Summary
Background Recent research has found that less than half of people identified with an eye problem in Meru county’s screening programme were able to access care, with younger adults being the least likely to receive the care they needed. We aimed to interview and survey members of this ‘left-behind’ group to explore barriers and identify potential solutions using a rapid mixed-methods approach.
Methods First, we conducted interviews to explore perceptions of barriers and potential solutions. Next, we asked a representative sample to rank the suggested solutions by likely impact. Finally, we held a multistakeholder meeting to identify which of the top-ranked interventions offered the best balance of impact, feasibility, cost, and potential risks. We used a deductive matrix and thematic analysis to rapidly analyse the interview data.
Results We conducted 67 interviews. Barriers to access included long queues, conflicting work engagements, and lack of clear information. Proposed solutions focused on reducing queue lengths, providing better counselling and clinic information, holding mop-up clinics, and maintaining adequate stocks & supplies. We conducted ranking surveys with 401 additional people from the left-behind group. All proposed solutions were ranked at moderately-to-highly likely to improve equitable access. Fifteen people attended the multistakeholder meeting, including community representatives. Workshop participants unanimously selected enhanced counselling and SMS reminders as the interventions that offered the best balance of impact, risk, cost, and feasibility. The other proposed solutions were deemed impractical or unaffordable.
Conclusion Rapid mixed-methods and multistakeholder collaboration were used to identify a range of potential service modifications that will be implemented within the ongoing programme. Our approach was centred on the experiences and perceptions of those who face the highest barriers to care.
Evidence before this study Previous research in Kenyan community screening programmes has shown that at least half of those found to have an eye health need will not be able to access care at their local treatment clinic, even if the care is provided free. Work in Meru County has shown that younger adults less are likely than any other sociodemographic group to check-in at their local clinic, but it’s not clear what the specific barriers are for this group. Across the African continent, approximately half of all ambulatory appointments are missed across all specialities, and sociodemographic inequalities are ubiquitous. In pursuit of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and the Primary Health Care principles of equity and justice, health system managers are increasingly focused on identifying, trying to understand, and then address unequal access to care, however the traditional approach to identifying barriers and solutions has tended to centre around expert opinion rather than engagement with affected groups.
Added value of this study This study builds on previous efforts to introduce routine sociodemographic data collection into the county-wide eye screening programme operating in Meru, Kenya, as well as additional sites in Meru County, Botswana, Nepal, and Uttar Pradesh. Having already identified younger adults as the least likely to receive care in Meru County, this study introduces a novel mixed-methods approach for engaging with members of this left-behind group to rapidly identify barriers and scalable solutions. We used innovative methods to complete interviews and qualitative analysis in under two weeks, followed by a rapid survey to rank the potential solutions that emerged from this work with a representative sample of younger adults who had not been able to access care. Finally, a multistakeholder workshop with strong local and lay representation identified the top-ranked solutions that would be feasible to introduce and test within the ongoing screening programme. In addition to local evidence for action, this study presents an approach that any community-based programme could use to generate robust, non-tokenistic insights from affected communities within a matter of weeks, minimising the research time requirement and number of senior researchers required whilst maintaining rigorous scientific standards.
Implications of all the available evidence Equitably advancing UHC is predicated on identifying and overcoming unique barriers to care, however existing efforts rarely involve consultation or co-creation with affected communities. Building on existing rapid qualitative and mixed-methods methods, we have developed a cutting-edge approach to identify barriers, prioritise solutions, and identify service modifications that are feasible to introduce. We have applied this approach in Meru County, where younger adults – who were the least likely to access care – suggested a bundle of interventions centring on improving the provision of information and SMS reminders. Our research group will use an embedded RCT to implement and test this bundle, in the context of an equity-focused continuous improvement model that we are also implementing in Botswana, India and Nepal to incrementally improve access for all, with a focus on left-behind groups.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (using the UKs Official Development Assistance (ODA) Funding) and Wellcome [215633/Z/19/Z] under the NIHR-Wellcome Partnership for Global Health Research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Wellcome, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was granted ethical approval by the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) scientific and ethics review unit, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine research ethics committee.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
