Search

BackgroundViolence against children in schools is a global public health problem. There is growing evidence that school-based interventions can be effective in reducing violence against children in schools. However, there is little evidence on the long-term impact of such interventions. The Good School Toolkit, developed by Raising Voices, a Uganda-based nonprofit organization, is a whole-school violence prevention intervention that aims to change the operational culture of primary schools. In 2014, the Good School Toolkit was evaluated through a cluster randomized controlled trial (Good Schools Study) and found to reduce teacher-to-student and student-to-student violence. ObjectiveThis protocol describes quantitative analyses to explore long-term outcomes of the Good School Toolkit intervention among adolescents in Uganda, including the extent to which it is associated with peer-violence victimization (primary outcome) and peer-violence perpetration, intimate-partner violence, acceptance of teacher-violence, equitable gender attitudes, agency, self-regulation, peer connectedness, social assets, psychological assets, and retention in school (secondary outcomes). MethodsThis is a nonrandomized quasi-experimental 4-year follow-up study of adolescents who attended the 42 Good Schools Study primary schools in 2014; 21 schools initiated the Good School Toolkit intervention during the trial from 2012, and 19 schools initiated the intervention after the trial (during the later delivery phase) from 2015; 2 schools did not implement the intervention. Students in the final school grade (Primary 7) during 2014 of the 19 primary schools in the later delivery phase are expected to have left school prior to toolkit delivery in 2015. Wave 1 data were collected in 2014 from 3431 grade Primary 5 to Primary 7 school students aged 11-14 years; these students were followed up in 2018-2019 when aged 16-19 years and invited to participate in the Wave 2 survey. Data were collected in face-to-face interviews by trained Ugandan field researchers. Toolkit exposure groups are defined as exposed during the Good Schools Study trial (from 2012), as exposed during later delivery (from 2015), or not exposed including those expected to have completed Primary 7 prior to later delivery or from the 2 schools that did not implement the toolkit. Associations between outcomes at Wave 2 and toolkit exposure groups will be analyzed using mixed-effect multivariable logistic and linear regression models for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. This analysis is exploratory and aims to generate hypotheses on if, and under what circumstances, the toolkit influences later adolescent outcomes. ResultsData collection was completed in August 2019. ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first long-term follow-up study of adolescents exposed to a school-based violence-prevention intervention in sub-Saharan Africa. If the intervention reduces violence and improves other outcomes in later adolescence, then this study supports primary school interventions as key to achieving long-term population impacts. The pattern of effects will inform where reinforced or additional interventions are needed. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/20940

BackgroundPreterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. WHO recommends kangaroo mother care (KMC); however, its effects on mortality in sub-Saharan Africa and its relative costs remain unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of KMC initiated before clinical stabilisation versus standard care in neonates weighing up to 2000 g.MethodsWe conducted a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial in five hospitals across Uganda. Singleton or twin neonates aged younger than 48 h weighing 700-2000 g without life-threatening clinical instability were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) neonates to either KMC initiated before stabilisation (intervention group) or standard care (control group) via a computer-generated random allocation sequence with permuted blocks of varying sizes, stratified by birthweight and recruitment site. Parents, caregivers, and health-care workers were unmasked to treatment allocation; however, the independent statistician who conducted the analyses was masked. After randomisation, neonates in the intervention group were placed prone and skin-to-skin on the caregiver's chest, secured with a KMC wrap. Neonates in the control group were cared for in an incubator or radiant heater, as per hospital practice; KMC was not initiated until stability criteria were met. The primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality at 7 days, analysed by intention to treat. The economic evaluation assessed incremental costs and cost-effectiveness from a disaggregated societal perspective. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432.FindingsBetween Oct 9, 2019, and July 31, 2022, 2221 neonates were randomly assigned: 1110 (50·0%) neonates to the intervention group and 1111 (50·0%) neonates to the control group. From randomisation to age 7 days, 81 (7·5%) of 1083 neonates in the intervention group and 83 (7·5%) of 1102 neonates in the control group died (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·74-1·28]; p=0·85). From randomisation to 28 days, 119 (11·3%) of 1051 neonates in the intervention group and 134 (12·8%) of 1049 neonates in the control group died (RR 0·88 [0·71-1·09]; p=0·23). Even if policy makers place no value on averting neonatal deaths, the intervention would have 97% probability from the provider perspective and 84% probability from the societal perspective of being more cost-effective than standard care.InterpretationKMC initiated before stabilisation did not reduce early neonatal mortality; however, it was cost-effective from the societal and provider perspectives compared with standard care. Additional investment in neonatal care is needed for increased impact, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.FundingJoint Global Health Trials scheme of the Department of Health and Social Care, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, UKRI Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Background Globally, over 16 million children were exposed to HIV during pregnancy but remain HIV-free at birth and throughout childhood by 2022. Children born HIV-free (CBHF) have higher morbidity and mortality and poorer neurodevelopment in early life compared to children who are HIV-unexposed (CHU), but long-term outcomes remain uncertain. We characterised school-age growth, cognitive and physical function in CBHF and CHU previously enrolled in the Sanitation Hygiene Infant Nutrition Efficacy (SHINE) trial in rural Zimbabwe. Methods and findings The SHINE trial enrolled pregnant women between 2012 and 2015 across 2 rural Zimbabwean districts. Co-primary outcomes were height-for-age Z-score and haemoglobin at age 18 months (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01824940). Children were re-enrolled if they were aged 7 years, resident in Shurugwi district, and had known pregnancy HIV-exposure status. From 5,280 pregnant women originally enrolled, 376 CBHF and 2016 CHU reached the trial endpoint at 18 months in Shurugwi; of these, 264 CBHF and 990 CHU were evaluated at age 7 years using the School-Age Health, Activity, Resilience, Anthropometry and Neurocognitive (SAHARAN) toolbox. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II), with additional tools measuring executive function, literacy, numeracy, fine motor skills, and socioemotional function. Physical function was assessed using standing broad jump and handgrip for strength, and the shuttle-run test for cardiovascular fitness. Growth was assessed by anthropometry. Body composition was assessed by bioimpedance analysis and skinfold thicknesses. A caregiver questionnaire measured demographics, socioeconomic status, nurturing, child discipline, food, and water insecurity. We prespecified the primary comparisons and used generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable working correlation structure to account for clustering. Adjusted models used covariates from the trial (study arm, study nurse, exact child age, sex, calendar month measured, and ambient temperature). They also included covariates derived from directed acyclic graphs, with separate models adjusted for contemporary variables (socioeconomic status, household food insecurity, religion, social support, gender norms, caregiver depression, age, caregiver education, adversity score, and number of children's books) and early-life variables (length-for-age-Z-score) at 18 months, birthweight, maternal baseline depression, household diet, maternal schooling and haemoglobin, socioeconomic status, facility birth, and gender norms. We applied a Bonferroni correction for the 27 comparisons (0.05/27) with threshold of p < 0.00185 as significant. We found strong evidence that cognitive function was lower in CBHF compared to CHU across multiple domains. The KABC-II mental processing index was 45.2 (standard deviation (SD) 10.5) in CBHF and 48.3 (11.3) in CHU (mean difference 3.3 points [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.0, 4.5]; p < 0.001). The school achievement test score was 39.0 (SD 26.0) in CBHF and 45.7 (27.8) in CHU (mean difference 7.3 points [95% CI 3.6, 10.9]; p < 0.001); differences remained significant in adjusted analyses. Executive function was reduced but not significantly in adjusted analyses. We found no consistent evidence of differences in growth or physical function outcomes. The main limitation of our study was the restriction to one of two previous study districts, with possible survivor and selection bias. Conclusions In this study, we found that CBHF had reductions in cognitive function compared to CHU at 7 years of age across multiple domains. Further research is needed to define the biological and psychosocial mechanisms underlying these differences to inform future interventions that help CBHF thrive across the life-course. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov The SHINE follow-up study was registered with the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR202201828512110). The original SHINE trial was registered at NCT https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01824940., Author(s): Joe D Piper 1,2,3,*, Clever Mazhanga 1, Marian Mwapaura 1, Gloria Mapako 1, Idah Mapurisa 1, Tsitsi Mashedze 1, Eunice Munyama 1, Maria Kuona 1, Thombizodwa Mashiri 1, Kundai [...]

BackgroundPreterm birth complications result in > 1 million child deaths annually, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. A World Health Organisation (WHO)-led trial in hospitals with intensive care reported reduced mortality within 28 days among newborns weighing 1000-1799 g who received immediate kangaroo mother care (iKMC) compared to those who received standard care. Evidence is needed regarding the process and costs of implementing iKMC, particularly in non-intensive care settings.MethodsWe describe actions undertaken to implement iKMC, estimate financial and economic costs of essential resources and infrastructure improvements, and assess readiness for newborn care after these improvements at five Ugandan hospitals participating in the OMWaNA trial. We estimated costs from a health service provider perspective and explored cost drivers and cost variation across hospitals. We assessed readiness to deliver small and sick newborn care (WHO level-2) using a tool developed by Newborn Essential Solutions and Technologies and the United Nations Children's Fund.ResultsFollowing the addition of space to accommodate beds for iKMC, floor space in the neonatal units ranged from 58 m2 to 212 m2. Costs of improvements were lowest at the national referral hospital (financial: $31,354; economic: $45,051; 2020 USD) and varied across the four smaller hospitals (financial: $68,330-$95,796; economic: $99,430-$113,881). In a standardised 20-bed neonatal unit offering a level of care comparable to the four smaller hospitals, the total financial cost could be in the range of $70,000 to $80,000 if an existing space could be repurposed or remodelled, or $95,000 if a new unit needed to be constructed. Even after improvements, the facility assessments demonstrated broad variability in laboratory and pharmacy capacity as well as the availability of essential equipment and supplies.ConclusionsThese five Ugandan hospitals required substantial resource inputs to allow safe implementation of iKMC. Before widespread scale-up of iKMC, the affordability and efficiency of this investment must be assessed, considering variation in costs across hospitals and levels of care. These findings should help inform planning and budgeting as well as decisions about if, where, and how to implement iKMC, particularly in settings where space, devices, and specialised staff for newborn care are unavailable.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432 . Registered: 23 June 2016.

BackgroundThe efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection.MethodsThis double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsIn total, 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs 25.2 days; P = .49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs 25.9 days; P = .35) was similar for both groups.ConclusionsAdministration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, although appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.Clinical trials registrationNCT04323800.

BackgroundDue to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the transfusion medicine community has experienced unprecedented blood supply shortages since March 2020. As such, numerous changes to everyday practice have occurred with a specific emphasis on blood conservation. We sought to determine the strategies used to mitigate blood shortages and promote blood conservation during the pandemic.MethodsAn anonymous, 37-question survey was developed using Research Electronic Data Capture and distributed via e-mail to transfusion medicine specialists across the US obtained via publicly available databases.ResultsAmongst surveyed [41.1% response rate (51/124 institutions)], 98.0% experienced a product shortage, with the greatest number reporting red blood cell (RBC) shortages (92.0%). This led to 35.3% of institutions altering the composition and/or number of blood product suppliers, including a 100% increase in the number of institutions acquiring blood from organizations that connect hospital transfusion services with blood collection centers (e.g., Blood Buy) compared to before March 2020. Prospective triaging of blood products was the most common blood conservation strategy (68.1%), though 35.4% altered their RBC exchange or transfusion program for patients receiving chronic RBC transfusion/exchange. As a result of these changes, 78.6% of institutions reported that these changes resulted in a reduction in blood product usage, and 38.1% reported a decrease in product wastage.ConclusionsMost hospitals experienced the effects of the supply shortage, and many of them implemented blood conserving measures. Conservation strategies were associated with decreased blood utilization and waste, and future studies could evaluate whether these changes persist.

DescriptionCoronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.MethodsThese guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.Recommendation 1 (outpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).Recommendation 2 (inpatient)The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.Recommendation 3 (inpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Recommendation 4 (inpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Recommendation 5 (prophylaxis)The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Good clinical practice statementCCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Starting a new job as a academic librarian is tough. It can be more so whenever the new liaison librarian doesn't have the resources they need to be successful. In this article, the authors discuss using reflective narratives to not only critique a previous onboarding document within the Research and Instruction Services Department at Louisiana State University but to also offer suggestions on ways to improve a system in which they are new hires. Authors anonymized responses from a newly hired cohort of librarians and working alongside the department head, evaluated best practices, and offered evidence-based recommendations on ways to improve the system for all future hires. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) compiles an annual synopsis of the published literature covering important developments in the field of transfusion medicine (TM), which has been made available as a manuscript published in Transfusion since 2018.MethodsCTMC committee members reviewed original manuscripts including TM-related topics published electronically (ahead) or in print from December 2019 to December 2020. The selection of topics and manuscripts was discussed at committee meetings and chosen based on relevance and originality. Next, committee members worked in pairs to create a synopsis of each topic, which was then reviewed by two additional committee members. The first and senior authors of this manuscript assembled the final manuscript. Although this synopsis is extensive, it is not exhaustive, and some papers may have been excluded or missed.ResultsThe following topics are included: COVID-19 effects on the blood supply and regulatory landscape, COVID convalescent plasma, adult transfusion practices, whole blood, molecular immunohematology, pediatric TM, cellular therapy, and apheresis medicine.ConclusionsThis synopsis provides easy access to relevant topics and may be useful as an educational tool.

BackgroundThere are 2.5 million neonatal deaths each year; the majority occur within 48 h of birth, before stabilisation. Evidence from 11 trials shows that kangaroo mother care (KMC) significantly reduces mortality in stabilised neonates; however, data on its effect among neonates before stabilisation are lacking. The OMWaNA trial aims to determine the effect of initiating KMC before stabilisation on mortality within seven days relative to standard care. Secondary objectives include exploring pathways for the intervention's effects and assessing incremental costs and cost-effectiveness between arms.MethodsWe will conduct a four-centre, open-label, individually randomised, superiority trial in Uganda with two parallel groups: an intervention arm allocated to receive KMC and a control arm receiving standard care. We will enrol 2188 neonates (1094 per arm) for whom the indication for KMC is 'uncertain', defined as receiving ≥ 1 therapy (e.g. oxygen). Admitted singleton, twin and triplet neonates (triplet if demise before admission of ≥ 1 baby) weighing ≥ 700-≤ 2000 g and aged ≥ 1-

Background78% of neonatal deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, among which, more than 80% are in low birthweight babies. Existing neonatal mortality risk scores have primarily been developed for high-resource settings. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a score that is practicable for low-income and middle-income countries to predict in-hospital mortality among neonates born weighing 2000 g or less using datasets from the UK and The Gambia.MethodsThis analysis used retrospective data held in the UK National Neonatal Research Database from 187 neonatal units, and data from the Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital (EFSTH), Banjul, The Gambia. In the UK dataset, neonates were excluded if birthweight was more than 2000 g; if the neonate was admitted aged more than 6 h or following discharge; if the neonate was stillborn; if the neonate died in delivery room; or if they were moribund on admission. The Gambian dataset included all neonates weighing less than 2000 g who were admitted between May 1, 2018, and Sept 30, 2019, who were screened for but not enrolled in the Early Kangaroo Mother Care Trial. 18 studies were reviewed to generate a list of 84 potential parameters. We derived a model to score in-hospital neonatal mortality risk using data from 55 029 admissions to a random sample of neonatal units in England and Wales from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2016. All candidate variables were included in a complete multivariable model, which was progressively simplified using reverse stepwise selection. We validated the new score (NMR-2000) on 40 329 admissions to the remaining units between the same dates and 14 818 admissions to all units from Jan 1, to Dec 31, 2017. We also validated the score on 550 neonates admitted to the EFSTH in The Gambia.Findings18 candidate variables were selected for inclusion in the modelling process. The final model included three parameters: birthweight, admission oxygen saturation, and highest level of respiratory support within 24 h of birth. NMR-2000 had very good discrimination and goodness-of-fit across the UK samples, with a c-index of 0·8859-0·8930 and a Brier score of 0·0232-0·0271. Among Gambian neonates, the model had a c-index of 0·8170 and a Brier score of 0·1688. Predictive ability of the simplified integer score was similar to the model using regression coefficients, with c-indices of 0·8903 in the UK full validation sample and 0·8082 in the Gambian validation sample.InterpretationNMR-2000 is a validated mortality risk score for hospitalised neonates weighing 2000 g or less in settings where pulse oximetry is available. The score is accurate and simplified for bedside use. NMR-2000 requires further validation using a larger dataset from low-income and middle-income countries but has the potential to improve individual and population-level neonatal care resource allocation.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Wellcome Trust; and Joint Global Health Trials scheme of Department of Health and Social Care, Department for International Development, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust.