METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.
RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).
CONCLUSION: Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.
METHODS: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guideline for the conduct of this scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and study registers from inception to 14 March 2022. We included cross-sectional and cohort studies in populations representing a geographically-defined unit (urban or rural) in LMICs, and with data on CVH metrics i.e. all health or clinical factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, glycemia and body mass index) and at least one health behavior (smoking, diet or physical activity). We report findings following the PRISMA-Scr extension for scoping reviews.
RESULTS: We included 251 studies; 85% were cross-sectional. Most studies (70.9%) came from just ten countries. Only 6.8% included children younger than 12 years old. Only 34.7% reported seven metrics; 25.1%, six. Health behaviors were mostly self-reported; 45.0% of studies assessed diet, 58.6% physical activity, and 90.0% smoking status.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified a substantial and heterogeneous body of research presenting CVH metrics in LMICs. Few studies assessed all components of CVH, especially in children and in low-income settings. This review will facilitate the design of future studies to bridge the evidence gap. This scoping review protocol was previously registered on OSF: https://osf.io/sajnh.
METHODS: While the selected platforms had experience in health policy and systems research and evidence syntheses, platforms were less confident conducting rapid evidence syntheses. A technical assistance centre (TAC) was created from the outset to develop and lead a capacity-strengthening program for rapid syntheses, tailored to the platforms based on their original proposals and needs as assessed in a baseline questionnaire. The program included training in rapid synthesis methods, as well as generating synthesis demand, engaging knowledge users and ensuring knowledge uptake. Modalities included live training webinars, in-country workshops and support through phone, email and an online platform. LMICs provided regular updates on policy-makers' requests and the rapid products provided, as well as barriers, facilitators and impacts. Post-initiative, platforms were surveyed.
RESULTS: Platforms provided rapid syntheses across a range of AHPSR themes, and successfully engaged national- and state-level policy-makers. Examples of substantial policy impact were observed, including for COVID-19. Although the post-initiative survey response rate was low, three quarters of those responding felt confident in their ability to conduct a rapid evidence synthesis. Lessons learned coalesced around three themes - the importance of context-specific expertise in conducting reviews, facilitating cross-platform learning, and planning for platform sustainability.
CONCLUSIONS: The ERA initiative successfully established rapid response platforms in four LMICs. The short timeframe limited the number of rapid products produced, but there were examples of substantial impact and growing demand. We emphasize that LMICs can and should be involved not only in identifying and articulating needs but as co-designers in their own capacity-strengthening programs. More time is required to assess whether these platforms will be sustained for the long-term.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three Malaysian public hospitals namely Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz and the National Cancer Institute using a multi-level sampling technique to recruit 630 respondents from February 2020 to February 2021. CHE was defined as incurring a monthly health expenditure of more than 10% of the total monthly household expenditure. A validated questionnaire was used to collect the relevant data.
RESULTS: The CHE level was 54.4%. CHE was higher among patients of Indian ethnicity (P = 0.015), lower level education (P = 0.001), those unemployed (P < 0.001), lower income (P < 0.001), those in poverty (P < 0.001), those staying far from the hospital (P < 0.001), living in rural areas (P = 0.003), small household size (P = 0.029), moderate cancer duration (P = 0.030), received radiotherapy treatment (P < 0.001), had very frequent treatment (P < 0.001), and without a Guarantee Letter (GL) (P < 0.001). The regression analysis identified significant predictors of CHE as lower income aOR 18.63 (CI 5.71-60.78), middle income aOR 4.67 (CI 1.52-14.41), poverty income aOR 4.66 (CI 2.60-8.33), staying far from hospital aOR 2.62 (CI 1.58-4.34), chemotherapy aOR 3.70 (CI 2.01-6.82), radiotherapy aOR 2.99 (CI 1.37-6.57), combination chemo-radiotherapy aOR 4.99 (CI 1.48-16.87), health insurance aOR 3.99 (CI 2.31-6.90), without GL aOR 3.38 (CI 2.06-5.40), and without health financial aids aOR 2.94 (CI 1.24-6.96).
CONCLUSIONS: CHE is related to various sociodemographic, economic, disease, treatment and presence of health insurance, GL and health financial aids variables in Malaysia.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, Global Index Medicus, websites related to HF, and study references for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection and data extraction, including studies describing the use of individual patient records with the aim to improve the quality of care in older people with HF in LMICs.
RESULTS: A total of 222 abstracts were screened, 59 full-text articles were reviewed, and 10 studies regarding 3 registries were included in the analysis. Malaysia and Mexico implemented a HF registry in public hospitals whereas Argentina implemented a registry in the private setting. The Mexican registry, the most recent one, is the only one that publishes annual reports. There was significant variability in data fields between registries, particularly in functional evaluation and follow-up. The Ministry of Health finances the Malaysian registry, while Argentinian and Mexican registries founding was unclear.
CONCLUSION: The adoption of HF registries in LMICs is scarce. The few experiences show promising results but higher support is required to develop more registries. Long-term sustainability remains a challenge.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on Malaysian adults with hearing loss to determine the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on hearing aid management, communication difficulties, psychosocial challenges, and access to audiological services.
STUDY SAMPLE: One hundred forty-six individuals aged 18 years old and above with hearing loss were recruited from hearing health care centers to participate in the survey.
RESULTS: Many of the participants (54.2%) reported significant difficulties communicating with people wearing face masks. For hearing aid management, repairing (36.3%) and fine-tuning devices (30.2%) were considered more challenging than obtaining a battery (21.3%). The COVID-19 pandemic had a serious psychosocial impact on a small portion of the individuals surveyed. Remote services were rarely offered by the audiologists, and most participants preferred in-person treatment. However, the majority perceived that creating awareness and training on telehealth was important.
CONCLUSIONS: Effective management for people with hearing loss needs to consider the challenges faced by them, as the world prepares to live with the coronavirus. Clinical protocols should consider providing a service that is helpful for the clients as well as safe and sustainable in future pandemics.