Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Facilitating access to surgical care through a decentralised case-finding strategy: experience in Madagascar
  1. Michelle C White1,2,3,
  2. Mirjam Hamer3,4,
  3. Jasmin Biddell3,5,
  4. Nathan Claus2,3,
  5. Kirsten Randall2,3,
  6. Dennis Alcorn2,
  7. Gary Parker2,3,
  8. Mark G Shrime6,7
  1. 1 Department of Anaesthesia, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2 Hospital Department, Mercy Ships, Cotonou, Benin
  3. 3 Hospital Department, Mercy Ships, Toamasina, Madagascar
  4. 4 Department of Intensive Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  5. 5 Department of Emergency Care, Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6 Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  7. 7 Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michelle C White; doctormcw{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Over two-thirds of the world’s population lack access to surgical care. Non-governmental organisation’s providing free surgeries may overcome financial barriers, but other barriers to care still exist. This analysis paper discusses two different case-finding strategies in Madagascar that aimed to increase the proportion of poor patients, women and those for whom multiple barriers to care exist.From October 2014 to June 2015, we used a centralised selection strategy, aiming to find 70% of patients from the port city, Toamasina, and 30% from the national capital and two remote cities. From August 2015 to June 2016, a decentralised strategy was used, aiming to find 30% of patients from Toamasina and 70% from 11 remote locations, including the capital. Demographic information and self-reported barriers to care were collected. Wealth quintile was calculated for each patient using a combination of participant responses to asset-related and demographic questions, and publicly available data. A total of 2971 patients were assessed. The change from centralised to decentralised selection resulted in significantly poorer patients undergoing surgery. All reported barriers to prior care, except for lack of transportation, were significantly more likely to be identified in the decentralised group. Patients who identified multiple barriers to prior surgical care were less likely to be from the richest quintile (p=0.037) and more likely to be in the decentralised group (p=0.046). Our country-specific analysis shows that decentralised patient selection strategies may be used to overcome barriers to care and allow patients in greatest need to access surgical care.

  • health services research
  • health systems evaluation
  • surgery

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Seye Abimbola

  • Contributors MCW, MH, JB, KR and MGS conceived and designed the study. All authors contributed to data acquisition. MCW and MGS contributed to data interpretation and analysis. MCW wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors were involved in critical revision of the article and approved the final version for publication.

  • Funding Mark Shrime receives funds from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation and from the GE Safe Surgery 2020 project.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Mercy Ships Institutional Review Board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement There are no further unpublished data.