METHODS: The Multiple Sclerosis International Federation third edition of the Atlas of MS was a survey that assessed the current global state of diagnosis including adoption of MS diagnostic criteria; barriers to diagnosis with respect to the patient, health care provider, and health system; and existence of national guidelines or national standards for speed of MS diagnosis.
RESULTS: Coordinators from 107 countries (representing approximately 82% of the world population), participated. Eighty-three percent reported at least 1 "major barrier" to early MS diagnosis. The most frequently reported barriers included the following: "lack of awareness of MS symptoms among general public" (68%), "lack of awareness of MS symptoms among health care professionals" (59%), and "lack of availability of health care professionals with knowledge to diagnose MS" (44%). One-third reported lack of "specialist medical equipment or diagnostic tests." Thirty-four percent reported the use of only 2017 McDonald criteria (McD-C) for diagnosis, and 79% reported 2017 McD-C as the "most commonly used criteria." Sixty-six percent reported at least 1 barrier to the adoption of 2017 McD-C, including "neurologists lack awareness or training" by 45%. There was no significant association between national guidelines pertaining to MS diagnosis or practice standards addressing the speed of diagnosis and presence of barriers to early MS diagnosis and implementation of 2017 McD-C.
DISCUSSION: This study finds pervasive consistent global barriers to early diagnosis of MS. While these barriers reflected a lack of resources in many countries, data also suggest that interventions designed to develop and implement accessible education and training can provide cost-effective opportunities to improve access to early MS diagnosis.
METHODS: This bibliometric work investigated the academic publication trends in medical image segmentation technology. These data were collected from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection and the Scopus. In the quantitative analysis stage, important visual maps were produced to show publication trends from five different perspectives including annual publications, countries, top authors, publication sources, and keywords. In the qualitative analysis stage, the frequently used methods and research trends in the medical image segmentation field were analyzed from 49 publications with the top annual citation rates.
RESULTS: The analysis results showed that the number of publications had increased rapidly by year. The top related countries include the Chinese mainland, the United States, and India. Most of these publications were conference papers, besides there are also some top journals. The research hotspot in this field was deep learning-based medical image segmentation algorithms based on keyword analysis. These publications were divided into three categories: reviews, segmentation algorithm publications, and other relevant publications. Among these three categories, segmentation algorithm publications occupied the vast majority, and deep learning neural network-based algorithm was the research hotspots and frontiers.
CONCLUSIONS: Through this bibliometric research work, the research hotspot in the medical image segmentation field is uncovered and can point to future research in the field. It can be expected that more researchers will focus their work on deep learning neural network-based medical image segmentation.
METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted at 20 participating EnPHC clinics in Johor and Selangor, two months after the intervention was initiated. Data collected from self-reported forms and a structured observation checklist were descriptively analysed. In-depth interviews were also conducted with 20 participants across the clinics selected to clarify any information gaps observed in each clinic, and data were thematically analysed.
RESULTS: Evaluation showed that all components of EnPHC intervention had been successfully implemented except for the primary triage counter and visit checklist. The challenges were mainly discovered in terms of human resource and physical structure. Although human resource was a common implementation challenge across all interventions, clinic-specific issues could still be identified. Among the adaptive measures taken were task sharing among staff and workflow modification to match the clinic's capacity. Despite the challenges, early benefits of implementation were highlighted especially in terms of service outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation study disclosed issues of human resource and physical infrastructure when a supplementary intervention is implemented. To successfully achieve a scaled-up PHC service delivery model based on comprehensive management of NCDs patient-centred care, the adaptive measures in local clinic context highlight the importance of collaboration between good organisational process and good clinical practice and process.
METHODS: The DEA was performed using countries as decision-making units, schizophrenia disease investment (cost of disease as a percentage of total health care expenditure) as the input, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per patient due to schizophrenia as the output. Data were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study, the World Bank Group, and a literature search of the PubMed database.
RESULTS: Data were obtained for 44 countries; of these, 34 had complete data and were included in the DEA. Disease investment (percentage of total health care expenditure) ranged from 1.11 in Switzerland to 6.73 in Thailand. DALYs per patient ranged from 0.621 in Lithuania to 0.651 in Malaysia. According to the DEA, countries with the most efficient schizophrenia health care were Lithuania, Norway, Switzerland and the US (all with efficiency score 1.000). The least efficient countries were Malaysia (0.955), China (0.959) and Thailand (0.965).
LIMITATIONS: DEA findings depend on the countries and variables that are included in the dataset.
CONCLUSIONS: In this international DEA, despite the difference in schizophrenia disease investment across countries, there was little difference in output as measured by DALYs per patient. Potentially, Lithuania, Norway, Switzerland and the US should be considered 'benchmark' countries by policy makers, thereby providing useful information to countries with less efficient systems.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.
RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.