6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to this journal, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perceptions of diabetes patients and their caregivers regarding access to medicine in a severely constrained health system: A qualitative study in Harare, Zimbabwe

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Nearly half of all sub-Saharan African countries lack operational Diabetes Mellitus policies. This represents an opportunity to build reliable evidence to underpin such policies when they are eventually developed. Representing the interests of those with the experience of living with the condition in national diabetes policies is important, particularly the interests regarding medicine access, a key pillar in diabetes management. One way to achieve this representation is to publish patient perceptions. Patient perspectives are especially valuable in the context of diabetes in Sub-Saharan Africa, where much of the empirical work has focused on clinical and epidemiological questions. We therefore captured the challenges and suggestions around medicine access articulated by a population of diabetes patients and their caregivers. This was a qualitative interpretivist study based on data from focus group discussions with adult diabetes patients and their caregivers. Eight FGDs of 4–13 participants each whose duration averaged 13.35 minutes were conducted. Participants were recruited from diabetes outpatient clinics at two health facilities in Harare. One site was Parirenyatwa Hospital, the largest public referral and teaching hospital in Zimbabwe. The other was a private for-profit facility. Ethics approval was granted by the Joint Research Ethics Committee for University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences and the Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals (Ref: JREC 295/18). Diabetes patients and their caregivers are interested in affordable access to medicines of acceptable form and quality with minimum effort. Yet, they often find themselves privileging one dimension of access over another e.g. prioritising affordability over acceptability. Based on participants’ articulations, a sound diabetes policy should: 1. provide for financial and consumer protections, 2. regulate healthcare business practices and medicine prices, 3. provide for a responsive health workforce attentive to patient problems, 4. accord the same importance to diabetes that is accorded to communicable diseases, 5. decentralize diabetes management to lower levels of care, 6. limit wastage, corruption, bad macro-financial governance and a lack of transparency about how funding for health is used, and 7. provide support to strengthen patients’ and caregivers’ psychosocial networks. A diabetes policy acceptable to patients is one infused with principles of good governance, fairness, inclusiveness and humanity; characterised by: financial protection and price regulation, consumer protection, equity in the attention accorded to different diseases, decentralized service delivery, inclusion of patient voice in political decision-making, a responsive compassionate health workforce, psychosocial support for patients and their caregivers and allocative efficiency and transparency in public expenditure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

            Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

              Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                plos
                PLOS Global Public Health
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                2767-3375
                3 March 2022
                2022
                : 2
                : 3
                : e0000255
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Biomedical Informatics and Biomedical Engineering, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
                [2 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Primary Healthcare Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
                [3 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
                BRAC University James P Grant School of Public Health, BANGLADESH
                Author notes

                None of the authors have any competing interests to declare.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7215-4311
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3025-7187
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1572-6790
                Article
                PGPH-D-21-00548
                10.1371/journal.pgph.0000255
                10021663
                36962297
                946eb568-a0f6-4be6-a80b-b0170a72ec5e
                © 2022 Mureyi et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 August 2021
                : 13 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 24
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000410, Beit Trust;
                Award Recipient :
                Research funding was provided to the primary author (DM) by the Beit Trust. This funder (The Beit Trust) had no role in the formulation of the research question, the analysis or the decision to publish. Funding Source and the corresponding author who receives the funding: The Beit Trust DDM.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Endocrinology
                Endocrine Disorders
                Diabetes Mellitus
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Metabolic Disorders
                Diabetes Mellitus
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Africa
                Zimbabwe
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Health Economics
                Health Insurance
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Economics
                Health Insurance
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Finance
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Caregivers
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Facilities
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Endocrinology
                Diabetic Endocrinology
                Insulin
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Biochemistry
                Hormones
                Insulin
                Custom metadata
                Excerpts of the data underlying the findings are contained in the manuscript. The full corpus of primary data (anonymised untranslated transcripts of focus group discussions) has been submitted alongside this paper as Supporting Information.

                Comments

                Comment on this article