Evidence synthesis communities in low-income and middle-income countries and the COVID-19 response.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stewart R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7575272 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAccurate and affordable laboratory testing is key to timely diagnosis and appropriate management of patients with COVID-19. New laboratory test protocols are released into the market under emergency use authorisation with limited evidence on diagnostic test accuracy. As such, robust evidence on the diagnostic accuracy and the costs of available tests is urgently needed to inform policy and practice especially in resource-limited settings. We aim to determine the diagnostic test accuracy, cost-effectiveness and utility of laboratory test strategies for COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries.Methods and analysisThis will be a multistaged, protocol-driven systematic review conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy studies. We will search for relevant literature in at least six public health databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the WHO Global Index Medicus. In addition, we will search Cochrane Library, COVID-END and grey literature databases to identify additional relevant articles before double-screening and abstraction of data. We will conduct a structured narrative and quantitative synthesis of the results guided by the Fryback and Thornbury framework for assessing a diagnostic test. The primary outcome is COVID-19 diagnostic test accuracy. Using the GRADE approach specific to diagnostic accuracy tests, we will appraise the overall quality of evidence and report the results following the original PRISMA statement. The protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).Ethics and disseminationEthical review was done by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. The published article will be accessible to policy and decision makers. The findings of this review will guide clinical practice and policy decisions and highlight areas for future research.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020209528.
| S-EPMC8523956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified the urgency in addressing pressing global health access challenges and has also laid bare the pervasive structural and systemic inequities that make certain segments of society more vulnerable to the tragic consequences of the disease. This rapid systematic review analyses the barriers to COVID-19 health products in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). It does so from the canon of global health equity and access to medicines by proposing an access to health products in low-and middle-income countries framework and typology adapted to underscore the complex interactive and multiplicative nature and effects of barriers to health products and their root cause as they coexist across different levels of society in LMICs.MethodsModified versions of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) reviewers' manual for evidence synthesis of systematic reviews and the PRISMA-ScR framework were used to guide the search strategy, identification, and screening of biomedical, social science, and gray literature published in English between 1 January 2020 and 30 April 2021.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 5,956 articles, with 72 articles included in this review after screening protocol and inclusion criteria were applied. Thirty one percent of the articles focused on Africa. The review revealed that barriers to COVID-19 health products were commonly caused by market forces (64%), the unavailability (53%), inaccessibility (42%), and unaffordability (35%), of the products, incongruent donors' agenda and funding (33%) and unreliable health and supply systems (28%). They commonly existed at the international and regional (79%), health sectoral (46%), and national cross-sectoral [public policy] (19%) levels. The historical heritage of colonialism in LMICs was a commonly attributed root cause of the barriers to COVID-19 health products in developing countries.ConclusionThis review has outlined and elaborated on the various barriers to health products that must be comprehensively addressed to mount a successful global, regional, national and subnational response to present and future epidemics and pandemics in LMICs.
| S-EPMC9354133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widespread acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines is crucial for achieving sufficient immunization coverage to end the global pandemic, yet few studies have investigated COVID-19 vaccination attitudes in lower-income countries, where large-scale vaccination is just beginning. We analyze COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across 15 survey samples covering 10 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia, Africa and South America, Russia (an upper-middle-income country) and the United States, including a total of 44,260 individuals. We find considerably higher willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine in our LMIC samples (mean 80.3%; median 78%; range 30.1 percentage points) compared with the United States (mean 64.6%) and Russia (mean 30.4%). Vaccine acceptance in LMICs is primarily explained by an interest in personal protection against COVID-19, while concern about side effects is the most common reason for hesitancy. Health workers are the most trusted sources of guidance about COVID-19 vaccines. Evidence from this sample of LMICs suggests that prioritizing vaccine distribution to the Global South should yield high returns in advancing global immunization coverage. Vaccination campaigns should focus on translating the high levels of stated acceptance into actual uptake. Messages highlighting vaccine efficacy and safety, delivered by healthcare workers, could be effective for addressing any remaining hesitancy in the analyzed LMICs.
| S-EPMC8363502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.
| S-EPMC5836451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing recognition of the importance of menstruation in achieving health, education, and gender equality for all. New policies in high income countries (HICs) have responded to anecdotal evidence that many struggle to meet their menstrual health needs. Qualitative research has explored lived experiences of menstruating in HICs and can contribute to designing intervention approaches. To inform the growing policy attention to support people who menstruate, here we review and synthesise the existing research.Methods and findingsPrimary, qualitative studies capturing experiences of menstruation in HICs were eligible for inclusion. Systematic database and hand searching identified 11485 records. Following screening and quality appraisal using the EPPI-Centre checklist, 104 studies (120 publications) detailing the menstrual experiences of over 3800 individuals across sixteen countries were included. We used the integrated model of menstrual experiences developed from studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as a starting framework and deductively and inductively identified antecedents contributing to menstrual experiences; menstrual experiences themselves and impacts of menstrual experiences. Included studies described consistent themes and relationships that fit well with the LMIC integrated model, with modifications to themes and model pathways identified through our analysis. The socio-cultural context heavily shaped menstrual experiences, manifesting in strict behavioural expectations to conceal menstruation and limiting the provision of menstrual materials. Resource limitations contributed to negative experiences, where dissatisfaction with menstrual practices and management environments were expressed along with feelings of disgust if participants felt they failed to manage their menstruation in a discrete, hygienic way. Physical menstrual factors such as pain were commonly associated with negative experiences, with mixed experiences of healthcare reported. Across studies participants described negative impacts of their menstrual experience including increased mental burden and detrimental impacts on participation and personal relationships. Positive experiences were more rarely reported, although relationships between cis-women were sometimes strengthened by shared experiences of menstrual bleeding. Included studies reflected a broad range of disciplines and epistemologies. Many aimed to understand the constructed meanings of menstruation, but few were explicitly designed to inform policy or practice. Few studies focused on socioeconomically disadvantaged groups relevant to new policy efforts.ConclusionsWe developed an integrated model of menstrual experience in HICs which can be used to inform research, policy and practice decisions by emphasising the pathways through which positive and negative menstrual experiences manifest.Review protocol registrationThe review protocol registration is PROSPERO: CRD42019157618.
| S-EPMC8294489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered several changes in countries' health purchasing arrangements to accompany the adjustments in service delivery in order to meet the urgent and additional demands for COVID-19-related services. However, evidence on how these adjustments have played out in low- and middle-income countries is scarce. This paper provides a synthesis of a multi-country study of the adjustments in purchasing arrangements for the COVID-19 health sector response in eight middle-income countries (Armenia, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Philippines, Romania and Ukraine). We use secondary data assembled by country teams, as well as applied thematic analysis to examine the adjustments made to funding arrangements, benefits packages, provider payments, contracting, information management systems and governance arrangements as well as related implementation challenges. Our findings show that all countries in the study adjusted their health purchasing arrangements to varying degrees. While the majority of countries expanded their benefit packages and several adjusted payment methods to provide selected COVID-19 services, only half could provide these services free of charge. Many countries also streamlined their processes for contracting and accrediting health providers, thereby reducing administrative hurdles. In conclusion, it was important for the countries to adjust their health purchasing arrangements so that they could adequately respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, but in some countries financing challenges resulted in issues with equity and access. However, it is uncertain whether these adjustments can and will be sustained over time, even where they have potential to contribute to making purchasing more strategic to improve efficiency, quality and equitable access in the long run.
| S-EPMC10883665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince WHO declared the COVID-19 pandemic a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, more than 20 million cases have been reported, as of Aug 24, 2020. This study aimed to identify what the additional health-care costs of a strategic preparedness and response plan (SPRP) would be if current transmission levels are maintained in a status quo scenario, or under scenarios where transmission is increased or decreased by 50%.MethodsThe number of COVID-19 cases was projected for 73 low-income and middle-income countries for each of the three scenarios for both 4-week and 12-week timeframes, starting from June 26, 2020. An input-based approach was used to estimate the additional health-care costs associated with human resources, commodities, and capital inputs that would be accrued in implementing the SPRP.FindingsThe total cost estimate for the COVID-19 response in the status quo scenario was US$52·45 billion over 4 weeks, at $8·60 per capita. For the decreased or increased transmission scenarios, the totals were $33·08 billion and $61·92 billion, respectively. Costs would triple under the status quo and increased transmission scenarios at 12 weeks. The costs of the decreased transmission scenario over 12 weeks was equivalent to the cost of the status quo scenario at 4 weeks. By percentage of the overall cost, case management (54%), maintaining essential services (21%), rapid response and case investigation (14%), and infection prevention and control (9%) were the main cost drivers.InterpretationThe sizeable costs of a COVID-19 response in the health sector will escalate, particularly if transmission increases. Instituting early and comprehensive measures to limit the further spread of the virus will conserve resources and sustain the response.FundingWHO, and UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.
| S-EPMC7480983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background COVID-19 has impacted the capacity of healthcare systems worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which are already under strain due to population growth and insufficient resources. Since the COVID-19 pandemic's emergence, there has been an urgent need for a rapid and adequate reaction to the pandemic's disruption of healthcare systems. To this end, telemedicine has been shown in prior research to be a feasible approach. The overarching objective of this scoping review was to determine the extent and acceptance of telemedicine in healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework to identify available evidence. We systematically searched four academic databases for peer-reviewed literature published between January 2020 and April 2021: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, as well as Google Scholar as a source for grey literature. Results The search identified 54 articles with 45,843 participants, including 6,966 healthcare professionals and 36,877 healthcare users. We identified a range of reasons for introducing telemedicine in LMICs during COVID-19, most notably to maintain non-emergency healthcare, enhance access to healthcare providers, and reduce the risk of infection among health users and providers. Overall, healthcare providers and users have shown a high level of acceptance for telemedicine services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine provided access to healthcare in the majority of included articles. Nonetheless, some challenges to accepting telemedicine as a method of healthcare delivery have been reported, including technological, regulatory, and economical challenges. Conclusion Telemedicine was found to improve access to high-quality healthcare and decrease infection risk in LMICs during COVID-19. In general, infrastructure and regulatory barriers found to be the most significant barriers to wider telemedicine use, and should be considered when implementing telemedicine more broadly. There appears to be a need to prioritize patient data safety, as many healthcare practitioners utilized commercial apps and services as telemedicine systems. Additionally, it appears as though there is a need to increase capacity, skill, and transparency, as well as to educate patients about telemedicine.
| S-EPMC9257012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate COVID-19 pandemic preparedness, available resources, and guidelines for neonatal care delivery among neonatal health care providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across all continents.Study designCross-sectional, web-based survey administered between May and June, 2020.ResultsOf 189 invited participants in 69 LMICs, we received 145 (77%) responses from 58 (84%) countries. The pandemic provides significant challenges to neonatal care, particularly in low-income countries. Respondents noted exacerbations of preexisting shortages in staffing, equipment, and isolation capabilities. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 9/35 (26%) respondents noted increased mortality in non-COVID-19-infected infants. Clinical practices on cord clamping, isolation, and breastfeeding varied widely, often not in line with World Health Organization guidelines. Most respondents noted family access restrictions, and limited shared decision-making.ConclusionsMany LMICs face an exacerbation of preexisting resource challenges for neonatal care during the pandemic. Variable approaches to care delivery and deviations from guidelines provide opportunities for international collaborative improvement.
| S-EPMC8042838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs.MethodsThe Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity.ResultsAmong the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients' needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts.InterpretationHealth policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.
| S-EPMC9010705 | biostudies-literature