The Government of Malawi has signed contracts called service level agreements (SLAs) with mission health facilities in order to exempt their catchment populations from paying user fees. Government in turn reimburses the facilities for the services that they provide. SLAs started in 2006 with 28 out of 165 mission health facilities and increased to 74 in 2015. Most SLAs cover only maternal, neonatal and in some cases child health services due to limited resources. This study evaluated the effect of user fee exemption on the utilization of maternal health services. The difference-in-differences approach was combined with propensity score matching to evaluate the causal effect of user fee exemption. The gradual uptake of the policy provided a natural experiment with treated and control health facilities. A second control group, patients seeking non-maternal health care at CHAM health facilities with SLAs, was used to check the robustness of the results obtained using the primary control group. Health facility level panel data for 142 mission health facilities from 2003 to 2010 were used. User fee exemption led to a 15% (P <  0.01) increase in the mean proportion of women who made at least one antenatal care (ANC) visit during pregnancy, a 12% (P < 0.05) increase in average ANC visits and an 11% (P < 0.05) increase in the mean proportion of pregnant women who delivered at the facilities. No effects were found for the proportion of pregnant women who made the first ANC visit in the first trimester and the proportion of women who made postpartum care visits. We conclude that user fee exemption is an important policy for increasing maternal health care utilization. For certain maternal services, however, other determinants may be more important.

This study confirms that HBV is a significant cost burden to the South Korean society, and in the absence of an effective cure reinforces the importance of continued disease prevention via vaccination.

Pain Management Programmes (PMPs) are a multi-disciplinary approach to the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Notwithstanding evidence of effectiveness, successful take-up of programmes requires acceptability to patients. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for alternative PMPs for managing CLBP in primary care. Specifically, we estimated the probability of uptake of alternative configurations of PMPs. Potential attributes and associated levels influencing take-up were identified through a systematic literature review, survey of current PMPs, expert consultation, and focus groups. Five attributes were included: content; provider; schedule; group size; and travel time to clinic. Four hundred and fourteen questionnaires were mailed to patients attending clinics and 124 questionnaires were returned suitable for analysis. Method of delivery influenced probability of take-up, with small group sizes and low intensity programmes over a prolonged period increasing the probabilities. Travel time was also important. However, providers and contents of PMPs were not main drivers of preferences, though those with more severe pain did prefer PMPs provided by more specialists. Probability of take-up increases when PMPs better reflect patient preferences. Given preferences, resource constraints, and evidence on clinical outcomes of alternative configurations it is suggested more resource-intensive PMPs be reserved for those with the most severe and disabling pain and less intensive programmes delivered over a longer time period in smaller groups for those with less severe pain. These findings can inform future randomised trials to evaluate acceptable PMPs in primary care.

While there is evidence that weight-loss interventions reduce morbidity, indications of their acceptability are limited. Understanding preferences for lifestyle interventions will help policymakers design interventions. We used a discrete choice experiment to investigate preferences for lifestyle interventions to reduce adult obesity. Attributes focused on: the components of the programme; weight change; short-term and longer-term health gains; time spent on the intervention and financial costs incurred. Data were collected through a web-based questionnaire, with 504 UK adults responding. Despite evidence that dietary interventions are the most effective way to lose weight, respondents preferred lifestyle interventions involving physical activity. While the evidence suggests that behaviour change support improves effectiveness of interventions, its value to participants was limited. A general preference to maintain current lifestyles, together with the sensitivity of take up to financial costs, suggests financial incentives could be used to help maximise uptake of healthy lifestyle interventions. An important target group for change, men, required more compensation to take up healthier lifestyles. Those of normal weight, who will increase in weight over time if they do not change their lifestyle, required the highest compensation. Policymakers face challenges in inducing people to change their behaviour and adopt healthy lifestyles.

Background: The AMBER (Assessment, Management, Best Practice, Engagement, Recovery Uncertain) care bundle is a complex intervention used in UK hospitals to support patients with uncertain recovery. However, it has yet to be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to identify potential benefits or harms. The aim of this trial was to investigate the feasibility of a cluster RCT of the AMBER care bundle. Methods: This is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility cluster RCT. Quantitative data collected from patients (or proxies if patients lack capacity) were used (i) to examine recruitment, retention and follow-up rates; (ii) to test data collection tools for the trial and determine their optimum timing; (iii) to test methods to identify the use of financial resources; and (iv) to explore the acceptability of study procedures for health professionals and patients. Descriptive statistical analyses and thematic analysis used the framework approach. Results: In total, 894 patients were screened, of whom 220 were eligible and 19 of those eligible (8.6%) declined to participate. Recruitment to the control arm was challenging. Of the 728 patients screened for that arm, 647 (88.9%) were excluded. Overall, 65 patients were recruited (81.3% of the recruitment target of 80). Overall, many were elderly (≥80 years, 46.2%, n = 30, mean = 77.8 years, standard deviation [SD] = 12.3 years). Over half (53.8%) had a non-cancer diagnosis, with a mean of 2.3 co-morbidities; 24.6% patients (n = 16) died during their hospital stay and 35.4% (n = 23) within 100 days of discharge. In both trial arms, baseline IPOS subscale scores identified moderate patient anxiety (control: mean 13.3, SD 4.8; intervention: mean 13.3, SD 5.1), and howRwe identified a good care experience (control: mean 13.1, SD 2.5; intervention: mean 11.5, SD 2.1). Collecting quantitative service use and quality of life data was feasible. No patient participants regarded study involvement negatively. Focus groups with health professionals identified concerns regarding (i) the subjectivity of the intervention's eligibility criteria, (ii) the need to prognosticate to identify potential patients and (iii) consent procedures and the length of the questionnaire. Conclusions: A full trial of the AMBER care bundle is technically feasible but impractical due to fundamental issues in operationalising the intervention's eligibility criteria, which prevents optimal recruitment. Since this complex intervention continues to be used in clinical care and advocated in policy, alternative research approaches must be considered and tested. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN36040085.