Priorities for content for a short-course on postoperative care relevant for low- and middle-income countries: an e-Delphi process with training facilitators

Most surgical and anaesthetic mortality and morbidity occurs postoperatively, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Various short courses have been developed to improve patient outcomes in low- and middle-income countries, but none specifically to address postoperative care and complications. We aimed to identify key features of a proposed short-course addressing this topic using a Delphi process with low- and middle-income country anaesthesia providers trained as short-course facilitators. An initial questionnaire was co-developed from literature review and exploratory workshops to include 108 potential course features. Features included content; teaching method; appropriate participants; and appropriate faculty. Over three Delphi rounds (panellists numbered 86, 64 and 35 in successive cycles), panellists indicated which features they considered most important. Responses were analysed by geographical regions: Africa, the Americas, south-east Asia and Western Pacific. Ultimately, panellists identified 60, 40 and 54 core features for the proposed course in each region, respectively. There were high levels of consensus within regions on what constituted core course content, but not between regions. All panellists preferred the small group workshop teaching method irrespective of region. All regions considered anaesthetists to be key facilitators, while all agreed that both anaesthetists and operating theatre nurses were key participants. The African and Americas regional panels recommended more multidisciplinary healthcare professionals for participant roles. Faculty from high-income countries were not considered high priority. Our study highlights variability between geographical regions as to which course features were perceived as most locally relevant, supporting regional adaptation of short-course design rather than a one-size-fits-all model.     

Incidence,Treatment and Outcomes of Cervical Cancer in Low- and Middle-income Countries

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers in developing nations. It has had a tremendous impact on the lifetime of millions of women over the last century and continues to do so. In this collaborative clinicians' review, we highlight the incidence, treatment and clinical outcomes of cervical cancer in low-income (LICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across Asia, South America, South Africa and Eastern Europe. With the cervical cancer burden and locally advanced cancers being high, the majority of LICs/LMICs have been striving to adhere to optimal evaluation and treatment guidelines. However, the huge gap in resource availability, rural versus urban disparity and access to resources have led to poor compliance to evaluation, treatment and post-treatment rehabilitation. To mitigate the overwhelming numbers, various treatment strategies like neoadjuvant chemotherapy, hypofractionation radiation schedules (both external and brachytherapy) have been attempted with no major success. Also, the compliance to concurrent chemoradiation in various regions is a major challenge. With the burden of advanced cancers, the lack of palliative care services and their integration in cancer care is still a reality.     

发达国家医学生器官捐献意愿研究现状的范围综述

目的了解发达国家医学生器官捐献意愿研究的目的、结果、障碍因素和解决对策。 方法以主题词和自由词联合的方式对PubMed、Web of Science、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid EMBASE(Excerpta Medica)、EBSCOhost Complete和Cochrane Library等已发表文献数据库，以及灰色文献数据库York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination、Open Grey、ProQuest Dissertation and Theses和Mednar进行系统、全面地检索，并采用Arksey和O′Malley提出的范围综述框架进行文献资料整合。 结果共纳入17项发达国家医学生器官捐献意愿研究。研究背景主要为医学生未来对于公众器官捐献有着重要影响。研究结果表明，大多数医学生器官捐献意愿性良好，但不同亚组的研究结果不一；其最主要的障碍因素为医学生器官捐献相关知识的缺乏；解决对策主要为施予系统化、结构化和可评价的教育课程。 结论21世纪以来发达国家医学生器官捐献意愿研究方兴未艾，其研究的多层面、多角度以及揭示的问题、寻求的解决对策，可对我国现阶段医学生器官捐献的研究提供一定参考。     

Vaccinations in prison settings: A systematic review to assess the situation in EU/EEA countries and in other high income countries

IntroductionIn 2016, more than 600,000 persons were being held in EU/EEA correctional facilities on a given day. People in prison may be at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. While vaccination recommendations for people in prison exist, little is known on coverage and implementation options.MethodsWe performed a systematic review on existing evidence on vaccination in prison settings in the EU/EEA. We searched peer-reviewed and grey literature following international methodology and reporting standards, to gather records published between 1980 and 2016 in all languages. We analysed quantitative (acceptance, uptake, cost-effectiveness) and qualitative (barriers) outcomes.ResultsOut of 7041 identified records, 19 full-text articles were included from peer-reviewed literature and two from grey literature. Of these, 18 reported on hepatitis A and/or B virus (HAV/HBV), two on influenza and one on MMR vaccination. Two studies on HAV vaccine reported varying acceptance (5–91%) and uptake rates (62.9–70.5%). Seven studies reported on HBV vaccination. A comparative study showed a significantly higher uptake of the third HBV vaccine dose with the very rapid (63%) compared to the standard schedule (20%). HBV vaccination was generally well accepted (54–100%), whereas uptake was variable (dose 1:23–100%, dose 2:48–92%, dose 3:19–80%). One study on the combined HAV/HBV vaccine reported an acceptance rate of 34%, and declining uptake following dose 1. One study on influenza vaccine showed an uptake of 42–46%, while another reported a MMR vaccine acceptance of 80% and an uptake of 74%. Overall, main reasons for non-vaccination included release from/or transfer between prisons, and refusal.ConclusionsThis systematic review highlighted important knowledge gaps and operational challenges for vaccination in prison settings. Vaccination is an effective measure that warrants comprehensive and tailored implementation to reduce the preventable disease burden, avoid risks of large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, and contribute to health equity for people in prison.