Project description:Tracheostomy is a lifesaving, essential procedure performed for airway obstruction in the case of head and neck cancers, prolonged ventilator use, and for long-term pulmonary care. While successful quality improvement interventions in high-income countries such as through the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative significantly reduced length of hospital stay and decreased levels of anxiety among patients, limited literature exists regarding tracheostomy care and practices in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), where most of the world resides. Given limited literature, this scoping review aims to summarize published tracheostomy studies in LMICs and highlight areas in need of quality improvement and clinical research efforts. Based on the PRISMA guidelines, a scoping review of the literature was performed through MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase using terms related to tracheostomy, educational and quality improvement interventions, and LMICs. Publications from 2000-2022 in English were included. Eighteen publications representing 10 countries were included in the final analysis. Seven studies described baseline needs assessments, 3 development of training programs for caregivers, 6 trialed home-based or hospital-based interventions, and finally 2 articles discussed development of standardized protocols. Overall, studies highlighted the unique challenges to tracheostomy care in LMICs including language, literacy barriers, resource availability (running water and electricity in patient homes), and health system access (financial costs of travel and follow-up). There is currently limited published literature on tracheostomy quality improvement and care in LMICs. Opportunities to improve quality of care include increased efforts to measure complications and outcomes, implementing evidence-based interventions tailored to LMIC settings, and using an implementation science framework to study tracheostomy care in LMICs.
Project description:BackgroundAccess to timely and quality surgical care is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Telemedicine, defined as the remote provision of health care using information, communication and telecommunication platforms have the potential to address some of the barriers to surgical care. However, synthesis of evidence on telemedicine use in surgical care in LMICs is lacking.AimTo describe the current state of evidence on the use and distribution of telemedicine for surgical care in LMICs.MethodsThis was a scoping review of published and relevant grey literature on telemedicine use for surgical care in LMICs, following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guideline. PubMed-Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and African Journals Online databases were searched using a comprehensive search strategy from 1 January 2010 to 28 February 2021.ResultsA total of 178 articles from 53 (38.7%) LMICs across 11 surgical specialties were included. The number of published articles increased from 2 in 2010 to 44 in 2020. The highest number of studies was from the World Health Organization Western Pacific region (n = 73; 41.0%) and of these, most were from China (n = 69; 94.5%). The most common telemedicine platforms used were telephone call (n = 71, 39.9%), video chat (n = 42, 23.6%) and WhatsApp/WeChat (n = 31, 17.4%). Telemedicine was mostly used for post-operative follow-up (n = 71, 39.9%), patient education (n = 32, 18.0%), provider training (n = 28, 15.7%) and provider-provider consultation (n = 16, 9.0%). Less than a third (n = 51, 29.1%) of the studies used a randomised controlled trial design, and only 23 (12.9%) reported effects on clinical outcomes.ConclusionTelemedicine use for surgical care is emerging in LMICs, especially for post-operative visits. Basic platforms such as telephone calls and 2-way texting were successfully used for post-operative follow-up and education. In addition, file sharing and video chatting options were added when a physical assessment was required. Telephone calls and 2-way texting platforms should be leveraged to reduce loss to follow-up of surgical patients in LMICs and their use for pre-operative visits should be further explored. Despite these telemedicine potentials, there remains an uneven adoption across several LMICs. Also, up to two-thirds of the studies were of low-to-moderate quality with only a few focusing on clinical effectiveness. There is a need to further adopt, develop, and validate telemedicine use for surgical care in LMICs, particularly its impact on clinical outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundOver 50% of annual deaths in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) could be averted through access to high-quality emergency care.ObjectivesWe performed a scoping review of the literature that described at least one measure of emergency care access in LMICs in order to understand relevant barriers to emergency care systems.Eligibility criteriaEnglish language studies published between 1 January 1990 and 30 December 2020, with one or more discrete measure(s) of access to emergency health services in LMICs described.Source of evidencePubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the grey literature.Charting methodsA structured data extraction tool was used to identify and classify the number of 'unique' measures, and the number of times each unique measure was studied in the literature ('total' measures). Measures of access were categorised by access type, defined by Thomas and Penchansky, with further categorisation according to the 'Three Delay' model of seeking, reaching and receiving care, and the WHO's Emergency Care Systems Framework (ECSF).ResultsA total of 3103 articles were screened. 75 met full study inclusion. Articles were uniformly descriptive (n=75, 100%). 137 discrete measures of access were reported. Unique measures of accommodation (n=42, 30.7%) and availability (n=40, 29.2%) were most common. Measures of seeking, reaching and receiving care were 22 (16.0%), 46 (33.6%) and 69 (50.4%), respectively. According to the ECSF slightly more measures focused on prehospital care-inclusive of care at the scene and through transport to a facility (n=76, 55.4%) as compared with facility-based care (n=57, 41.6%).ConclusionsNumerous measures of emergency care access are described in the literature, but many measures are overaddressed. Development of a core set of access measures with associated minimum standards are necessary to aid in ensuring universal access to high-quality emergency care in all settings.
Project description:BackgroundThe coordination of cancer care among multiple providers is vital to improve care quality and ensure desirable health outcomes across the cancer continuum, yet evidence is scarce of this being optimally achieved in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).ObjectiveThrough this scoping review, our objective was to understand the scope of cancer care coordination interventions and services employed in LMICs, in order to synthesise the existing evidence and identify key models and their elements used to manage and/or improve cancer care coordination in these settings.MethodsA detailed search strategy was conducted, aligned with the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Articles were examined for evidence of coordination interventions used in cancer care in LMICs. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension Guidelines for Scoping Reviews, which included a checklist and explanation. The PRISMA flow diagram was utilised to report the screening of results. Data were extracted, categorised and coded to allow for a thematic analysis of the results.ResultsFourteen studies reported on coordination interventions in cancer care in LMICs. All studies reported a positive impact of cancer coordination interventions on the primary outcome measured. Most studies reported on a patient navigation model at different points along the cancer care continuum.ConclusionsAn evidence-based and culturally sensitive plan of care that aims to promote coordinated and efficient multidisciplinary care for patients with suspicion or diagnosis of cancer in LMICs is feasible and might improve the quality of care and efficiency.
Project description:BACKGROUNDNinety-eight percent of children needing palliative care live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and almost half of them live in Africa. In contrast to the abundance of data on populations in high income countries, the current data on populations in LMICs is woefully inadequate. This study aims to identify and summarize the published literature on the need, accessibility, quality, and models for palliative care for children in LMICs.METHODSA scoping review was performed following the method of Arksey and O'Malley. Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar using the main keywords, 'children AND palliative care OR terminal care OR hospice OR end of life AND developing countries OR LMICs.' Additional publications were obtained by handsearching. Papers were only included if they reported on the need, accessibility, quality, and models for palliative care for children in LMICs.RESULTSFifteen papers met the inclusion criteria for review. Of these, 10 assessed need, seven examined availability and/or accessibility, one assessed quality, and one examined the models. We found an urgent need for palliative care, particularly in the training for health workers and improving poor availability and/or accessibility to palliative care in terms of factors such as medication and bereavement support. The best practice models demonstrated feasibility and sustainability through cooperation with governments and community organizations. The quality of pain management and emotional support was lower in LMICs compared to HICs.CONCLUSIONAlthough we found limited evidence in this review, we identified common challenges such as the need for further training for health workers and greater availability of opioid analgesics. While efforts to change the current systems and laws applying to children in LMICs are important, we should also tackle underlying factors including the need to raise awareness about palliative care in public health and improve the accuracy of data collection.
Project description:BackgroundHealth care organizations globally have seen a significant increase in the frequency of cyberattacks in recent years. Cyberattacks cause massive disruptions to health service delivery and directly impact patient safety through disruption and treatment delays. Given the increasing number of cyberattacks in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a need to explore the interventions put in place to plan for cyberattacks and develop cyber resilience.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe cybersecurity interventions, defined as any intervention to improve cybersecurity in a health care organization, including but not limited to organizational strategy(ies); policy(ies); protocol(s), incident plan(s), or assessment process(es); framework(s) or guidelines; and emergency planning, implemented in LMICs to date and to evaluate their impact on the likelihood and impact of attacks. The secondary objective was to describe the main barriers and facilitators for the implementation of such interventions, where reported.MethodsA systematic search of the literature published between January 2017 and July 2024 was performed on Ovid Medline, Embase, Global Health, and Scopus using a combination of controlled terms and free text. A search of the gray literature within the same time parameters was undertaken on the websites of relevant stakeholder organizations to identify possible additional studies that met the inclusion criteria. Findings from included papers were mapped against the dimensions of the Essentials of Cybersecurity in Health Care Organizations (ECHO) framework and presented as a narrative synthesis.ResultsWe included 20 studies in this review. The sample size of the majority of studies (13/20, 65%) was 1 facility to 5 facilities, and the studies were conducted in 14 countries. Studies were categorized into the thematic dimensions of the ECHO framework, including context; governance; organizational strategy; risk management; awareness, education, and training; and technical capabilities. Few studies (6/20, 30%) discussed cybersecurity intervention(s) as the primary focus of the paper; therefore, information on intervention(s) implemented had to be deduced. There was no attempt to report on the impact and outcomes in all papers except one. Facilitators and barriers identified were grouped and presented across national or regional, organizational, and individual staff levels.ConclusionsThis scoping review's findings highlight the limited body of research published on cybersecurity interventions implemented in health care organizations in LMICs and large heterogeneity across existing studies in interventions, research objectives, methods, and outcome measures used. Although complex and challenging, future research should specifically focus on the evaluation of cybersecurity interventions and their impact in order to build a robust evidence base to inform evidence-based policy and practice.
Project description:Objective. The purpose of this study was to explore the research on the delivery and evaluation of pediatric health services by non-governmental organizations in low-and middle-income countries to better understand how they contribute to positive and sustainable health outcomes. Methods. A scoping review was completed using a 2-step study selection procedure. Results. Of the 5742 studies, 17 met criteria, including quantitative and mixed method designs, representing 10 different non-governmental organizations with programs in 33 low-and middle-income countries. Health outcomes were reported 89 times across the studies. A total of 56 different outcomes were identified in total, of which 24 were positive, 27 were negative, and 5 were unchanged. Conclusions. Widespread variation between non-governmental organizations exist, however, comprehensive pediatric health outcome evaluation is growing. Further emphasis should be given to adolescent specific research and robust measurement of quality of life.
Project description:ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to contribute a descriptive analysis of the craniomaxillofacial trauma (CMF trauma) literature in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to identify knowledge gaps, direct future research, and inform policy.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Review, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from January 1, 2012 to December 10, 2023.Review methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guided reporting, and the PRISMA flowchart documented database searches. Specific, predefined search terms and inclusion criteria were used for screening, and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used for quality assessment. The search yielded 54 articles, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. Key findings were summarized and divided into 7 categories.ResultsThere were 10,420 patients (7739 [74.3%] male, 2681 [25.7%] female) with a male-to-female ratio of 2.9:1. The mean peak age of incidence of CMF trauma was 30.8 years, ranging from 20 to 40 years. Road traffic accidents were the leading cause (60.4%), followed by assault (27.2%) and falls (12.2%). The most common injuries were soft tissue injury (31.7%), isolated mandibular fracture (22.8%), and isolated middle-third of mandible fracture (18.1%). The most common treatments were closed reduction and immobilization (29.5%), conservative management (27.6%), and open reduction and internal fixation (19.6%). Most patients (77.8%) experienced a treatment delay due to a lack of fixation materials (54.8%) or surgeon unavailability (35.7%).ConclusionCMF trauma remains a significant cause of global morbidity, yet there remains a lack of high-quality, CMF trauma-specific data in LMICs. Country-specific investigations are required to enhance knowledge and inform novel interventions. Implementing policy change must be community-specific and account for unique cultural barriers, attitudes, and behaviors to maximize patient care outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the cost of delivering breast cancer (BC) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to guide effective care delivery strategies. This scoping review summarizes the scope of literature on the costs of BC care in LMICs and characterizes the methodological approaches of these economic evaluations.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed in five databases and gray literature up to March 2020. Studies were screened to identify original articles that included a cost outcome for BC diagnosis or treatment in an LMIC. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for eligibility. Data related to study characteristics and methodology were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond et al. checklist.ResultsNinety-one articles across 38 countries were included. The majority (73%) of studies were published between 2013 and 2020. Low-income countries (2%) and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (9%) were grossly underrepresented. The majority of studies (60%) used a health care system perspective. Time horizon was not reported in 30 studies (33%). Of the 33 studies that estimated the cost of multiple steps in the BC care pathway, the majority (73%) were of high quality, but studies varied in their inclusion of nonmedical direct and indirect costs.ConclusionThere has been substantial growth in the number of BC economic evaluations in LMICs in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa. BC economic evaluations should be prioritized in these countries. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses.Implications for practiceThere has been substantial growth in the number of breast cancer economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries. Breast cancer economic evaluations should be prioritized in low-income countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers should strive to use and report a costing perspective and time horizon that captures all costs relevant to the study objective, including those such as direct nonmedical and indirect costs. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations in LMICs may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses in order to guide breast cancer control strategies.