16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing trauma care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and evidence synthesis mapping the Three Delays framework to injury health system assessments

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The large burden of injuries falls disproportionately on low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Health system interventions improve outcomes in high-income countries. Assessing LMIC trauma systems supports their improvement. Evaluating systems using a Three Delays framework, considering barriers to seeking (Delay 1), reaching (Delay 2) and receiving care (Delay 3), has aided maternal health gains. Rapid assessments allow timely appraisal within resource and logistically constrained settings. We systematically reviewed existing literature on the assessment of LMIC trauma systems, applying the Three Delays framework and rapid assessment principles.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis of articles assessing LMIC trauma systems. We searched seven databases and grey literature for studies and reports published until October 2018. Inclusion criteria were an injury care focus and assessment of at least one defined system aspect. We mapped each study to the Three Delays framework and judged its suitability for rapid assessment.

          Results

          Of 14 677 articles identified, 111 studies and 8 documents were included. Sub-Saharan Africa was the most commonly included region (44.1%). Delay 3, either alone or in combination, was most commonly assessed (79.3%) followed by Delay 2 (46.8%) and Delay 1 (10.8%). Facility assessment was the most common method of assessment (36.0%). Only 2.7% of studies assessed all Three Delays. We judged 62.6% of study methodologies potentially suitable for rapid assessment.

          Conclusions

          Whole health system injury research is needed as facility capacity assessments dominate. Future studies should consider novel or combined methods to study Delays 1 and 2, alongside care processes and outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references220

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis.

              Data for the causes of maternal deaths are needed to inform policies to improve maternal health. We developed and analysed global, regional, and subregional estimates of the causes of maternal death during 2003-09, with a novel method, updating the previous WHO systematic review. We searched specialised and general bibliographic databases for articles published between between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2012, for research data, with no language restrictions, and the WHO mortality database for vital registration data. On the basis of prespecified inclusion criteria, we analysed causes of maternal death from datasets. We aggregated country level estimates to report estimates of causes of death by Millennium Development Goal regions and worldwide, for main and subcauses of death categories with a Bayesian hierarchical model. We identified 23 eligible studies (published 2003-12). We included 417 datasets from 115 countries comprising 60 799 deaths in the analysis. About 73% (1 771 000 of 2 443 000) of all maternal deaths between 2003 and 2009 were due to direct obstetric causes and deaths due to indirect causes accounted for 27·5% (672 000, 95% UI 19·7-37·5) of all deaths. Haemorrhage accounted for 27·1% (661 000, 19·9-36·2), hypertensive disorders 14·0% (343 000, 11·1-17·4), and sepsis 10·7% (261 000, 5·9-18·6) of maternal deaths. The rest of deaths were due to abortion (7·9% [193 000], 4·7-13·2), embolism (3·2% [78 000], 1·8-5·5), and all other direct causes of death (9·6% [235 000], 6·5-14·3). Regional estimates varied substantially. Between 2003 and 2009, haemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, and sepsis were responsible for more than half of maternal deaths worldwide. More than a quarter of deaths were attributable to indirect causes. These analyses should inform the prioritisation of health policies, programmes, and funding to reduce maternal deaths at regional and global levels. Further efforts are needed to improve the availability and quality of data related to maternal mortality. © 2014 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article published without any waiver of WHO's privileges and immunities under international law, convention, or agreement. This article should not be reproduced for use in association with the promotion of commercial products, services, or any legal entity. There should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2021
                11 May 2021
                : 6
                : 5
                : e004324
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentKing's Centre for Global Health and Health Partnerships , King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine , London, UK
                [2 ]departmentAcademic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma , Royal Centre for Defence Medicine , Birmingham, UK
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of Colorectal Surgery , King's College London , London, UK
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Surgery and Cancer , Imperial College London , London, UK
                [5 ]departmentStanford Graduate School of Business , Stanford University , Stanford, California, USA
                [6 ]departmentHarvey E Beardmore Division of Pediatric Surgery , Montreal Children's Hospital , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [7 ]departmentInstitute of Applied Health Research , University of Birmingham , Birmingham, West Midlands, UK
                [8 ]departmentCentre for Global Surgery, Department of Global Health , Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
                [9 ]departmentMedical Research Council/Wits University Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt) , Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand , Johannesburg, South Africa
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Justine I Davies; j.davies.6@ 123456bham.ac.uk

                AJML and JID are joint senior authors.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5877-4496
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-453X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6215-6885
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6267-6140
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4616-9990
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0500-5962
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6834-1838
                Article
                bmjgh-2020-004324
                10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004324
                8118008
                33975885
                cd995a74-f894-401e-be4a-970eafb60fe4
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 28 October 2020
                : 07 January 2021
                : 04 February 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Knight-Hennessy Scholars at Stanford University;
                Award ID: Graduate fellowship award
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                injury,traumatology,health systems evaluation,health services research,health systems

                Comments

                Comment on this article