Search

Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) are a group of chronic infectious diseases of poverty affecting over one billion people globally. Intersections of NTDs, disability, and mental ill-health are increasingly evidenced but are rarely studied from a mixed-methods perspective. Here, we advance syndemic understandings by further assessing and contextualising the syndemic relationship between NTDs (particularly their associated disability) and mental distress in Liberia. Participatory qualitative methods, including body mapping (56 participants), social mapping (28 participants), and in-depth interviews (12) provided space for persons affected by NTDs to narrate their experiences. Simultaneously, 201 surveys explored experiences of common mental health conditions among persons affected by skin NTDs. An intersectionality approach was applied within the analysis for both qualitative and quantitative methods informed by Meyer’s minority stress model, adapted for NTDs. Qualitative data was analysed thematically and gender-disaggregated, univariable and multivariable analyses were applied to survey data for the outcome measures depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7). Disability was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety (p < 0.001). An interaction between disability and being a women increased incidence risk ratio of depression (p < 0.001). In alignment with qualitative findings, persons affected experienced additional generalised (financial concerns), external (experience of stigma) and internal (experience of pain and physical symptoms) minority stressors, to varying degrees, which contributed towards their mental distress, and mental health conditions. These findings were used to co-develop a syndemic-informed person-centred health system response to address the suffering associated with NTDs and mental distress, including a focus on strengthening relationships between formal and informal community health actors and the broader health system.

Abstract Background COVID-19 has caused significant public health problems globally, with catastrophic impacts on health systems. This study explored the adaptations to health services in Liberia and Merseyside UK at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (January–May 2020) and their perceived impact on routine service delivery. During this period, transmission routes and treatment pathways were as yet unknown, public fear and health care worker fear was high and death rates among vulnerable hospitalised patients were high. We aimed to identify cross-context lessons for building more resilient health systems during a pandemic response. Methods The study employed a cross-sectional qualitative design with a collective case study approach involving simultaneous comparison of COVID-19 response experiences in Liberia and Merseyside. Between June and September 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 66 health system actors purposively selected across different levels of the health system. Participants included national and county decision-makers in Liberia, frontline health workers and regional and hospital decision-makers in Merseyside UK. Data were analysed thematically in NVivo 12 software. Results There were mixed impacts on routine services in both settings. Major adverse impacts included diminished availability and utilisation of critical health services for socially vulnerable populations, linked with reallocation of health service resources for COVID-19 care, and use of virtual medical consultation in Merseyside. Routine service delivery during the pandemic was hampered by a lack of clear communication, centralised planning, and limited local autonomy. Across both settings, cross-sectoral collaboration, community-based service delivery, virtual consultations, community engagement, culturally sensitive messaging, and local autonomy in response planning facilitated delivery of essential services. Conclusion Our findings can inform response planning to assure optimal delivery of essential routine health services during the early phases of public health emergencies. Pandemic responses should prioritise early preparedness, with investment in the health systems building blocks including staff training and PPE stocks, address both pre-existing and pandemic-related structural barriers to care, inclusive and participatory decision-making, strong community engagement, and effective and sensitive communication. Multisectoral collaboration and inclusive leadership are essential.

Abstract Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) are a heterogeneous group of genetic connective tissue disorders, and typically manifests as weak joints that subluxate/dislocate, stretchy and/or fragile skin, organ/systems dysfunction, and significant widespread pain. Historically, this syndrome has been poorly understood and often overlooked. As a result, people living with EDS had difficulty obtaining an accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, leading to untold personal suffering as well as ineffective health care utilization. The GoodHope EDS clinic addresses systemic gaps in the diagnosis and treatment of EDS. This paper describes a leap forward—from lack of awareness, diagnosis, and treatment—to expert care that is tailored to meet the specific needs of patients with EDS. The GoodHope EDS clinic consists of experts from various medical specialties who work together to provide comprehensive care that addresses the multi-systemic nature of the syndrome. In addition, EDS-specific self-management programs have been developed that draw on exercise science, rehabilitation, and health psychology to improve physical and psychosocial wellbeing and overall quality of life. Embedded into the program are research initiatives to shed light on the clinical presentation, underlying mechanisms of pathophysiology, and syndrome management. We also lead regular educational activities for community health care providers to increase awareness and competence in the interprofessional management of EDS beyond our doors and throughout the province and country.

Introduction COVID-19 has tested the resilience of health systems globally and exposed existing strengths and weaknesses. We sought to understand health systems COVID-19 adaptations and decision making in Liberia and Merseyside, UK.Methods We used a people-centred approach to carry out qualitative interviews with 24 health decision-makers at national and county level in Liberia and 42 actors at county and hospital level in the UK (Merseyside). We explored health systems’ decision-making processes and capacity to adapt and continue essential service delivery in response to COVID-19 in both contexts.Results Study respondents in Liberia and Merseyside had similar experiences in responding to COVID-19, despite significant differences in health systems context, and there is an opportunity for multidirectional learning between the global south and north. The need for early preparedness; strong community engagement; clear communication within the health system and health service delivery adaptations for essential health services emerged strongly in both settings. We found the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) principles to have value as a framework for reviewing health systems changes, across settings, in response to a shock such as a pandemic. In addition to the eight original principles, we expanded to include two additional principles: (1) the need for functional structures and mechanisms for preparation and (2) adaptable governance and leadership structures to facilitate timely decision making and response coordination. We find the use of a people-centred approach also has value to prompt policy-makers to consider the acceptance of service adaptations by patients and health workers, and to continue the provision of ‘routine services’ for individuals during health systems shocks.Conclusion Our study highlights the importance of a people-centred approach, placing the person at the centre of the health system, and value in applying and adapting the FCDO principles across diverse settings.

Background : The addition of clonidine to lidocaine intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) has been previously reported to improve postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing upper extremity surgery. Our objective was to perform a dose ranging study in order to determine the optimal dose of clonidine used with lidocaine in IVRA. Design & Setting : We performed a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled study with 60 patients scheduled for elective endoscopic carpal tunnel release under IVRA with 50 ml lidocaine 0.5%. University-affiliated outpatient surgery center. Data collected in operating rooms, recovery room, and by telephone after discharge from surgery center. Materials & Methods : Sixty adult ASA I or II patients undergoing outpatient endoscopic carpal tunnel release under intravenous regional anesthesia.Patients were randomized into five study groups receiving different doses of clonidine in addition to 50 ml 0.5% lidocaine in their IVRA. Group A received 0 mcg/kg, group B 0.25 mcg/kg, group C 0.5 mcg/kg, group D 1.0 mcg/kg and group E 1.5 mcg/kg of clonidine.Intraoperative fentanyl, recovery room pain scores, time to first postsurgical analgesic, total number of acetaminophen/codeine tablets consumed postsurgery, incidence of sedation, hypotension and bradycardia. Results & Conclusions : There was no benefit from any dose of clonidine compared to placebo. There were no clonidine-related side effects seen within the dose range studied. In short duration minor hand surgery, the addition of clonidine to lidocaine-based intravenous regional anesthesia provides no measurable benefit.