Dataset Information

Critical care nursing role in low and lower middle-income settings: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

A scoping review was conducted to answer the question: How is critical care nursing (CCN) performed in low-income countries and lower middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs)?

Design

Scoping review guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.

Data sources

Six electronic databases and five web-based resources were systematically searched to identify relevant literature published between 2010 and April 2021.

Review methods

The search results received two-stage screening: (1) title and abstract (2) full-text screening. For sources of evidence to progress, agreement needed to be reached by two reviewers. Data were extracted and cross-checked. Data were analysed, sorted by themes and mapped to region and country.

Results

Literature was reported across five georegions. Nurses with a range formal and informal training were identified as providing critical care. Availability of staff was frequently reported as a problem. No reports provided a comprehensive description of CCN in LICs/LMICs. However, a variety of nursing practices and non-clinical responsibilities were highlighted. Availability of equipment to fulfil the nursing role was widely discussed. Perceptions of inadequate resourcing were common. Undergraduate and postgraduate-level preparation was poorly described but frequently reported. The delivery of short format critical care courses was more fully described. There were reports of educational evaluation, especially regarding internationally supported initiatives.

Conclusions

Despite commonalities, CCN is unique to regional and socioeconomic contexts. Nurses work within a complex team, yet the structure and skill levels of such teams will vary according to patient population, resources and treatments available. Therefore, a universal definition of the CCN role in LIC/LMIC health systems is likely unhelpful. Research to elucidate current assets, capacity and needs of nurses providing critical care in specific LIC/LMIC contexts is needed. Outputs from such research would be invaluable in supporting contextually appropriate capacity development programmes.

SUBMITTER: Macey A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8728409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionNearly 40 years into the HIV epidemic, the persistence of HIV stigma is a matter of grave urgency. Discrimination (i.e. enacted stigma) in healthcare settings is particularly problematic as it deprives people of critical healthcare services while also discouraging preventive care seeking by confirming fears of anticipated stigma. We review existing research on the effectiveness of stigma interventions in healthcare settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where stigma control efforts are often further complicated by heavy HIV burdens, less developed healthcare systems, and the layering of HIV stigma with discrimination towards other marginalized identities. This review describes progress in this field to date and identifies research gaps to guide future directions for research.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of HIV reduction interventions in LMIC healthcare settings using Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus (through March 5, 2020). Information regarding study design, stigma measurement techniques, intervention features and study findings were extracted. We also assessed methodological rigor using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews.Results and discussionOur search identified 8766 studies, of which 19 were included in the final analysis. All but one study reported reductions in stigma following the intervention. The studies demonstrated broad regional distribution across LMIC and many employed designs that made use of a control condition. However, these strengths masked key shortcomings including a dearth of research from the lowest income category of LMIC and a lack of interventions to address institutional or structural determinants of stigma. Lastly, despite the fact that most stigma measures were based on existing instruments, only three studies described steps taken to validate or adapt the stigma measures to local settings.ConclusionsCombating healthcare stigma in LMIC demands interventions that can simultaneously address resource constraints, high HIV burden and more severe stigma. Our findings suggest that this will require more objective, reliable and culturally adaptable stigma measures to facilitate meaningful programme evaluation and comparison across studies. All but one study concluded that their interventions were effective in reducing healthcare stigma. Though encouraging, the fact that most studies measured impact using self-reported measures suggests that social desirability may bias results upwards. Homogeneity of study results also hindered our ability to draw substantive conclusions about potential best practices to guide the design of future stigma reduction programmes.

Project description:IntroductionThe diabetes mellitus (DM) epidemic is a major public health concern globally, with the highest-burden in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a microvascular complication of diabetes, and if left untreated can lead to visual impairment and blindness. Epidemiological studies suggest that the incidence of sight-threatening DR is decreasing in high-income countries due to improved treatments and management of DM; however, these trends are not replicated in LMICs. In this paper, we outline a scoping review protocol that aims to identify which LMICs have included DR in their national DM, non-communicable disease or prevention of blindness plans. The scoping review also aims to assess gaps when implementing national DR screening programmes in LMICs.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review guidelines. A comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and grey literature will be conducted from October 1989 (St. Vincent Declaration) to February 2020. Studies will be identified from electronic databases; Medline, Embase and CENTRAL (Cochrane Library). To identify further relevant articles, a hand search will be conducted using the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen records for relevant data and disagreements about eligibility will be resolved through consensus or arbitration by a third reviewer. A quantitative analysis will be performed to highlight key findings and thematic analysis will be used to identify emerging themes and subthemes from included studies. The key themes will highlight countries progress in terms of national-level DR service planning and screening implementation.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required because the scoping review methodology aims to synthesise information from publicly available resources. The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publication.

Project description:Achieving targets set in the End TB Strategy is still a distant goal for many Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). The importance of strengthening public-private partnership by engaging all identified providers in Tuberculosis (TB) care has long been advocated in global TB policies and strategies. However, Informal Healthcare Providers (IPs) are not yet prioritised and engaged in National Tuberculosis Programs (NTPs) globally. There exists a substantial body of evidence that confirms an important contribution of IPs in TB care. A systematic understanding of their role is necessary to ascertain their potential in improving TB care in LMICs. The purpose of this review is to scope the role of IPs in TB care. The scoping review was guided by a framework developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. An electronic search of literature was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Global Health, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Of a total 5234 records identified and retrieved, 92 full-text articles were screened, of which 13 were included in the final review. An increasing trend was observed in publication over time, with most published between 2010-2019. In 60% of the articles, NTPs were mentioned as a collaborator in the study. For detection and diagnosis, IPs were primarily involved in identifying and referring patients. Administering DOT (Directly Observed Treatment) to the patient was the major task assigned to IPs for treatment and support. There is a paucity of evidence on prevention, as only one study involved IPs to perform this role. Traditional health providers were the most commonly featured, but there was not much variation in the role by provider type. All studies reported a positive role of IPs in improving TB care outcomes. This review demonstrates that IPs can be successfully engaged in various roles in TB care with appropriate support and training. Their contribution can support countries to achieve their national and global targets if prioritized in National TB Programs.

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: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.