Kennedy Bashan Nkhoma1, Bassey Ebenso2, David Akeju3, Samuel Adejoh3, Michael Bennett4, Mike Chirenje5, Adlight Dandadzi5, Elizabeth Nabirye6, Elizabeth Namukwaya6, Eve Namisango7, Kehinde Okunade8, Omolola Salako9, Richard Harding10, Matthew J Allsop4. 1. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK. kennedy.nkhoma@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Nuffield Centre for International Health and Development, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. Department of Sociology, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria. 4. Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 5. Clinical Trials Research Centre, College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 7. African Palliative Care Association, Kampala, Uganda. 8. College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria. 10. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing Midwifery and Palliative Care, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Coverage of palliative care in low and middle-income countries is very limited, and global projections suggest large increases in need. Novel approaches are needed to achieve the palliative care goals of Universal Health Coverage. This study aimed to identify stakeholders' data and information needs and the role of digital technologies to improve access to and delivery of palliative care for people with advanced cancer in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. METHODS: We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional qualitative study in sub-Saharan Africa. In-depth qualitative stakeholder interviews were conducted with N = 195 participants across Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe (advanced cancer patients n = 62, informal caregivers n = 48, health care professionals n = 59, policymakers n = 26). Verbatim transcripts were subjected to deductive and inductive framework analysis to identify stakeholders needs and their preferences for digital technology in supporting the capture, transfer and use of patient-level data to improve delivery of palliative care. RESULTS: Our coding framework identified four main themes: i) acceptability of digital technology; ii) current context of technology use; iii) current vision for digital technology to support health and palliative care, and; iv) digital technologies for the generation, reporting and receipt of data. Digital heath is an acceptable approach, stakeholders support the use of secure data systems, and patients welcome improved communication with providers. There are varying preferences for how and when digital technologies should be utilised as part of palliative cancer care provision, including for increasing timely patient access to trained palliative care providers and the triaging of contact from patients. CONCLUSION: We identified design and practical challenges to optimise potential for success in developing digital health approaches to improve access to and enhance the delivery of palliative cancer care in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Synthesis of findings identified 15 requirements to guide the development of digital health approaches that can support the attainment of global health palliative care policy goals.
INTRODUCTION: Coverage of palliative care in low and middle-income countries is very limited, and global projections suggest large increases in need. Novel approaches are needed to achieve the palliative care goals of Universal Health Coverage. This study aimed to identify stakeholders' data and information needs and the role of digital technologies to improve access to and delivery of palliative care for people with advanced cancer in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. METHODS: We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional qualitative study in sub-Saharan Africa. In-depth qualitative stakeholder interviews were conducted with N = 195 participants across Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe (advanced cancerpatients n = 62, informal caregivers n = 48, health care professionals n = 59, policymakers n = 26). Verbatim transcripts were subjected to deductive and inductive framework analysis to identify stakeholders needs and their preferences for digital technology in supporting the capture, transfer and use of patient-level data to improve delivery of palliative care. RESULTS: Our coding framework identified four main themes: i) acceptability of digital technology; ii) current context of technology use; iii) current vision for digital technology to support health and palliative care, and; iv) digital technologies for the generation, reporting and receipt of data. Digital heath is an acceptable approach, stakeholders support the use of secure data systems, and patients welcome improved communication with providers. There are varying preferences for how and when digital technologies should be utilised as part of palliative cancer care provision, including for increasing timely patient access to trained palliative care providers and the triaging of contact from patients. CONCLUSION: We identified design and practical challenges to optimise potential for success in developing digital health approaches to improve access to and enhance the delivery of palliative cancer care in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Synthesis of findings identified 15 requirements to guide the development of digital health approaches that can support the attainment of global health palliative care policy goals.
Authors: Richard A Powell; Faith N Mwangi-Powell; Lukas Radbruch; Gavin Yamey; Eric L Krakauer; Dingle Spence; Zipporah Ali; Sharon Baxter; Liliana De Lima; Ali Xhixha; M R Rajagopal; Felicia Knaul Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: R A Powell; Z Ali; E Luyirika; R Harding; L Radbruch; F N Mwangi-Powell Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Felicia Marie Knaul; Paul E Farmer; Eric L Krakauer; Liliana De Lima; Afsan Bhadelia; Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete; Héctor Arreola-Ornelas; Octavio Gómez-Dantés; Natalia M Rodriguez; George A O Alleyne; Stephen R Connor; David J Hunter; Diederik Lohman; Lukas Radbruch; María Del Rocío Sáenz Madrigal; Rifat Atun; Kathleen M Foley; Julio Frenk; Dean T Jamison; M R Rajagopal Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Katherine E Sleeman; Maja de Brito; Simon Etkind; Kennedy Nkhoma; Ping Guo; Irene J Higginson; Barbara Gomes; Richard Harding Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Amara Callistus Nwosu; Tamsin McGlinchey; Justin Sanders; Sarah Stanley; Jennifer Palfrey; Patrick Lubbers; Laura Chapman; Anne Finucane; Stephen Mason Journal: JMIR Aging Date: 2022-03-21