The WHO policy brief on COVID-19 infodemic management outlines key actions for countries to consider when developing infodemic management policies, focusing on opportunities for strengthening and supporting such a network of actors.
The policy brief on infodemic management can be used by health authorities to support the development of a comprehensive infodemic management strategy, adapted to their country that leverages these activities efficiently. The brief highlights the importance of equipping health workers with skills to address health misinformation and the need for designated infodemic management teams to generate rapid actionable insights for health systems.
The policy brief is available in all official WHO languages.
The key points in the policy brief: 1. Train health workers, who are often the most trusted source of health information, to better identify and address health misinformation. 2. Tailor health, information and digital literacy initiatives to specific populations, and seek to debunk misinformation before it is widely disseminated through digital media and other channels. 3. Strive to develop high-quality, accessible health information in different digital formats designed for reuse, remixing and sharing and for rapid digital spread through social networks. 4. Establish an infodemic workforce for rapid infodemic insights generation and response, if necessary, by training staff to fulfil these functions; and ensure this function is clearly linked to and aligned with risk communications and community engagement efforts…more
#LongCOVID (prolonged symptoms following covid-19 infection) is common. The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications. Many patients can be supported effectively in #primaryhealthcare by a GP with a special interest…more
Background Evidence has been accumulating that community health workers (CHWs) providing evidence–based interventions as part of community–based primary health care (CBPHC) can lead to reductions in maternal, neonatal and child mortality. However, investments to strengthen and scale–up CHW programs still remain modest.
Methods We used the Lives Saved Tool (LiST) to estimate the number of maternal, neonatal and child deaths and stillbirths that could be prevented if 73 countries effectively scaled up the population coverage of 30 evidence–based interventions that CHWs can deliver in these high–burden countries. We set population coverage targets at 50%, 70%, and 90% and summed the country–level results by region and by all high–burden countries combined. We also estimated which specific interventions would save the most lives.
Findings LiST estimates that a total of 3.0 (sensitivity bounds 1.8–4.0), 4.9 (3.1–6.3) and 6.9 (3.7–8.7) million deaths would be prevented between 2016 and 2020 if CBPHC is gradually scaled up during this period and if coverage of key interventions reaches 50%, 70%, and 90% respectively. There would be 14%, 23%, and 32% fewer deaths in the final year compared to a scenario assuming no intervention coverage scale up. The Africa Region would receive the most benefit by far: 58% of the lives saved at 90% coverage would be in this region. The interventions contributing the greatest impact are nutritional interventions during pregnancy, treatment of malaria with artemisinin compounds, oral rehydration solution for childhood diarrhea, hand washing with soap, and oral antibiotics for pneumonia.
Conclusions Scaling up CHW programming to increase population–level coverage of life–saving interventions represents a very promising strategy to achieve universal health coverage and end preventable maternal and child deaths by 2030. Numerous practical challenges must be overcome, but there is no better alternative at present. Expanding the coverage of key interventions for maternal nutrition and treatment of childhood illnesses, in particular, may produce the greatest gains. Recognizing the millions of lives of mothers and their young offspring that could
be achieved by expanding coverage of evidence–based interventions provided by CHWs and strengthening the CBPHC systems that support them underscores the pressing need for commitment from governments and donors over the next 15 years to prioritize funding, so that robust CHW platforms can be refined, strengthened, and expanded... more
Thank you for being part of the AfroPHC research mentorship programme.
We have 17 concept notes that have been submitted by the end of July. See them all listed here https://afrophc.org/afrophc-systems-research/ Some supervisors have reached out to these researchers. If you are interested in supervising a researcher and see an interesting concept note then reach out to the researcher by email (as listed there) to indicate your willingness to supervise the researcher in their endeavour.
We hope researchers will use the monthly meetings organised by Senkyire to attend, and present their research ideas and find a supervisor for themselves, even if you have not submitted a concept note ( for November meeting). Unfortunately this matching process takes a lot of organisation and we can do no more than this. Reach out to Senkyire and the AfroPHC research team if you would like further assistance especially if you would like to present your research at the meetings.
PS; participants are required to read the following article and attached checklist beforehand ; bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/4/e043652.abstract Price J, Willcox M, Dlamini V, et al. Care- seeking during fatal childhood illness in rural South Africa: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e043652. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2020-043652
Our next meeting next Tuesday, 6th Sept [12-2 pm GMT, 1-3pm WAT, 2-4pm CAT/SAST and 3-5pm EAT], will be about “Getting to grips with Qualitative Research” by Deborah Lindell,DNP,RN,CNE,ANEF,FAAN
PURPOSE: Although the global burden of cancer falls increasingly on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), much of the evidence for cancer prevention and control comes from high-income countries and may not be directly applicable to LMIC settings. In this paper, we focus on the following question: When the majority of the evidence supporting an evidence-based intervention or implementation strategy comes from high-income countries, what local, contextual evidence is needed when transferring and adapting an intervention or strategy to a specific LMIC setting?
METHODS: We draw on an existing framework (the Population, Intervention, Environment, Transfer-T process model) for assessing transferability of interventions between distinct settings and apply the model to two case studies as learning examples involving implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines and self sampling for human papillomavirus DNA in cervical cancer screening.
RESULTS: These two case studies illustrate how researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and consumers may approach the need for local evidence from different perspectives and with different priorities. As uses and expectations around local evidence may be different for different groups, aligning these priorities through multistakeholder engagement in which all parties participate in defining the questions and cocreating the solutions is critical, along with promoting standardized reporting of contextual factors.
CONCLUSION: Local, contextual evidence can be important for both researchers and practitioners, and its absence may hinder translation of research and implementation efforts across different settings. However, it is essential for researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders to be able to clearly articulate the type of data needed and why it is important. In particular, where resources are limited, evidence generation should be prioritized to address real needs and gaps in knowledge…more
Abstract Submissions for IFNC16 will be accepted through
Friday, September 16, 2022
We are pleased to announce the Call for Abstracts for the 16th International Family Nursing Conference, ‟Global Innovations in Family Nursing: Advancing Family Health”. The conference will be held Tuesday, June 20 – Friday, June 23, 2023 in Dublin, Ireland.
Presentations that demonstrate state of the science family-related research, education, and evidence-based practice projects or papers that address the intersection of family health and policy are invited. Presenters are expected to provide information, strategies, and/or tools relevant to family researchers, educators, clinicians, and/or policy makers to advance their work.
At the end of the conference, attendees should be able to:
Education: Discuss global advancements in family nursing education for students and professionals.
Practice: Explore family health practice innovations and models of care for clinical nursing practice globally.
Research: Examine research evidence and emerging methodologies for application and transferability to family nursing education, practice, and policy to improve family health globally.
Policy/Leadership: Generate strategies to enhance leadership of family nurses and promote global influence on family health care policy.
Due dates and notification:
Abstract submissions will be accepted through Friday, September 16, 2022.
After your abstract is received, you will receive e-mail notification of receipt via the Oxford Abstract System. Further notification of the decision to accept or decline your abstract will be sent to you no later than Friday, November 18, 2022.
** Abstracts for podium/oral presentation will only be accepted for in-person presentation in Ireland. Abstracts submitted for poster presentation may be considered/accepted for virtual presentation. **
Please read the Instructions for submitting an abstract. Sample Abstracts are included within the instructions.
Please contact Debbie Zaparoni at email@example.com with any questions.
We encourage you to share this information with colleagues and students
Introduction: Blood exposure accidents (BEA) are a major public health problem, especially in developing countries such as Cameroon. Evaluating the knowledge and practices among healthcare workers (HCWs) of the Ngaoundere Regional Hospital (NRH), in relation to BEA, was a logical step towards addressing this concern in Cameroon.
Design: From 1 March to 30 April 2021, a descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at the NRH in the Adamawa region of Cameroon. The study population consisted of the HCWs of the NRH. A total, 218 health care personnel were contacted to participate in the study and 172 (78.89%) HCWs agreed. Data were collected using an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire.
Results: A total of 172 HCWs were surveyed and the predominant gender was female (54.7%), the average age was 35.55±7.46 years, and the average longevity was 9.14±6.78 years. Approximately 62.80% of the respondents claimed to have had at least one BEA. The most common BEA was needle stick injury (87.5%), followed by infected blood splashed into the mouth and/or eyes (52.0%) and contact with a wound containing infected blood (48.7%).
Conclusions: This study revealed a poor knowledge of interventions after BEA, demonstrated in the practices of HCWs of the NRH, especially according to their professional category, with medical staff having a better knowledge of BEA than paramedical staff…more
Treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in people living with HIV is associated with several challenges, including those related to drug metabolism which plays a major role in treatment efficacy. In this review, we will discuss the enzymes involved in the metabolism of anti-Helicobacter pylori and anti-HIV drugs to provide a basis for understanding the potential for interactions between these drug classes. We will also provide a clinical perspective on other issues related to the treatment of Helicobacter pylori and HIV infections such as comorbidities, adherence, and peer communication. Finally, based on our understanding of the interplay between the above issues, we propose a new concept “Antimicrobial susceptibility testing-drug interaction-supports-referent physician” (AISR), to provide a framework for improving rates of H. pylori eradication in people living with HIV…more
… Africa’s double burden of infectious and chronic disease is at the center of this debate on whether Africa is overspending health resources on … For starters, according to the World Health Organization, Africa has the highest incidence of HIV…more
Background: Access to sexual and reproductive health services remains a challenge for many in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia…
Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers working in health facilities offering sexual and reproductive health services in Kenya (n = 212), Tanzania (n = 371), Uganda (n = 145) and Zambia (n = 243)…
Results: According to healthcare workers, the most common barrier to accessing sexual and reproductive health services was poor patient knowledge (37.1%). Following, issues with supply of commodities (42.5%) and frequent stockouts (36.0%) were most often raised in the public sector; in the other sectors these were also raised as an issue. Patient costs were a more significant barrier in the private (33.3%) and private not-for-profit sectors (21.1%) compared to the public sector (4.6%), and religious beliefs were a significant barrier in the private not-for-profit sector compared to the public sector (odds ratio = 2.46, 95% confidence interval = 1.69–3.56). In all sectors delays in the delivery of supplies (37.4-63.9%) was given as main stockout cause. Healthcare workers further believed that it was common that clients were reluctant to access sexual and reproductive health services, due to fear of stigmatisation, their lack of knowledge, myths/superstitions, religious beliefs, and fear of side effects. Healthcare workers recommended client education to tackle this.
Conclusions: Demand and supply side barriers were manifold across the public, private and private not-for-profit sectors, with some sector-specific, but mostly cross-cutting barriers. To improve access to sexual and reproductive health services, a multi-pronged approach is needed, targeting client knowledge, the weak supply chain system, high costs in the private and private not-for-profit sectors, and religious beliefs…more
This new paper in PLOS Medicine finds that ‘While implementation research on priority NCDs has grown substantially, from under 10 studies per year in early 2000s to 51 studies in 2020, this is still vastly incommensurate with the health burden of NCDs’.
Background: While the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of most noncommunicable disease (NCD) prevention and treatment interventions is well established, care delivery models and means of scaling these up in a variety of resource-constrained health systems are not. The objective of this review was to synthesize evidence on the current state of implementation research on priority NCD prevention and control interventions provided by health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Methods and findings: On January 20, 2021, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 through 2020 to identify implementation research studies that focused on the World Health Organization (WHO) priority NCD prevention and control interventions targeting cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease and provided within health systems in LMICs… 222 eligible studies evaluated 265 priority NCD prevention and control interventions implemented in 62 countries (6% in low-income countries and 90% in middle-income countries)…
Conclusions: Despite growth in implementation research on NCDs in LMICs, we found major gaps in the science. Future studies should prioritize implementation at scale, target higher levels health systems (meso and macro levels), and test sustainability of NCD programs. They should employ designs with stronger internal validity, be more conceptually driven, and use mixed methods to understand mechanisms. To maximize impact of the research under limited resources, adding implementation science outcomes to effectiveness research and regional collaborations are promising…more