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: Data were collected on travellers evaluated at GeoSentinel Network sites who reported healthcare during travel. Both unplanned and planned healthcare were analysed, including the reason and nature of healthcare sought, characteristics of the treatment provided and outcomes. Travellers that presented for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis were described elsewhere and were excluded from detailed analysis.
RESULTS: From May 2017 through June 2020, after excluding travellers obtaining rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (n= 415), 1093 travellers reported care for a medical or dental issue that was an unanticipated part of the travellers' planned itinerary (unplanned healthcare). Travellers who sought unplanned healthcare abroad had frequent diagnoses of acute diarrhoea, dengue, falciparum malaria and unspecified viral syndrome, and obtained care in 131 countries. Thirty-four (3%) reported subsequent deterioration and 230 (21%) reported no change in condition; a third (n = 405; 37%) had a pre-travel health encounter. Forty-one travellers had sufficient data on planned healthcare abroad for analysis. The most common destinations were the US, France, Dominican Republic, Belgium and Mexico. The top reasons for their planned healthcare abroad were unavailability of procedure at home (n = 9; 19%), expertise abroad (n = 9; 19%), lower cost (n = 8; 17%) and convenience (n = 7; 15%); a third (n = 13; 32%) reported cosmetic or surgical procedures. Early and late complications occurred in 14 (33%) and 4 (10%) travellers, respectively. Four travellers (10%) had a pre-travel health encounter.
CONCLUSIONS: International travellers encounter health problems during travel that often could be prevented by pre-travel consultation. Travellers obtaining planned healthcare abroad can experience negative health consequences associated with treatments abroad, for which pre-travel consultations could provide advice and potentially help to prevent complications.
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.