; one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The study employed an expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis to determine the relative importance of parameters and to prioritize future studies.ResultsThe most expensive HIV vaccination which is cost-effective when given to the general population was 12,000 Thai baht (US$1 = 34 Thai baht in 2009). This vaccination came with 70% vaccine efficacy and lifetime protection as long as risk behavior was unchanged post-vaccination. The vaccine would be considered cost-ineffective at any price if it demonstrated low efficacy (30%) and if post-vaccination risk behavior increased by 10% or more, especially among the high-risk population groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the most sensitive to change in post-vaccination risk behavior, followed by vaccine efficacy and duration of protection. The EVPI indicated the need to quantify vaccine efficacy, changed post-vaccination risk behavior, and the costs of vaccination programs.ConclusionsThe approach used in this study differentiated it from other economic evaluations and can be applied for the economic evaluation of other health interventions not available in healthcare systems. This study is important not only for researchers conducting future HIV vaccine research but also for policy decision makers who, in the future, will consider vaccine adoption.