ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to identify barriers and enablers to implementation of the Xpert MTB/RIF test within Mongolia’s National Tuberculosis Program.MethodsTwenty-foursemi-structured interviews were conducted between June and September 2015 with laboratory staff and tuberculosis physicians in Mongolia’s capital Ulaanbaatar and regional towns where Xpert MTB/RIF testing had been implemented. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, translated and analysed thematically using NVIVO qualitative analysis software.ResultsEight laboratory staff (five from the National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory in Ulaanbaatar and three from provincial laboratories) and sixteen tuberculosis physicians (five from the Mongolian National Center for Communicable Diseases in Ulaanbaatar, four from district tuberculosis clinics in Ulaanbaatar and seven from provincial tuberculosis clinics) were interviewed. Major barriers to Xpert MTB/RIF implementation identified were: lack of awareness of program guidelines; inadequate staffing arrangements; problems with cartridge supply management; lack of local repair options for the Xpert machines; lack of regular formal training; paper based system; delayed treatment initiation due to consensus meeting and poor sample quality. Enablers to Xpert MTB/RIF implementation included availability of guidelines in the local language; provision of extra laboratory staff, shift working arrangements and additional modules; capacity for troubleshooting internally; access to experts; opportunities for peer learning; common understanding of diagnostic algorithms and decentralised testing.ConclusionOur study identified a number of barriers and enablers to implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF in the Mongolian National Tuberculosis Program. Lessons learned from this study can help to facilitate implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF in other Mongolian locations as well as other low-and middle-income countries.

We identified factors that may influence the relationship between information generation and improvement of health service delivery: governance (leadership, participatory monitoring, regular review of data); production of information (presentation of findings, data quality, qualitative data); and health information system resources (electronic health management information systems, organizational structure, training).

In this study, pregnant women had a 1.3-fold higher risk of developing TB than the general population. Based on a moderately increased risk of TB during pregnancy in our study and the potential for adverse health outcomes, TB screening among pregnant women can currently be justified, but the cost-effectiveness of this intervention remains unclear. Patients and doctors need to be educated about the safety of standard TB treatment in pregnancy to reduce the rate of abortions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the interdependence of health security and health systems, and the need for resilient health systems to prevent large-scale impacts of infectious disease outbreaks and other acute public health events. Three years into the COVID-19 pandemic has led to discussions on how to “build back better”, making it important to identify lessons to strengthen health systems and prevent future shocks from health security threats. Limited data exist on effective implementable initiatives, especially for the Pacific region. We explored the perceptions of a selection of experts with field experience in the Pacific region to identify and prioritise areas for future health system investments that strengthen health security. We conducted a qualitative cross-sectional study, collecting data using four focus group discussions. We analysed the data using a content analysis of notes recorded from each of the sessions. There were 24 participants, representing 15 research and academic institutions, nongovernment agencies, UN agencies and government as well as independent consultants. All were health sector stakeholders with field experience in the Pacific region and expertise in either health systems or health security. The analysis revealed four areas to prioritise future efforts, namely workforce development, risk communication, public health surveillance and laboratory capacity. A fifth theme, localisation, was identified as a cross cutting theme that should be applied to implementation of other identified priority areas. These findings provide a starting point to apply in practice this relatively new concept, of targeted health systems strengthening for health security development, in the Pacific. Evaluation of these initiatives will strengthen knowledge on the value of integrating these two concepts.

Background: Health system performance indicators are widely used to assess primary health care (PHC) performance. Despite the numerous tools and some convergence on indicator criteria, there is not a clear understanding of the common features of indicator selection processes. We aimed to review the literature to identify papers that document indicator selection processes for health system performance indicators in PHC. Methods: We searched the online databases Scopus, Medline and CINAHL, as well as the grey literature, without time restrictions, initially on 31 July 2019 followed by an update 13 November 2020. Empirical studies or reports were included if they described the selection of health system performance indicators or frameworks, that included PHC indicators. A combination of the process focussed research question and qualitative analysis meant a quality appraisal tool or assessment of bias could not meaningfully be applied to assess individual studies. We undertook an inductive analysis based on potential indicator selection processes criteria, drawn from health system performance indicator appraisal tools reported in the literature. Results: We identified 16,503 records of which 28 were included in the review. Most studies used a descriptive case study design. We found no consistent variations between indicator selection processes of health systems of high income and low- or lower-middle income countries. Identified common features of selection processes for indicators in PHC include literature review or adaption of an existing framework as an initial step; a consensus building process with stakeholders; structuring indicators into categories; and indicator criteria focusing on validity and feasibility. The evidence around field testing with utility and consideration of reporting burden was less clear. Conclusion: Our findings highlight several characteristics of health system indicator selection processes. These features provide the groundwork to better understand how to value indicator selection processes in primary health care.