The combined effects of increasing demand for health services and declining real public resources have recently led many governments in the developing world to explore various health financing alternatives. Faced with a significant decline during the 1980s in its real per capita expenditures, the Kenya Ministry of Health (MOH) introduced a new cost sharing programme in December 1989. The programme was part of a comprehensive health financing strategy which also included social insurance, efficiency measures, and private sector development. Early implementation problems led to the suspension in September 1990 of the outpatient registration fee, the major revenue source at the time. In 1991, the Ministry initiated a programme of management improvement and gradual re-introduction of an outpatient fee, but this time as a treatment fee. The new programme was carried out in phases, beginning at the national and provincial levels and proceeding to the local level. The impact of these changes was assessed with national revenue collection reports, quality of care surveys in 6 purposively selected indicator districts, and time series analysis of monthly utilization in these same districts. In contrast to the significant fall in revenue experienced over the period of the initial programme, the later management improvements and fee adjustments resulted in steady increases in revenue. As a percentage of total non-staff expenditures, fiscal year 1993-1994 revenue is estimated to have been 37% at provincial general hospitals, 20% at smaller hospitals, and 21% at health centres. Roughly one third of total revenue is derived from national insurance claims. Quality of care measures, though in some respects improved with cost sharing, were in general somewhat mixed and inconsistent. The 1989 outpatient registration fee led to an average reduction in utilization of 27% at provincial hospitals, 45% at district hospitals, and 33% at health centres. In contrast, phased introduction of the outpatient treatment fee beginning in 1992, combined with somewhat broader exemptions, was associated with much smaller decreases in outpatient utilization. It is suggested that implementing user fees in phases by level of health facility is important to gain patient acceptance, to develop the requisite management systems, and to orient ministry staff to the new systems.

In this systematic review, we demonstrate heterogeneity in definitions of response and remission, and changes in outcomes reported in RCTs of CD. It is a priority to select a core set of outcomes to standardize efficacy and safety evaluation in trials of patients with CD.

Background and Aims Nocebo effects, adverse outcomes occurring in patients receiving inert therapy, contribute to adverse event [AE] reporting in randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. High placebo AE rates may result in inaccurate estimation of treatment-related AEs. We estimate the pooled rate of AEs in patients randomized to placebo compared to active therapy in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] RCTs. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched to March 1, 2017 for RCTs of conventional medical therapies for Crohn’s disease [CD] or ulcerative colitis [UC]. Rates of AEs, serious AEs [SAEs], AE-related trial withdrawal, infections and worsening IBD were pooled using a random-effects model. Results We included 124 CD [n = 26 042] and 71 UC RCTs [n = 16 798]. The pooled placebo AE rate was 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65.3%, 75.4%) and 54.5% [47.8%, 61.1%] in CD and UC RCTs, respectively. There was no significant risk difference [RD] in AE, SAE or AE-related withdrawal rates between CD patients receiving placebo or active drug. A 1.6% [95% CI: 0.1%, 3.1%] increase in AE rates was observed among UC patients randomized to active therapy. Patients receiving active therapy had a higher risk of infection (RD 1.0% [95% CI: 0.4%, 1.7%] for CD, 2.9% [95% CI: 1.4%, 4.4%] for UC) although a lower risk of worsening CD (RD −3.2% [95% CI: −4.8%, −1.5%]) or UC (RD –3.7% [95% CI: –5.7%, –1.8%]). Conclusions AEs are commonly reported by patients randomized to either placebo or active treatment in IBD RCTs. Clinically relevant differences in AE, SAE and AE-related withdrawal were not observed.

Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1: Tofacitinib versus placebo, Outcome 12: Failure to maintain response (IBDQ score).

Background As the healthcare system faced an acute shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of 3D printing technologies became an innovative method of increasing production capacity to meet this acute need. Due to the emergence of a large number of 3D printed face shield designs and community-led PPE printing initiatives, this case study examines the methods and design best optimized for community printers who may not have the resources or experience to conduct such a thorough analysis. Case presentation We present the optimization of the production of 3D printed face shields by community 3D printers, as part of an initiative aimed at producing PPE for healthcare workers. The face shield frames were manufactured using the 3DVerkstan design and were coupled with an acetate sheet to assemble a complete face shield. Rigorous quality assurance and decontamination protocols ensured community-printed PPE was satisfactory for healthcare use. Conclusion Additive manufacturing is a promising method of producing adequate face shields for frontline health workers because of its versatility and quick up-start time. The optimization of stacking and sanitization protocols allowed 3D printing to feasibly supplement formal public health responses in the face of a global pandemic.