Background The public sector healthcare system in Saudi Arabia, essentially financed by oil revenues and ‘free at the point of delivery’, is coming under increasing strain due to escalating expenditure and an increasingly volatile oil market and is likely to be unsustainable in the medium to long term. Objectives This study examines how satisfied the Saudi people are with their public sector healthcare services and assesses their willingness to contribute to financing the system through a national health insurance scheme. The study also examines public preferences and expectations of a future national health insurance system. Methods A total of 36 heads of households participated in face-to-face audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. The participants were purposefully selected based on different socio-economic and socio-demographic factors from urban and rural areas to represent the geographical diversity that would presumably influence individual views, expectations, preferences and healthcare experiences. Results The evidence showed some dissatisfaction with the provision and quality of current public sector healthcare services, including the availability of appointments, waiting times and the availability of drugs. The households indicated a willingness to contribute to a national insurance scheme, conditional upon improvements in the quality of public sector healthcare services. The results also revealed a variety of preferences and expectations regarding the proposed national health insurance scheme. Conclusions Quality improvement is a key factor that could motivate the Saudi people to contribute to financing the healthcare system. A new authority, consisting of a partnership between the public and private sectors under government supervision, could represent an acceptable option for addressing the variation in public preferences.

The current review aims to investigate the barriers to and facilitators of the adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. English language studies published between January 2010 and May 2019 were searched on PubMed, Embase, and EBSCO. The barriers were categorized as clinician-related factors, such as lack of awareness of familiarity with the CPGs, and external factors, such as patients, guidelines, and environmental factors. The search identified 295 titles, out of which 15 were included. Environmental factors, specifically lack of time, resources, incentives, availability, and costs of treatment or diagnostic tests, training, and dissemination plans were the most commonly identified barriers. The familiarity with or awareness of healthcare professionals about the guideline, guideline characteristics, lack of agreement with the guidelines and preference in clinical judgment, physician self-efficacy, and motivation were reported to a lesser extent. Few studies reported on the compliance of facilitators with the guidelines including disseminating and advertising guideline materials, education and training on the guidelines, regulatory and financial incentives, and support from institutions. The review highlights that the studies on barriers to and facilitators of compliance with CPGs in the MENA region are limited in number and quality.

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain.Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies.Results: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective.In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution.Conclusion: Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Background: The number of published economic evaluations of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries is notably scarce. Limited local evidence could have a major impact on the implementation of economic evaluation recommendations in the decision-making process in GCC countries. Little is known about the factors affecting researchers who seek to conduct economic evaluations. Therefore, we aimed to assess researcher barriers and facilitators in conducting such studies of GCC countries. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of health economic researchers working in GCC countries was conducted online between January and February 2020. The survey instrument collected researchers’ perceived barriers and facilitators and demographic information. For barriers, respondents rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. For facilitators, respondents rated the importance of each facilitator on a six-point scale ranging from “extremely important” to “not very important”. Then, participants were asked to select the three most important barriers and facilitators from the lists. The data collected were examined using descriptive analysis. Results: Fifty-one researchers completed the survey (37% response rate). The majority of participants (more than 80%) agreed that lack of quality of effectiveness data and restricted access to unit cost data are the main barriers to conducting economic research. Availability of relevant local data was reported as an important facilitator, followed by collaboration between health economic researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders. Conclusions: The results of this study provide an exploratory view of the issues faced by health economics researchers in GCC countries. Recommendations to GCC countries based on international experiences, such as to use real-world data in economic evaluation research, were provided.

Background: Most liquid medications are packaged with administration devices, which may be used inappropriately or inaccurately, and sometimes are not used at all. Because of the importance of their proper use for children's health, this study was designed to assess Saudi mothers' experiences with measuring cups, syringes, and droppers for oral liquid medications; to compare accuracy of dosing across these devices; and to determine the effects of mothers' education statuses and pharmacist counseling on dosing accuracy. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which mothers were observed as they used a set of commonly available dosing devices which are a dosing cup, syringe, and dropper. Interviews were conducted in the outpatient pharmacy waiting area in several tertiary hospitals and primary clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between March and April 2013. Saudi women who were mothers of children aged 12 years old or younger and who gave their consent were eligible. Caregivers other than mothers and subjects with vision problems or cognitive/physical disabilities were excluded. We gathered demographic information such as age, number of children, and education status. Subjects were asked if they had had counseling on how to use measuring devices and which device they preferred. Then, the mothers were required to demonstrate how to measure 5 mL of paracetamol (acetaminophen) syrup using a cup and a syringe and 1 mL of paracetamol syrup using a dropper. Dosing errors were evaluated visually as overdosing, underdosing, or no error (if the dose was accurate). The data were entered into Microsoft Excel and evaluated using Stata 11.1. Logistic regression was employed to determine relationships. Results: The results revealed that 58% of participants measured an accurate dose of paracetamol using the oral dosing syringe versus 50% of participants using the dropper and 51% using the dosing cup. In general, participants measured more than the intended dose with the dosing cup and less than the intended dose with the dropper. Furthermore, we found that dosing accuracy for each type of instrument was significantly influenced by the mothers' education status. Among the study participants, 77% had not had previous counseling on the use of liquid medication measuring devices. However, dosing errors were not affected by previous counseling. Conclusion: Among mothers using measuring devices, the most accurate doses were found to be measured with the use of the oral syringe, whereas the most errors were made with the use of the dropper. Moreover, education status had a significant effect on dosing errors. The use of a pictographic diagram could improve the mothers' dosing abilities and, thus, reduce dosing errors.

Aim: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have progressively become a popular tool for making optimal clinical decisions. The literature shows that the poor quality of CPGs can form a barrier against adhering to them, resulting in a suboptimal level of healthcare. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of CPGs in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument. Methods: The authors searched in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through the Ovid interface on May 25, 2019. Keywords relating to CPGs and MENA countries were combined using Boolean search operators. The search was not limited to specific diseases. The quality of guidelines was appraised by two reviewers independently using the AGREE II Instrument. Discrepancies within a group were resolved through the involvement of a principle investigator. Results: A total of 61 CPGs were appraised. These guidelines were mainly from Saudi Arabia, and the most covered disease topic was cancer. Among the six domains of the AGREE II Instrument, CPGs scored the highest on clarity of presentation (mean 82%), while the lowest score was granted to the rigor of development domain (mean 28%). This indicates substantial deficiencies in reporting the developmental processes of CPGs and the resources used for the synthesis of evidence. Conclusion: From this review, it was found that the number of retrieved guidelines published in the MENA region is limited considering the large geographical area of the MENA region. The main domains that have higher quality scores were clarity of presentation and scope and purpose, whereas domains with the lowest scores were rigor of development and applicability. The authors’ findings will help policymakers identify areas for improvement in CPGs, which can lead them to implement strategies such as the training of individuals and recruitment of international experts to ultimately develop high-quality CPGs.