Dataset Information

Measuring Global Inequity in Radiation Therapy: Resource Deficits in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Without Radiation Therapy Facilities.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although radiation therapy (RT) is an effective and inexpensive pillar of multidisciplinary cancer care, access to RT facilities remains highly inequitable globally. Numerous studies have documented this resource gap, yet many countries continue facing their raging cancer epidemics ill-equipped. In this study, we present an estimation of resource deficits in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without any RT facilities at all.

Methods and materials

This study builds on publicly available data on country classification, population, cancer incidence, and RT requirements provided by the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Leveraging these data, we developed a capacity-planning model to estimate the current deficit of fundamental RT resources for LMICs with more than 1 million inhabitants and no active RT facilities.

Results

There were 23 LMICs with a population of more than 1 million inhabitants and without any active RT facilities, 78% of which were located in sub-Saharan Africa. The aggregate population of these countries was 197.3 million people. The largest countries without RT facilities were Afghanistan and Malawi, with a population of 38.0 million and 18.6 million inhabitants, respectively. Estimated cancer incidence for all countries under study totaled at 134,783 new cases per year, 84,239 (62.5%) of which would have required RT. There was an aggregate deficit of 188 megavoltage machines and 85 brachytherapy afterloaders, along with simulation equipment and human capital in the magnitude of approximately 3363 trained radiation oncology staff.

Conclusions

Hundreds of thousands of patients with cancer in LMICs continue to live in countries without access to RT in their own country. This extreme form of global health inequity requires urgent and decisive action, the success of which depends on the integration of international and local efforts.

SUBMITTER: Christ SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10050474 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring Global Inequity in Radiation Therapy: Resource Deficits in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Without Radiation Therapy Facilities.

Christ Sebastian M SM Willmann Jonas J

Advances in radiation oncology 20230301 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>Although radiation therapy (RT) is an effective and inexpensive pillar of multidisciplinary cancer care, access to RT facilities remains highly inequitable globally. Numerous studies have documented this resource gap, yet many countries continue facing their raging cancer epidemics ill-equipped. In this study, we present an estimation of resource deficits in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without any RT facilities at all.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>This study builds o ...[more]

PMID: 37008253

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, transgender and other gender diverse (trans) people face pervasive stigma, which contributes to health inequities across multiple health outcomes. Stigma is a fundamental cause of health inequities because it simultaneously limits access to resources, contributes to systemic vulnerability and generates chronic stress. Anti-trans stigma occurs across multiple socioecological levels, resulting in multiple possible definitions and measurements of trans stigma. Understanding how trans stigma has been measured in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to health promotion efforts for trans communities. Accordingly, this scoping review will identify and examine how anti-trans stigma has been measured in existing LMIC-specific research to inform best practices for measurement of anti-trans stigma that includes consideration of local context.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a scoping review of anti-trans stigma in LMICs. We will search (from January 2001 to December 2021) PubMed, WHO Global Medicus and EBSCO. Study selection will conform to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Original studies in English, Spanish, Arabic or Russian will be included. Reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. Data analysis will involve quantitative and qualitative methods. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationAs a scoping review (no direct interaction with participants), this study is exempt from human subjects oversight. Understanding context-specific ways to measure anti-trans stigma is urgently needed to support trans health globally. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. Results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and likely in other media such as conferences, seminars and symposia. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/qcs2v.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is of insufficient quality in many low-income and middle-income countries. Some health facilities perform better than others despite operating in similar contexts, although the factors that characterise best performance are not well known. Existing best-performance analyses are concentrated in high-income countries and focus on hospitals. We used the positive deviance approach to identify the factors that differentiate best from worst primary care performance among health facilities across six low-resource health systems.MethodsThis positive deviance analysis used nationally representative samples of public and private health facilities from Service Provision Assessments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, Senegal, and Tanzania. Data were collected starting June 11, 2013, in Malawi and ending Feb 28, 2020, in Senegal. We assessed facility performance through completion of the Good Medical Practice Index (GMPI) of essential clinical actions (eg, taking a thorough history, conducting an adequate physical examination) according to clinical guidelines and measured with direct observations of care. We identified hospitals and clinics in the top decile of performance (defined as best performers) and conducted a quantitative, cross-national positive deviance analysis to compare them with facilities performing below the median (defined as worst performers) and identify facility-level factors that explain the gap between best and worst performance.FindingsWe identified 132 best-performing and 664 worst-performing hospitals, and 355 best-performing and 1778 worst-performing clinics based on clinical performance across countries. The mean GMPI score was 0·81 (SD 0·07) for the best-performing hospitals and 0·44 (0·09) for the worst-performing hospitals. Among clinics, mean GMPI scores were 0·75 (0·07) for the best performers and 0·34 (0·10) for the worst performers. High-quality governance, management, and community engagement were associated with best performance compared with worst performance. Private facilities out-performed government-owned hospitals and clinics.InterpretationOur findings suggest that best-performing health facilities are characterised by good management and leaders who can engage staff and community members. Governments should look to best performers to identify scalable practices and conditions for success that can improve primary care quality overall and decrease quality gaps between health facilities.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundAntenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at high risk of preterm birth is an effective intervention to reduce neonatal mortality among preterm babies delivered in hospital settings, but has not been widely used in low-middle resource settings. We sought to assess the rates of ACS use at all levels of health care in low and middle income countries (LMIC).MethodsWe assessed rates of ACS in 7 sites in 6 LMIC participating in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Global Network for Women and Children's Health Research Antenatal Corticosteroids Trial (ACT), a cluster-randomized trial to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of a multifaceted intervention designed to increase the use of ACS. We conducted this analysis using data from the control clusters, which did not receive any components of the intervention and intended to follow usual care. We included women who delivered an infant with a birth weight <5th percentile, a proxy for preterm birth, and were enrolled in the Maternal Newborn Health (MNH) Registry between October 2011 and March 2014 in all clusters. A survey of the site investigators regarding existing policies on ACS in health facilities and for health workers in the community was part of pre-trial activities.ResultsOverall, of 51,523 women delivered in control clusters across all sites, the percentage of <5th percentile babies ranged from 3.5 % in Kenya to 10.7 % in Pakistan. There was variation among the sites in the use of ACS at all hospitals and among those hospitals having cesarean section and neonatal care capabilities (bag and mask and oxygen or mechanical ventilation). Rates of ACS use for <5th percentile babies in all hospitals ranged from 3.8 % in the Kenya sites to 44.5 % in the Argentina site, and in hospitals with cesarean section and neonatal care capabilities from 0 % in Zambia to 43.5 % in Argentina. ACS were rarely used in clinic or home deliveries at any site. Guidelines for ACS use at all levels of the health system were available for most of the sites.ConclusionOur study reports an overall low utilization of ACS among mothers of <5th percentile infants in hospital and clinic deliveries in LMIC.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01084096 ).

Project description:BackgroundUniversal access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities is an essential human right, recognised in the Sustainable Development Goals as crucial for preventing disease and improving human wellbeing. Comprehensive, high-resolution estimates are important to inform progress towards achieving this goal. We aimed to produce high-resolution geospatial estimates of access to drinking water and sanitation facilities.MethodsWe used a Bayesian geostatistical model and data from 600 sources across more than 88 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to estimate access to drinking water and sanitation facilities on continuous continent-wide surfaces from 2000 to 2017, and aggregated results to policy-relevant administrative units. We estimated mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive subcategories of facilities for drinking water (piped water on or off premises, other improved facilities, unimproved, and surface water) and sanitation facilities (septic or sewer sanitation, other improved, unimproved, and open defecation) with use of ordinal regression. We also estimated the number of diarrhoeal deaths in children younger than 5 years attributed to unsafe facilities and estimated deaths that were averted by increased access to safe facilities in 2017, and analysed geographical inequality in access within LMICs.FindingsAcross LMICs, access to both piped water and improved water overall increased between 2000 and 2017, with progress varying spatially. For piped water, the safest water facility type, access increased from 40·0% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 39·4-40·7) to 50·3% (50·0-50·5), but was lowest in sub-Saharan Africa, where access to piped water was mostly concentrated in urban centres. Access to both sewer or septic sanitation and improved sanitation overall also increased across all LMICs during the study period. For sewer or septic sanitation, access was 46·3% (95% UI 46·1-46·5) in 2017, compared with 28·7% (28·5-29·0) in 2000. Although some units improved access to the safest drinking water or sanitation facilities since 2000, a large absolute number of people continued to not have access in several units with high access to such facilities (>80%) in 2017. More than 253 000 people did not have access to sewer or septic sanitation facilities in the city of Harare, Zimbabwe, despite 88·6% (95% UI 87·2-89·7) access overall. Many units were able to transition from the least safe facilities in 2000 to safe facilities by 2017; for units in which populations primarily practised open defecation in 2000, 686 (95% UI 664-711) of the 1830 (1797-1863) units transitioned to the use of improved sanitation. Geographical disparities in access to improved water across units decreased in 76·1% (95% UI 71·6-80·7) of countries from 2000 to 2017, and in 53·9% (50·6-59·6) of countries for access to improved sanitation, but remained evident subnationally in most countries in 2017.InterpretationOur estimates, combined with geospatial trends in diarrhoeal burden, identify where efforts to increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are most needed. By highlighting areas with successful approaches or in need of targeted interventions, our estimates can enable precision public health to effectively progress towards universal access to safe water and sanitation.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:PurposeThere is a vital need to train radiation therapy professionals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to develop sustainable cancer treatment capacity and infrastructure. LMICs have started to introduce intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), which is the standard of care in high-income countries, because of improved outcomes and reduced toxicities. This work reports the efficacy of a complementary asynchronous plus synchronous virtual-training approach on improving radiation therapy professions' self-confidence levels and evaluating participants' attitudes toward asynchronous and synchronous didactic hands-on learning in 3 LMICs.Methods and materialsTraining was provided to 37 participants from Uganda, Guatemala, and Mongolia, which included 4 theoretical lectures, 4 hands-on sessions, and 8 self-guided online videos. The 36-day training focused on IMRT contouring, site-specific target/organ definition, planning/optimization, and quality assurance. Participants completed pre- and postsession confidence surveys on a 0 to 10 scale, which was converted to a 5-point Likert rating scale to evaluate the training outcomes. The pros and cons of the 3 different training formats were compared.ResultsThe participants included 15 (40.5%) radiation oncologists, 11 (29.7%) medical physicists, 6 (16.2%) radiation therapists, and 5 (13.5%) dosimetrists. Approximately 50% had more than 10 years of radiation therapy experience, 70.8% had no formal IMRT training, and only 25% had IMRT at their institutions. The average experience and confidence levels in using IMRT at baseline were 3.2 and 2.9, which increased to 5.2 and 4.9 (P < .001) after the theoretical training. After the hands-on training, the experience and confidence levels further improved to 5.4 and 5.5 (P < .001). After the self-guided training, the confidence levels increased further to 6.9 (P < .01). Among the 3 different training sessions, hands-on trainings (58.3%) were most helpful for the development of participants' IMRT skills, followed by theoretical sessions with 25%.ConclusionsAfter completing the training sessions, Uganda and Mongolia started IMRT treatments. Remote training provides an excellent and feasible e-learning platform to train radiation therapy professionals in LMICs. The training program improved the IMRT confidence levels and treatment delivery. The hands-on trainings were most preferred.

Project description:IntroductionNearly every field of medicine has some form of clinical practice guidelines. However, only within the past 5-10 years has the medical community acknowledged the need for well-developed guidelines tailored to the local healthcare needs and the resources available. In most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), healthcare workers depend on guidelines developed in high-income countries (HICs), yet many interventions validated in a HIC are ineffective when implemented in an LMIC. The variation in infrastructure, medical personnel, technology and environmental conditions exhibited in LMICs relative to HICs necessitates a careful appraisal of the evidence base used in clinical guideline recommendations. This review aims to map the use of resource-stratified guidelines across all fields of medicine. The review seeks to answer three questions for the identified guidelines: (1) what was the method of development, (2) have they been implemented and, if so, (3) have they been validated.MethodsThe search strategy will aim to locate studies from inception to November 2021. An initial limited search of PubMed and Scopus was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and Scopus. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Data to be extracted from each study will include population characteristics of both developers and intended implementation population, medical specialty, validation status, method of guideline development, whether the study is consensus or evidence-based in addition to a summary of recommendations for practice.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

Dataset Information

Measuring Global Inequity in Radiation Therapy: Resource Deficits in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Without Radiation Therapy Facilities.

Purpose

Methods and materials

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Measuring Global Inequity in Radiation Therapy: Resource Deficits in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Without Radiation Therapy Facilities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets