Francis Xavier Kasujja

Background: Climate change is increasingly recognised as a major threat to health in Uganda, yet gaps in implementation, financing and coordination may limit the country’s climate–health response. This study aimed to understand how national-level interest-holders perceive the availability, adequacy and functioning of policy, governance and financing mechanisms for integrating health into climate action. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with nine key interest-holders purposively selected from ministries, departments and agencies responsible for health, climate change, planning and finance and from academic institutions engaged in climate and health programming and research. A total of 14 individuals were approached and 9 agreed to participate. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Saturation was assessed iteratively by monitoring whether successive interviews yielded new codes or substantively new themes. Results: Interest-holders described a relatively strong climate policy and legal framework that increasingly recognises health but does not fully operationalise climate–health action. Implementation was reported to be constrained by underfunding, fragmented and siloed governance and weak subnational capacity. Climate-related hazards were reported to be damaging health facilities, disrupting access to care and increasing climate-sensitive disease burdens, while local innovations and emerging climate-smart practices remain too limited to guide implementation at scale. Major gaps in evidence for effective health-focused adaptation and mitigation and in climate–health training and public education were identified as limiting the ability of decision-makers, health workers and communities to anticipate and respond to climate risks. Conclusions: Uganda’s relatively robust climate policy framework is undermined by incomplete implementation, driven by constrained financing, limited evaluation and fragmented delivery systems. Strengthening climate-resilient health systems will require embedding climate–health policies into routine health planning and financing, empowering local action using climate information and investing in research, training and public education. Cross-sectoral actions grounded in whole-government and multisectoral governance approaches are also essential to address climate–health challenges.

Introduction: Whereas fasting plasma glucose (FPG) is cheaper, the glycated haemoglobin (HBA1c) test, which does not require fasting, is more convenient for diabetes screening and could be available to patients throughout the day. In this study, we compared the cost effectiveness of the HBA1c test to that of the FPG test when used for point-of-care (POC) screening of type 2 diabetes in a low-resource setting in Uganda. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was conducted for a single screening cycle of 1659 adults aged 35–70 years receiving care at the outpatient department of a general hospital. We constructed a decision analysis model using TreeAge Pro Healthcare v2023, with the cost estimated using an ingredient approach and the effectiveness measured based on the proportion of patients correctly diagnosed with diabetes. Results: The unit cost was US$ 6.48 for the HBA1c test and US$ 8.39 for the FPG test. However, a marginally greater percentage of patients were correctly diagnosed according to the FPG test (96.3%) than the HBA1c test (96.2%). The cost-effectiveness ratio was $6.74 for the HBA1c test and $8.39 for the FPG test. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was $989.06 per additional patient correctly diagnosed with diabetes. Conclusion: HBA1c POC testing could be a more cost-effective alternative to the FPG POC test for the screening of diabetes in under-served outpatient populations in Uganda and similar contexts.

Background The number of people living with multiple chronic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, but health facilities are unable to meet demand. To improve health system capacity and access to care, community models of HIV care have been trialled in countries such as Tanzania and Uganda. However, no evidence exists to inform policymakers on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of integrated community-based models of care for HIV and chronic non-communicable conditions. This protocol outlines a within-trial economic evaluation to address this gap. Methods & analysis We will estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of integrated community-based care for HIV, hypertension and diabetes compared with facility-based care within the INTE-COMM pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in Tanzania and Uganda. Analyses will adopt a 52-week time horizon, the duration of trial follow-up. The full enrolled trial sample will be analysed from a societal perspective, comprising provider and patient perspectives. Economic costs will be estimated, which includes valuing inputs such as donated goods or time foregone by participants because of receiving care. For provider costs, participant case report forms will inform resource use along with data from facilities and community sites. Resources will be valued using project accounts, facility spending, and locally available cost data. Patient costs will be estimated based on a care-seeking and cost questionnaire administered to participants. Estimated costs will be analysed with co-primary trial outcomes on plasma viral load suppression, glycaemia and blood pressure control to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We will also calculate ICERs for secondary trial outcomes related to health-related quality of life and wellbeing. Cost drivers and outcomes will be varied within confidence bounds in a two-way sensitivity analysis. We will investigate equity impact by estimating the mean difference in outcomes between integrated community-based and facility-based care across household socio-economic quintiles and by measuring whether participants incurred catastrophic health expenditures. Trial registration number The ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN15319595. Registered on 07 June 2022: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15319595

Background The number of people living with multiple chronic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, but health facilities are unable to meet demand. To improve health system capacity and access to care, community models of HIV care have been trialled in countries such as Tanzania and Uganda. However, no evidence exists to inform policymakers on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of integrated community-based models of care for HIV and chronic non-communicable conditions. This protocol outlines a within-trial economic evaluation to address this gap. Methods & analysis We will estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of integrated community-based care for HIV, hypertension and diabetes compared with facility-based care within the INTE-COMM pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in Tanzania and Uganda. Analyses will adopt a 52-week time horizon, the duration of trial follow-up. The full enrolled trial sample will be analysed from a societal perspective, comprising provider and patient perspectives. Economic costs will be estimated, which includes valuing inputs such as donated goods or time foregone by participants because of receiving care. For provider costs, participant case report forms will inform resource use along with data from facilities and community sites. Resources will be valued using project accounts, facility spending, and locally available cost data. Patient costs will be estimated based on a care-seeking and cost questionnaire administered to participants. Estimated costs will be analysed with co-primary trial outcomes on plasma viral load suppression, glycaemia and blood pressure control to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We will also calculate ICERs for secondary trial outcomes related to health-related quality of life and wellbeing. Cost drivers and outcomes will be varied within confidence bounds in a two-way sensitivity analysis. We will investigate equity impact by estimating the mean difference in outcomes between integrated community-based and facility-based care across household socio-economic quintiles and by measuring whether participants incurred catastrophic health expenditures. Trial registration number The ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN15319595. Registered on 07 June 2022: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15319595

Background In response to the growing burden of chronic diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, where innovative and cost-effective health solutions are imperative, this study outlines a protocol for a cluster-randomized trial that compares integrated community-based care with integrated facility-based care to improve access and outcomes for patients with HIV, diabetes, or hypertension. Methods & analysis We will conduct a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial comparing integrated community care with integrated facility care in Tanzania and Uganda. Patients living with HIV, diabetes, or hypertension, stable on treatment in health facilities, will be organised into groups of approximately 8–14 persons and randomly assigned to integrated community or facility-based care. The study has two co-primary endpoints: a composite endpoint of glycemia and blood pressure control among individuals with diabetes and/or hypertension and suppression of plasma viral load among people living with HIV. Participants will receive their drugs, adherence support, and monitoring at a community venue in the integrated community arm. Those randomised to the control arm will receive integrated facility-based care. All study participants will be followed up for 12 months. A sample size of 116 groups will provide over 80% power to detect an absolute difference in blood pressure and blood glucose control of 10% at the 5% two-sided significance level. For HIV viral suppression, the trial will have over 80% power to show non-inferiority with a delta margin = 8.5%, 7.5%, and 5.5% assuming viral suppression is 85%, 90% and 95% respectively. To allow for loss to follow-up, our target for enrolment is 124 groups, each comprising an average of 14 participants. An economic evaluation within the trial will be conducted to estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness of integrated community care compared with integrated facility care. This will be complemented by a built-in social science process evaluation. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committees of the University College London (UCL), the National Institute of Medical Research (Tanzania), and the Uganda Virus Research Institute (Uganda). The findings will be disseminated through journal publications and meetings with key stakeholders. Trial registration number ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN15319595, registration date: 07 June 2022.

Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa continues to experience a syndemic of HIV and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Vertical (stand-alone) HIV programming has provided high-quality care in the region, with almost 80% of people living with HIV in regular care and 90% virally suppressed. While integrated health education and concurrent management of HIV, hypertension and diabetes are being scaled up in clinics, innovative, more efficient and cost-effective interventions that include decentralisation into the community are required to respond to the increased burden of comorbid HIV/NCD disease. Methods and analysis This protocol describes procedures for a process evaluation running concurrently with a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial (INTE-COMM) in Tanzania and Uganda that will compare community-based integrated care (HIV, diabetes and hypertension) with standard facility-based integrated care. The INTE-COMM intervention will manage multiple conditions (HIV, hypertension and diabetes) in the community via health monitoring and adherence/lifestyle advice (medicine, diet and exercise) provided by community nurses and trained lay workers, as well as the devolvement of NCD drug dispensing to the community level. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, the process evaluation will use qualitative methods to investigate sociostructural factors shaping care delivery and outcomes in up to 10 standard care facilities and/or intervention community sites with linked healthcare facilities. Multistakeholder interviews (patients, community health workers and volunteers, healthcare providers, policymakers, clinical researchers and international and non-governmental organisations), focus group discussions (community leaders and members) and non-participant observations (community meetings and drug dispensing) will explore implementation from diverse perspectives at three timepoints in the trial implementation. Iterative sampling and analysis, moving between data collection points and data analysis to test emerging theories, will continue until saturation is reached. This process of analytic reflexivity and triangulation across methods and sources will provide findings to explain the main trial findings and offer clear directions for future efforts to sustain and scale up community-integrated care for HIV, diabetes and hypertension. Ethics and dissemination The protocol has been approved by the University College of London (UK), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (UK), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology and the Uganda Virus Research Institute Research and Ethics Committee (Uganda) and the Medical Research Coordinating Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research (Tanzania). The University College of London is the trial sponsor. Dissemination of findings will be done through journal publications and stakeholder meetings (with study participants, healthcare providers, policymakers and other stakeholders), local and international conferences, policy briefs, peer-reviewed journal articles and publications. Trial registration number ISRCTN15319595.

Background: Most breast cancer (BC) patients in Uganda are diagnosed with advanced‐stage disease and experience poor outcomes. This study examined the diagnostic and pre‐treatment intervals and factors associated with these intervals among BC patients attending care at the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI).Methods: This was a cross‐sectional, facility‐based study. Data were collected using structured questionnaire administered by trained research assistants and analyzed using STATA version 14.0. Modified Poisson regressions models were used to determine the strength of associations between independent variables and diagnostic and pre‐treatment intervals.Results: The mean age (±SD) of the 401 participants was 47.1 ± 11.7 years. Four in 10 participants had stage III (41.9%; n = 168) and over a third (34.7%; n = 140) stage IV cancers. The median interval from first consultation to diagnosis, i.e. diagnostic interval (DI) was 5.6 months (IQR: 1.5–17.0), while the median interval from histological diagnosis to start of chemotherapy, i.e. pre‐treatment interval (PTI) was 1.7 months (IQR: 0.7–4.5). Majority (85%, n = 341) of participants were diagnosed at ≥3 months from first consultation with clinicians. Participants with tertiary education and those who lived within 100–199 km from the UCI were about four times and twice more likely to be diagnosed early (DI n = 176) of participants started chemotherapy within 1 month of cancer diagnosis. Patients who lived more than 300 km from the UCI were less likely to start chemotherapy within 1 month of histology diagnosis of cancer. [Correction added on October 17, 2023 after first online publication. The term ‘, i.e.‘ has been included in the results section in this version.]Conclusion: Majority of breast cancer patients are diagnosed late and in advanced stages. There is need to promote all efforts toward timely diagnosis when cancers are still in early stages by identifying factors responsible for prolonged diagnostic intervals among breast cancer patients.

Pregnant young women who exchange sex for money or commodities are at elevated biological and social risk for HIV acquisition. PrEP serves as an effective means of HIV prevention, including during pregnancy. This study aimed to explore attitudes, experiences and challenges with PrEP to understand what motivates or limits PrEP uptake and adherence specifically during pregnancy among this population of young women. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 participants, recruited from the Prevention on PrEP (POPPi) study in the Good Health for Women Project clinic in Kampala, Uganda. POPPi’s inclusion criteria comprised of HIV-uninfected women, aged 15–24, who exchange sex for money or commodities. Interviews focused on experience with PrEP and pregnancy. Data were analyzed utilizing a framework analysis approach. Key themes were comprised of participant barriers to and facilitators of PrEP uptake and adherence. Reasons for PrEP initiation included desire for autonomy and agency, mistrust of partners, and social support. Participants expressed challenges with initiating or sustaining their use of PrEP, including pregnancy, PrEP access and perceived or felt stigma. During pregnancy, participants’ primary motivators for altering PrEP use were either understanding of PrEP safety for their baby or changes in perceptions of their HIV risk. Many of these factors were similar across participants who had experience with pregnancy and those who did not. This study highlights the importance of addressing barriers to and facilitators of PrEP uptake and persistence, especially during pregnancy where risk is elevated, with a multi-level approach. Community-oriented education, stigma reduction activities alongside access to PrEP, can serve as means for adherence. The development of robust PrEP support services and guidelines regarding PrEP use during pregnancy among high-risk women, and strategies for their implementation, are of utmost importance for the control of HIV in key populations and the elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

In 2020–2021 the COVID-19 pandemic led to multiple and diverse global public health response strategies globally and in Uganda to slow the spread of the virus by promoting wearing face coverings in public, frequent hand washing, physical distancing, restricting travel, and imposing home lockdowns. We conducted 146 interviews over four rounds of phone-follow up calls over 15 months with 125 young female sex workers coinciding in time with four different government-imposed lockdown periods in Kampala, Uganda, to assess the impact of these measures on young sex workers, their families and their communities as well as to gauge their resilience. Our findings revealed how COVID-19 fears and public health restrictions over time pushed an already marginalized population to the brink and how that pressure drove some participants into a new way of life.

To understand the utility of glycated haemoglobin (HBA_1C) in screening for diabetes and Abnormal Glucose Regulation (AGR) in primary care, we compared its performance to that of the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test. This was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study conducted in eastern Uganda. Patients eligible for inclusion were consecutive adults, 30–75 years, receiving care at the outpatient department of a general hospital in eastern Uganda. We determined the sensitivity, specificity and optimum cut-off points for HBA_1C and FPG tests using the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as a clinical reference standard. A total of 1659 participants underwent FPG testing of whom 310 were also HBA_1C and OGTT tested. A total of 113 tested positive for diabetes and 168 for AGR on the OGTT. At recommended cut-off points for diabetes, the HBA_1C and FPG tests had comparable sensitivity [69.8% (95% CI 46.3–86.1) versus 62.6% (95% CI 41.5–79.8), respectively] and specificity [98.6% (95% CI 95.4–99.6) versus 99.4% (95% CI 98.9–99.7), respectively]. Similarly, the sensitivity of HBA_1C and the FPG tests for Abnormal Glucose Regulation (AGR) at ADA cut-offs were comparable [58.9% (95% CI 46.7–70.2) vs 47.7% (95% CI 37.3–58.4), respectively]; however, the HBA_1C test had lower specificity [70.7% (95% CI 65.1–75.8)] than the FPG test [93.5% (95% CI 88.6–96.4)]. At the optimum cut-offs points for diabetes [45.0 mmol/mol (6.3%) for HBA_1C and 6.4 mmol/L (115.2 mg/dl) for FPG], HBA_1C and FPG sensitivity [71.2% (95% CI 46.9–87.8) versus 72.7% (95% CI 49.5–87.8), respectively] and specificity [95.1% (95% CI91.8 97.2) versus 98.7% (95% CI 98.0 99.2), respectively] were comparable. Similarly, at the optimum cut-off points for AGR [42.0 mmol/mol (6.0%) for the HBA_1C and 5.5 mmol/l (99.0 mg/dl) for the FPG test], HBA_1C and FPG sensitivity [42.3% (95% CI 31.8–53.6) and 53.2 (95% CI 43.1–63.1), respectively] and specificity [89.1% (95% CI 84.1 92.7) and 92.7% (95% CI 91.0 94.1), respectively] were comparable. HBA_1C is a viable alternative diabetes screening and confirmatory test to the FPG test; however, the utility of both tests in screening for prediabetes in this outpatient population is limited.