METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out among spine surgeons in Asia Pacific. The questionnaires were focused on the usage, recycling and disposal of PPE.
RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-two surgeons from 19 countries participated in the survey. When we sub-analysed the differences between countries, the provision of adequate PPE by hospitals ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The usage of PPE was generally high. The most used PPE were surgical face masks (88.7%), followed by surgical caps (88.3%), gowns (85.6%), sterile gloves (83.3%) and face shields (82.0%). The least used PPE were powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) (23.0%) and shoes/boots (45.0%). The commonly used PPE for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients were N95 masks (74.8%), sterile gloves (73.0%), gowns (72.1%), surgical caps (71.6%), face shields (64.4%), goggles (64.0%), shoe covers (58.6%), plastic aprons (45.9%), shoes/boots (45.9%), surgical face masks (36.5%) and PAPRs (21.2%). Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE items compared to general waste.
CONCLUSIONS: The usage of PPE was generally high among most countries especially for surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients except for Myanmar and Nepal. Overall, the most used PPE were surgical face masks. For surgeries involving COVID-19 positive patients, the most used PPE were N95 masks. Most PPE were not recycled. Biohazard bins were the preferred method of disposal for all types of PPE.
RESULTS: A total of 36 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Numerous stakeholders were identified as involved in the intersectoral actions to defeat malaria amongst MMPs. Almost all studies discussed the involvement of Ministry of Health/Public Health (MOH/MOPH). The most frequently assessed intervention among the studies that were included was the coverage and utilization of insecticide-treated nets as personal protective measures (40.5%), followed by the intervention of early diagnoses and treatment of malaria (33.3%), the surveillance and response activities (13.9%) and the behaviour change communication (8.3%). There is a dearth of information on how these stakeholders shared roles and responsibilities for implementation, and about the channels of communication between-and-within the partners and with the MOH/MOPH. Despite limited details in the studies, the intermediate outcomes showed some evidence that the intersectoral collaborations contributed to improvement in knowledge about malaria, initiation and promotion of bed nets utilization, increased access to diagnosis and treatment in a surveillance context and contributed towards a reduction in malaria transmission. Overall, a high proportion of the targeted MMPs was equipped with correct knowledge about malaria transmission (70%, 95% CI 57-83%). Interventions targeting the use of bed nets utilization were two times more likely to reduce malaria incidence amongst the targeted MMPs (summary OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.43-2.6) than the non-users. The various intersectoral actions were often more vertically organized and not fully integrated in a systemic way within a given country or sub-national administrative setting.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that interventions supported by the multiple stakeholders had a significant impact on the reduction of malaria transmission amongst the targeted MMPs. Well-designed studies from different countries are recommended to robustly assess the role of intersectoral interventions targeted to MMPs and their impact on the reduction of transmission.
METHODS: A total of 14 focus group discussions were conducted with 84 Malaysian citizens of different socio-demographic backgrounds between 16(th) December, 2011 and 12(th) May, 2012.
RESULTS: The study revealed that awareness about DF and prevention measures were high. The pathophysiology of dengue especially dengue haemorrhagic fever (DHF) and dengue shock syndrome (DSS) were rarely known; as a result, it was seen as deadly by some but was also perceived as easily curable by others without a basis of understanding. Young adults and elderly participants had a low perception of susceptibility to DF. In general, the low perceived susceptibility emerged as two themes, namely a perceived natural ability to withstand infection and a low risk of being in contact with the dengue virus vector, Aedes spp. mosquitoes. The barriers to sustained self-prevention against dengue prevention that emerged in focus groups were: i) lack of self-efficacy, ii) lack of perceived benefit, iii) low perceived susceptibility, and iv) unsure perceived susceptibility. Low perceived benefit of continued dengue prevention practices was a result of lack of concerted action against dengue in their neighborhood. Traditional medical practices and home remedies were widely perceived and experienced as efficacious in treating DF.
CONCLUSION: Behavioural change towards attaining sustainability in dengue preventive practices may be enhanced by fostering comprehensive knowledge of dengue and a change in health beliefs. Wide use of unconventional therapy for DF warrants the need to enlighten the public to limit their reliance on unproven alternative treatments.
METHODS: Five graph models were fit using data from 1574 people who inject drugs in Hartford, CT, USA. We used a degree-corrected stochastic block model, based on goodness-of-fit, to model networks of injection drug users. We simulated transmission of HCV and HIV through this network with varying levels of HCV treatment coverage (0%, 3%, 6%, 12%, or 24%) and varying baseline HCV prevalence in people who inject drugs (30%, 60%, 75%, or 85%). We compared the effectiveness of seven treatment-as-prevention strategies on reducing HCV prevalence over 10 years and 20 years versus no treatment. The strategies consisted of treatment assigned to either a randomly chosen individual who injects drugs or to an individual with the highest number of injection partners. Additional strategies explored the effects of treating either none, half, or all of the injection partners of the selected individual, as well as a strategy based on respondent-driven recruitment into treatment.
FINDINGS: Our model estimates show that at the highest baseline HCV prevalence in people who inject drugs (85%), expansion of treatment coverage does not substantially reduce HCV prevalence for any treatment-as-prevention strategy. However, when baseline HCV prevalence is 60% or lower, treating more than 120 (12%) individuals per 1000 people who inject drugs per year would probably eliminate HCV within 10 years. On average, assigning treatment randomly to individuals who inject drugs is better than targeting individuals with the most injection partners. Treatment-as-prevention strategies that treat additional network members are among the best performing strategies and can enhance less effective strategies that target the degree (ie, the highest number of injection partners) within the network.
INTERPRETATION: Successful HCV treatment as prevention should incorporate the baseline HCV prevalence and will achieve the greatest benefit when coverage is sufficiently expanded.
FUNDING: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
METHODS: Vaccination impact was investigated with an age-structured, host-vector, serotype-specific compartmental model. Parameters related to vaccine efficacy and levels of dengue transmission were estimated using data collected during the phase III efficacy studies. Several vaccination programs, including routine vaccination at different ages with and without large catch-up campaigns, were investigated.
RESULTS: All vaccination programs explored translated into significant reductions in dengue cases at the population level over the first 10years following vaccine introduction and beyond. The most efficient age for vaccination varied according to transmission intensity and 9years was close to the most efficient age across all settings. The combination of routine vaccination and large catch-up campaigns was found to enable a rapid reduction of dengue burden after vaccine introduction.
CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that dengue vaccination can significantly reduce the public health impact of dengue in countries where the disease is endemic.