METHOD: A hermeneutic phenomenological approach was used to understand the experience of nurses caring for patients in the acute setting who had sustained a traumatic spinal injury with associated neurological deficit. Using the phenomenological approach guided by the insight of Gadamer and Max Van Manen, participants with a broad range of experience were recruited and interviewed. The responses were transcribed into a text and subjected to hermeneutic analysis. Burnard's (1991) 14-step process and the hermeneutic approach were used to interpret and understand the phenomenon of interest.
CONCLUSION: The study highlights the experience and challenges of providing care to these individuals. Although patients had significant physical disabilities and were often dependent physically, the nurses' concerns were directed more towards fulfilling their psychological needs. Nurses identified grieving patients and felt their role was to provide realistic hope to motivate them. They felt an internal tension regarding desensitisation towards their patients, but this was often an internal protective mechanism to deal with the significance of the events surrounding these patients. Nurses new to this setting took time to learn the routines and manage the unique challenges effectively. Caring for these patients gave the nurses the opportunity to understand their patients and their families, and appreciate that both groups will fluctuate in their behavior throughout the acute process, as they adjust to grief and loss.
METHODS: Utilizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, USA) website, and a comprehensive review of PubMed literature, we obtained information regarding clinical signs and symptoms, treatment and diagnosis, transmission methods, protection methods and risk factors for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and COVID-19. Comparisons between the viruses were made.
RESULTS: Inadequate risk assessment regarding the urgency of the situation, and limited reporting on the virus within China has, in part, led to the rapid spread of COVID-19 throughout mainland China and into proximal and distant countries. Compared with SARS and MERS, COVID-19 has spread more rapidly, due in part to increased globalization and the focus of the epidemic. Wuhan, China is a large hub connecting the North, South, East and West of China via railways and a major international airport. The availability of connecting flights, the timing of the outbreak during the Chinese (Lunar) New Year, and the massive rail transit hub located in Wuhan has enabled the virus to perforate throughout China, and eventually, globally.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that we did not learn from the two prior epidemics of coronavirus and were ill-prepared to deal with the challenges the COVID-19 epidemic has posed. Future research should attempt to address the uses and implications of internet of things (IoT) technologies for mapping the spread of infection.
METHODS: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced.
RESULTS: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes.
CONCLUSIONS: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.
METHODS: We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).
FINDINGS: In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505).
INTERPRETATION: Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).
FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.