Dataset Information

A mixed-methods needs assessment of traumatic brain injury care in a low- and middle-income country setting: building neurocritical care capacity at two major hospitals in Cambodia.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The high global burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These settings also have the greatest disparity in the availability of surgical care in general and neurosurgical care in particular. Recent focus has been placed on alleviating this surgical disparity. However, most capacity assessments are purely quantitative, and few focus on concomitantly assessing the complex healthcare system needs required to care for these patients. The objective of the present study was to use both quantitative and qualitative assessment data to establish a comprehensive approach to inform capacity-development initiatives for TBI care at two hospitals in an LMIC, Cambodia.

Methods

This mixed-methods study used 3 quantitative assessment tools: the World Health Organization Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, Supplies (WHO PIPES) checklist, the neurosurgery-specific PIPES (NeuroPIPES) checklist, and the Neurocritical Care (NCC) checklist at two hospitals in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Descriptive statistics were obtained for quantitative results. Qualitative semistructured interviews of physicians, nurses, and healthcare administrators were conducted by a single interviewer. Responses were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach and coded to allow categorization under the PIPES framework.

Results

Of 35 healthcare providers approached, 29 (82.9%) participated in the surveys, including 19 physicians (65.5%) and 10 nurses (34.5%). The majority had fewer than 5 years of experience (51.7%), were male (n = 26, 89.7%), and were younger than 40 years of age (n = 25, 86.2%). For both hospitals, WHO PIPES scores were lowest in the equipment category. However, using the NCC checklist, both hospitals scored higher in equipment (81.2% and 62.7%) and infrastructure (78.6% and 69.6%; hospital 1 and 2, respectively) categories and lowest in the training/continuing education category (41.7% and 33.3%, hospital 1 and 2, respectively). Using the PIPES framework, analysis of the qualitative data obtained from interviews revealed a need for continuing educational initiatives for staff, increased surgical and critical care supplies and equipment, and infrastructure development. The analysis further elucidated barriers to care, such as challenges with time availability for experienced providers to educate incoming healthcare professionals, issues surrounding prehospital care, maintenance of donated supplies, and patient poverty.

Conclusions

This mixed-methods study identified areas in supplies, equipment, and educational/training initiatives as areas for capacity development for TBI care in an LMIC such as Cambodia. This first application of the NCC checklist in an LMIC setting demonstrated limitations in its use in this setting. Concomitant qualitative assessments provided insight into barriers otherwise undetected in quantitative assessments.

SUBMITTER: Barkley AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7372920 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAbout 2.6 million stillbirths per year occur globally with 98% occurring in low- and middle-income countries including Kenya, where an estimated 35 000 stillbirths occur annually. Most studies have focused on the direct causes of stillbirth. The aim of this study was to determine the association between antenatal care utilization and quality with stillbirth in a Kenyan set up. This information is key when planning strategies to reduce the stillbirth burden.Material and methodsThis was a case-control study in four urban tertiary hospitals carried out between August 2018 and April 2019. A total of 214 women with stillbirths (cases) and 428 with livebirths (controls) between 28 and 42 weeks were enrolled. Information was obtained through interviews and data abstracted from medical records. Antenatal care utilization was assessed by the proportions of women not attending antenatal care; booking first antenatal care visit in first trimester and not making the requisite four antenatal care visits. Quality of antenatal care was assessed using individual surrogate indicators (antenatal profile testing, weight/blood pressure/urinalysis testing in each antenatal visit, utilization of early obstetric ultrasound, completeness of antenatal records) and a codified indicator made up of seven parameters (attending antenatal care, booking first antenatal care in the first trimester, making four or more antenatal visits, having all antenatal profile tests, having a complete antenatal record, having blood pressure and weight measured at all visits). The association between antenatal care utilization and quality with stillbirth was assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis using logistic regression. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed P value ≤ .05.ResultsWomen with stillbirth were likely to have a parity ≥4 (19.6% vs 12.6%, P = .02), have an obstetric complication (36% vs 8.6%, P = .001) and have a medical disorder (5.6% vs 1.6%, P = .01). The odds of a stillbirth were four times higher among those who did not attend antenatal care ( odds ratio [OR] 4.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-10, P < .003). Compared with four antenatal care visits, those who had one or two visits had higher odds of a stillbirth: OR 2.96 (95% CI 1.4-6.1), P = .003, and OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.7-5), P = .003, respectively. As per the individual surrogate indicators, the likelihood of a stillbirth was lower in women who received good quality antenatal care: Hemoglobin testing (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.8, P = .03), blood group test (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6, P < .001), HIV test (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5, P = .001), venereal disease research laboratory test (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.4, P = .001), weight measurement (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0, P = .047). As per the composite indicator, the quality of antenatal care was poor across the board and there was no association between this surrogate indicator and stillbirth.ConclusionsLack of antenatal care, attending fewer than four antenatal visits and poor quality antenatal care as measured by surrogate indicators were significantly associated with stillbirth. In addition, women with low education level, obstetric complications, multiparity and medical complications had a significantly higher likelihood of stillbirth. Improving the utilization of four or more antenatal visits and the quality of antenatal care can reduce the risk of stillbirth.

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:BackgroundIn this protocol, we outline a mixed-methods randomized feasibility trial of Brief Relaxation, Education and Trauma Healing (BREATHE) Ethiopia. BREATHE Ethiopia is a culturally and contextually adapted intervention for PTSD in participants with severe mental illness. BREATHE Ethiopia maps onto the World Health Organization's guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment in low- and middle-income country primary care settings.MethodsSpecifically, this study includes a non-randomized pre-pilot (n = 5) and a randomized feasibility trial comparing BREATHE Ethiopia to Treatment as Usual (n = 40) to assess trial procedures, acceptability, and feasibility of intervention delivery, and investigate potential effectiveness and implementation. In a process evaluation, we will collect data that will be critical for a future fully randomized controlled trial, including the numbers of participants who are eligible, who consent, who engage in treatment, and who complete the assessments, as well as the feasibility and acceptability of assessments and the intervention. Qualitative data on facilitators and barriers to intervention delivery and quantitative data on provider fidelity to the intervention and participant and provider satisfaction will also be collected. Quantitative assessments at baseline, post-treatment, 1-month follow-up, and 3-month follow-up will assess change in mental health symptoms and functional impairment and hypothesized intervention mechanisms, including knowledge about PTSD, stigma, trauma-related cognitions, and physiological arousal.DiscussionFindings from this study will inform a future fully-powered randomized controlled trial, and if found to be effective, the intervention has the potential to be integrated into mental healthcare scale-up efforts in other low-resource settings.Trial registrationRegistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04385498) first posted May 13th, 2020; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04385498?term=ethiopia&cond=PTSD&draw=2&rank=1 .