Project description:ImportanceMost of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.ObjectiveTo assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.ExposuresThree screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.ResultsAmong 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.Conclusions and relevanceThis study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the rising burden of chronic respiratory disease globally, and although many respiratory medications are included in the World Health Organization Essential Medications List (WHO-EML), there is limited information concerning the availability and affordability of treatment drugs for respiratory conditions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsAll public and private pharmacies in catchment areas of the Global Excellence in COPD outcomes (GECo) study sites in Bhaktapur, Nepal, Lima, Peru, and Nakaseke, Uganda, were approached in 2017-2019 to assess pricing and availability of medications for the management of asthma and COPD.ResultsWe surveyed all 63 pharmacies in respective study areas in Nepal (95.2% private), 104 pharmacies in Peru (94.2% private) and 53 pharmacies in Uganda (98.1% private). The availability of any medication for respiratory disease was higher in private (93.3%) compared to public (73.3%) pharmacies. Salbutamol (WHO-EML) monotherapy in any formulation was the most commonly available respiratory medication among the three sites (93.7% Nepal, 86.5% Peru and 79.2% Uganda) while beclomethasone (WHO-EML) was only available in Peru (33.7%) and Nepal (22%). LABA-LAMA combination therapy was only available in Nepal (14.3% of pharmacies surveyed). The monthly treatment cost of respiratory medications was lowest in Nepal according to several cost metrics: the overall monthly cost, the median price ratio comparing medication costs to international reference prices at time of survey in dollars, and in terms of days' wages of the lowest-paid government worker. For the treatment of intermittent asthma, defined as 100 mcg Salbutamol/Albuterol inhaler, days' wages ranged from 0.47 days in Nepal and Peru to 3.33 days in Uganda.ConclusionThe availability and pricing of respiratory medications varied across LMIC settings, with medications for acute care of respiratory diseases being more widely available than those for long-term management.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) and problematic substance use are global public health concerns with significant multifaceted implications for physical health and psychosocial well-being. The impact of SUD extends beyond the individual to their family while imposing financial and social burdens on the community. Though family-centred interventions have shown promise in addressing SUD, their implementation and impact in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underexplored.Methods and analysisPer Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol, a systematic search strategy was employed across OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science-Core Collection, Global Health and CINAHL from 22 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, to identify relevant studies focused on family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC, devoid of publication time and language constraints. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or third-party reviews. The extracted data charted in a structured form will be visualised by diagrams or tables, focusing on the feasibility and impact of family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC. For qualitative studies, the findings will be synthesised and presented in thematic clusters, and for studies that report quantitative outcomes, specific health, including SUD and psychosocial, outcomes will be synthesised, aligning with the Population, Concept and Context framework.Ethics and disseminationThese data on substance use, psychosocial outcomes and perspectives of individuals with SUD and their families will be presented in narrative format, highlighting patterns and identifying research gaps. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on family-centred interventions for improving substance use and/or psychosocial outcomes in individuals with SUD in LMIC and seeks to inform future policy and practice. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review, and modifications to the review protocol will be disclosed. Findings will be disseminated through conference proceedings and peer-reviewed publication.

Project description:BackgroundIn low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistical parameters, but they require data on how well each tool measures routine clinical care. We aim to synthesize the literature on validity/comparability of family planning process QoC measurement tools through a quantitative systematic review with no meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched six literature databases for studies that compared quality measurements from different tools using quantitative statistics such as sensitivity/specificity, kappa statistic or absolute difference. We extracted the comparative measure along with other relevant study information, organized by quality indicator domain (e.g. counseling and privacy), and then classified the measure by low, medium, and high agreement.ResultsWe screened 8172 articles and identified eight for analysis. Studies comparing quality measurements from simulated clients, direct observation, client exit interview, provider knowledge quizzes, and medical record review were included. These eight studies were heterogenous in their methods and the measurements compared. There was insufficient data to estimate overall summary measures of validity for the tools. Client exit interviews compared to direct observation or simulated client protocols had the most data and they were a poor proxy of the actual quality care received for many measurements.ConclusionTo measure QoC consistently and accurately in LMICs, standardized tools and measures are needed along with an established method of combining them for a comprehensive picture of quality care. Data on how different tools proxy quality client care will inform these guidelines. Despite the small number of studies found during the review, we described important differences on how tools measure quality of care.

Project description:ObjectivesIntegrated people-centred eye care has been recommended as a strategic framework for reducing global vision impairment and blindness. The extent to which eye care has integrated with other services has not been widely reported. We aimed to investigate approaches to integrating eye care service delivery with other systems in low resource settings, and identify factors associated with integration.DesignRapid scoping review based on Cochrane Rapid Review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched in September 2021.Eligibility criteriaPapers with interventions involving eye care or preventative eye care integrated into other health systems, peer-reviewed in English, conducted in low-income or middle-income countries, and published between January 2011 and September 2021 were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened, quality appraised and coded included papers. A deductive-inductive iterative analysis approach was used with a focus on integrating service delivery.ResultsThe search identified 3889 potential papers, of which 24 were included. Twenty papers incorporated more than one intervention type (promotion, prevention and/or treatment), but none included rehabilitation. Most articles involved human resources development yet rarely appeared to be people-centred. The level of integration was associated with building relationships and enhancing service coordination. Integrating human resources was challenged by the need for ongoing support and worker retention. In primary care settings, workers were often already at full capacity, had competing priorities, varying capabilities and limited motivation. Additional barriers included inadequate referral and information systems, poor supply chain management and procurement practices and finite financing.ConclusionIntegrating eye care into low resource health systems is a challenging task, compounded by resource limitations, competing priorities and ongoing support needs. This review highlighted a need for people-centred approaches to future interventions, and further investigation into integrating vision rehabilitation services.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are an important cause of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Although risk factors for PPCs have been identified in high-income countries, less is known about PPCs and their risk factors in low- and middle-income countries, such as South Africa. This study examined the incidence of PPCs and their associated risk factors among general surgery patients in a public hospital in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa to inform future quality improvement initiatives to decrease PPCs in this clinical population.MethodsA retrospective secondary analysis of adult patients with general surgery admissions from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 was conducted using data from the health system's Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry. The sample was comprised of 5352 general surgery hospitalizations. PPCs included pneumonia, atelectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary edema, pulmonary embolism, prolonged ventilation, hemothorax, pneumothorax, and other respiratory morbidity which encompassed empyema, aspiration, pleural effusion, bronchopleural fistula, and lower respiratory tract infection. Risk factors examined were age, tobacco use, number and type of pre-existing comorbidities, emergency surgery, and number and type of surgeries. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to identify risk factors for developing a PPC.ResultsThe PPC rate was 7.8%. Of the 418 hospitalizations in which a patient developed a PPC, the most common type of PPC was pneumonia (52.4%) and the mortality rate related to the PPC was 11.7%. Significant risk factors for a PPC were increasing age, greater number of comorbidities, emergency surgery, greater number of general surgeries, and abdominal surgery.ConclusionsPPCs are common in general surgery patients in low- and middle-income countries, with similar rates observed in high-income countries. These complications worsen patient outcomes and increase mortality. Quality improvement initiatives that employ resource-conscious methods are needed to reduce PPCs in low- and middle-income countries.

Dataset Information

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Endotypes in Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings: Precision Medicine for All.

Publications

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Endotypes in Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings: Precision Medicine for All.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets