DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study.
METHODS: We used data involving 3- and 4-year-olds from 13 middle- and high-income countries who participated in the SUNRISE study. We used Spearman's rank-order correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and Kappa statistics to validate parent-reported child habitual total physical activity against activPAL™-measured total physical activity over 3 days. Additionally, we used Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve analysis to validate existing step-count thresholds (Gabel, Vale, and De Craemer) using step-counts derived from activPAL™.
RESULTS: Of the 352 pre-schoolers, 49.1 % were girls. There was a very weak but significant positive correlation and slight agreement between parent-reported total physical activity and accelerometer-measured total physical activity (r: 0.140; p = 0.009; Kappa: 0.030). Parents overestimated their child's total physical activity compared to accelerometry (mean bias: 69 min/day; standard deviation: 126; 95 % limits of agreement: -179, 316). Of the three step-count thresholds tested, the De Craemer threshold of 11,500 steps/day provided excellent classification of meeting the total physical activity guideline as measured by accelerometry (area under the ROC curve: 0.945; 95 % confidence interval: 0.928, 0.961; sensitivity: 100.0 %; specificity: 88.9 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Parent reports may have limited validity for assessing pre-schoolers' level of total physical activity. Step-counting is a promising alternative - low-cost global surveillance initiatives could potentially use pedometers for assessing compliance with the physical activity guideline in early childhood.
OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to summarize the current evidence base of reported utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs.
METHODS: A structured electronic search combining terms for utility, utility valuation methods and generic terms for cancer treatment was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2011. Inclusion criteria were: (1) elicitation of utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs and (2) primary data. Two reviewers identified studies and extracted data independently. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria from the 853 abstracts initially identified, collectively reporting 218 utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. All 18 studies used short descriptions (vignettes) to obtain the utility values, with nine studies presenting the vignettes used in the valuation exercises. Of the 218 utility values, 178 were elicited using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO) approaches, while 40 were elicited using visual analogue scales (VAS). There were 169 utility values of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs (with the top ten being anaemia [34 values], nausea and/or vomiting [32 values], neuropathy [21 values], neutropenia [12 values], diarrhoea [12 values], stomatitis [10 values], fatigue [8 values], alopecia [7 values], hand-foot syndrome [5 values] and skin reaction [5 values]) and 49 of non-specific chemotherapy-related adverse events. In most cases, it was difficult to directly compare the utility values as various definitions and study-specific vignettes were used for the ADEs of interest.
LIMITATIONS: This review was designed to provide an overall description of existing literature reporting utility values for chemotherapy-related ADEs. The findings were not exhaustive and were limited to publications that could be identified using the search strategy employed and those reported in the English language.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified wide ranges in the utility values reported for broad categories of specific chemotherapy-related ADEs. There were difficulties in comparing the values directly as various study-specific definitions were used for these ADEs and most studies did not make the vignettes used in the valuation exercises available. It is recommended that a basic minimum requirement be developed for the transparent reporting of study designs eliciting utility values, incorporating key criteria such as reporting how the vignettes were developed and presenting the vignettes used in the valuation tasks as well as valuing and reporting the utility values of the ADE-free base states. It is also recommended, in the future, for studies valuing the utilities of chemotherapy-related ADEs to define the ADEs according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) definitions for chemotherapy-related ADEs as the use of the same definition across studies would ease the comparison and selection of utility values and make the overall inclusion of adverse events within economic models of chemotherapy agents much more straightforward.
METHODS: We defined high CVD risk as the presence of any of the following: hypertension, coronary artery disease, stroke, smoker, diabetes or age >55 years. Availability and affordability of blood pressure lowering drugs, antiplatelets and statins were obtained from pharmacies. Participants were categorised: group 1-all three drug types were available and affordable, group 2-all three drugs were available but not affordable and group 3-all three drugs were not available. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with nested clustering at country and community levels, adjusting for comorbidities, sociodemographic and economic factors.
RESULTS: Of 163 466 participants, there were 93 200 with high CVD risk from 21 countries (mean age 54.7, 49% female). Of these, 44.9% were from group 1, 29.4% from group 2 and 25.7% from group 3. Compared with participants from group 1, the risk of MACEs was higher among participants in group 2 (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31), and among participants from group 3 (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.50).
CONCLUSION: Lower availability and affordability of essential CVD medicines were associated with higher risk of MACEs and mortality. Improving access to CVD medicines should be a key part of the strategy to lower CVD globally.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses protocols. Primary outcomes will include: (1) proportion of eligible patients initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART); (2) proportion of those on ART with <1000 copies/mL; (3) rate of all-cause mortality among ART recipients. Secondary outcomes will include: (1) proportion receiving Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis; (2) proportion with >90% ART adherence (based on any measure reported); (3) proportion screened for non-communicable diseases (specifically cervical cancer, diabetes, hypertension and mental ill health); (iv) proportion screened for tuberculosis. A search of five electronic bibliographical databases (Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL) and reference lists of included articles will be conducted to identify relevant articles reporting HIV clinical outcomes. Searches will be limited to LMIC. No age, publication date, study-design or language limits will be applied. Authors of relevant studies will be contacted for clarification. Two reviewers will independently screen citations and abstracts, identify full text articles for inclusion, extract data and appraise the quality and bias of included studies. Outcome data will be pooled to generate aggregative proportions of primary and secondary outcomes. Descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis will be presented. Heterogeneity and sensitivity assessments will be conducted to aid interpretation of results.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed scientific manuscript and at international scientific conferences. Results will inform quality improvement strategies, replication of identified good practices, potential policy changes, and future research.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016040053.
METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4).
RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P Cost of providing dental treatment for periodontitis patients at public sector specialist settings were substantial and comparable with some non-communicable diseases. These findings provide basis for identifying potential cost-reducing strategies, estimating economic burden of periodontitis management and performing economic evaluation of the specialist periodontal programme.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A technology survey was completed by professionals (n = 36) attending O&M workshops in Malaysia. A revised survey was completed online by O&M specialists (n = 31) primarily in Australia. Qualitative data about technology use came from conferences, workshops and interviews with O&M professionals. Descriptive statistics were analysed together with free-text data.
RESULTS: Limited awareness of apps used by clients, unaffordability of devices, and inadequate technology training discouraged many O&M professionals from employing existing technologies in client programmes or for broader professional purposes. Professionals needed to learn smartphone accessibility features and travel-related apps, and ways to use technology during O&M client programmes, initial professional training, ongoing professional development and research.
CONCLUSIONS: Smartphones are now integral to travel with low vision or blindness and early-adopter O&M clients are the travel tech-experts. O&M professionals need better initial training and then regular upskilling in mainstream O&M technologies to expand clients' travel choices. COVID-19 has created an imperative for technology laggards to upskill for O&M tele-practice. O&M technology could support comprehensive O&M specialist training and practice in Malaysia, to better serve O&M clients with complex needs.Implications for rehabilitationMost orientation and mobility (O&M) clients are travelling with a smartphone, so O&M specialists need to be abreast of mainstream technologies, accessibility features and apps used by clients for orientation, mobility, visual efficiency and social engagement.O&M specialists who are technology laggards need human-guided support to develop confidence in using travel technologies, and O&M clients are the experts. COVID-19 has created an imperative to learn skills for O&M tele-practice.Affordability is a significant barrier to O&M professionals and clients accessing specialist travel technologies in Malaysia, and to O&M professionals upgrading technology in Australia.Comprehensive training for O&M specialists is needed in Malaysia to meet the travel needs of clients with low vision or blindness who also have physical, cognitive, sensory or mental health complications.
METHODS: We assessed fruit and vegetable consumption using data from country-specific, validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which enrolled participants from communities in 18 countries between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013. We documented household income data from participants in these communities; we also recorded the diversity and non-sale prices of fruits and vegetables from grocery stores and market places between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013. We determined the cost of fruits and vegetables relative to income per household member. Linear random effects models, adjusting for the clustering of households within communities, were used to assess mean fruit and vegetable intake by their relative cost.
FINDINGS: Of 143 305 participants who reported plausible energy intake in the food frequency questionnaire, mean fruit and vegetable intake was 3·76 servings (95% CI 3·66-3·86) per day. Mean daily consumption was 2·14 servings (1·93-2·36) in low-income countries (LICs), 3·17 servings (2·99-3·35) in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), 4·31 servings (4·09-4·53) in upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and 5·42 servings (5·13-5·71) in high-income countries (HICs). In 130 402 participants who had household income data available, the cost of two servings of fruits and three servings of vegetables per day per individual accounted for 51·97% (95% CI 46·06-57·88) of household income in LICs, 18·10% (14·53-21·68) in LMICs, 15·87% (11·51-20·23) in UMICs, and 1·85% (-3·90 to 7·59) in HICs (ptrend=0·0001). In all regions, a higher percentage of income to meet the guidelines was required in rural areas than in urban areas (p<0·0001 for each pairwise comparison). Fruit and vegetable consumption among individuals decreased as the relative cost increased (ptrend=0·00040).
INTERPRETATION: The consumption of fruit and vegetables is low worldwide, particularly in LICs, and this is associated with low affordability. Policies worldwide should enhance the availability and affordability of fruits and vegetables.
FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, AstraZeneca (Canada), Sanofi-Aventis (France and Canada), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany and Canada), Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.