METHODS: Articles in this review referenced EA, were peer-reviewed or gray literature reports published in 2010 to 2016 in English, and were identified using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles described EA use in LMICs. India, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Mozambique, and Rwanda reported building the system to meet country needs and implement a cohesive HIS framework. Jordan and Taiwan focused on specific HIS aspects, ie, disease surveillance and electronic medical records. Five studies informed the context. The Millennium Villages Project employed a "uniform but contextualized" approach to guide systems in 10 countries; Malaysia, Indonesia, and Tanzania used interviews and mapping of existing components to improve HIS, and Namibia used of Activity Theory to identify technology-associated activities to better understand EA frameworks. South Africa, Burundi, Kenya, and Democratic Republic of Congo used EA to move from paper-based to electronic systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Four themes emerged: the importance of multiple sectors and data sources, the need for interoperability, the ability to incorporate system flexibility, and the desirability of open group models, data standards, and software. Themes mapped to EA frameworks and operational components and to health system building blocks and goals. Most articles focused on processes rather than outcomes, as countries are engaged in implementation.
METHOD: This case report highlights the use of an integrated approach based on "Management of Really Sick Patients with Anorexia Nervosa" report in managing a case of extreme anorexia nervosa where a SEDU is unavailable.
RESULT: In this case, early psychiatric team support is key in the patient's path to recovery.
PRACTICE IMPLICATION: This highlights the importance of having a SEDU and staff trained in eating disorder.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country trauma systems was conducted from November 1989 to August 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC population according to World Bank Income Classification, occurred in a trauma setting, and measured the effect of implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was trauma mortality.
RESULTS: Of 37,575 search results, 30 studies were included from 15 LMICs covering five WHO regions in a qualitative synthesis. Twenty-seven articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementing a pre-hospital trauma system reduced overall trauma mortality by 45% (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.75). Training first responders resulted in an overall decrease in mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78). In-hospital trauma training with certified courses resulted in a reduction of mortality (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78). Trauma audits and trauma protocols resulted in varying improvements in trauma mortality.
CONCLUSION: There is evidence that quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure can improve mortality in the trauma systems in LMICs.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.
RESULTS: Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost-utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.
CONCLUSION: As the importance of health technology assessment is increasing in LMICs, this systematic review could help researchers explore key aspects of existing EEGs in LMICs and explore differences among them. It could also support international organizations in guiding LMICs to develop their own EEGs and improve the methodological framework of existing ones.
Please provide feedback to Administrator (firstname.lastname@example.org)