Search

Your search keyword '"Yamey G"' showing total 429 results
Start Over Author "Yamey G"
429 results on '"Yamey G"'

4. Estudos antiéticos de ivermectina para Covid-19

Author

Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Wieten, S., Medina Arellano, M. D. J., and Yamey, G.

Subjects
padrões éticos, emergências sanitárias, flexibilização de padrões éticos, ensaios clínicos antiéticos, pandemia, estudos clínicos no México, fraude na pesquisa clínica, prisioneiros, estudos retraídos, estudos sobre prisioneiros, Arkansas, crise de saúde, pesquisa clínica durante emergências, ensaios clínicos no México, prisioneiros, pesquisa clínica durante emergências
Abstract

Resumo em português deUnethical studies of ivermectin for Covid-19.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Building a tuberculosis-free world: The Lancet Commission on tuberculosis

Author

Reid, M.J.A. (Michael J A), Arinaminpathy, N. (Nimalan), Bloom, A. (Amy), Bloom, B.R. (Barry R), Boehme, C. (Catharina), Chaisson, R. (Richard), Chin, D.P. (Daniel P), Churchyard, G. (Gavin), Cox, H. (Helen), Ditiu, L. (Lucica), Dybul, M. (Mark), Farrar, J. (Jeremy), Fauci, A.S. (Anthony S), Fekadu, E. (Endalkachew), Fujiwara, P.I. (Paula I), Hallett, T.B. (Timothy), Hanson, C.L. (Christy L), Harrington, M. (Mark), Herbert, N. (Nick), Hopewell, P.C. (Philip C), Ikeda, C. (Chieko), Jamison, D.T. (Dean T), Khan, A.J. (Aamir J), Koek, I. (Irene), Krishnan, N. (Nalini), Motsoaledi, A. (Aaron), Pai, M. (Madhukar), Raviglione, M.C. (Mario C), Sharman, A. (Almaz), Small, P.M. (Peter M), Swaminathan, S. (Soumya), Temesgen, Z. (Zelalem), Vassall, A. (Anna), Venkatesan, N. (Nandita), van Weezenbeek, K. (Kitty), Yamey, G. (Gavin), Agins, B.D. (Bruce D), Alexandru, S. (Sofia), Andrews, J.R. (Jason R), Beyeler, N. (Naomi), Bivol, S. (Stela), Brigden, G. (Grania), Cattamanchi, A. (Adithya), Cazabon, D. (Danielle), Crudu, V. (Valeriu), Daftary, A. (Amrita), Dewan, P. (Puneet), Doepel, L.K. (Laurie K), Eisinger, R.W. (Robert W), Fan, V. (Victoria), Fewer, S. (Sara), Furin, J. (Jennifer), Goldhaber-Fiebert, J.D. (Jeremy D), Gomez, G.B. (Gabriela B), Graham, S.M. (Stephen M), Gupta, D. (Devesh), Kamene, M. (Maureen), Khaparde, S. (Sunil), Mailu, E.W. (Eunice W), Masini, E.O. (Enos O), McHugh, L. (Lorrie), Mitchell, E.M.H. (Ellen), Moon, S. (Suerie), Osberg, M. (Michael), Pande, T. (Tripti), Prince, L. (Lea), Rade, K. (Kirankumar), Rao, R. (Raghuram), Remme, M. (Michelle), Seddon, J.A. (James A), Selwyn, C. (Casey), Shete, P. (Priya), Sachdeva, K.S. (Kuldeep S), Stallworthy, G. (Guy), Vesga, J.F. (Juan F), Vilc, V. (Valentina), Goosby, E.P. (Eric P), Reid, M.J.A. (Michael J A), Arinaminpathy, N. (Nimalan), Bloom, A. (Amy), Bloom, B.R. (Barry R), Boehme, C. (Catharina), Chaisson, R. (Richard), Chin, D.P. (Daniel P), Churchyard, G. (Gavin), Cox, H. (Helen), Ditiu, L. (Lucica), Dybul, M. (Mark), Farrar, J. (Jeremy), Fauci, A.S. (Anthony S), Fekadu, E. (Endalkachew), Fujiwara, P.I. (Paula I), Hallett, T.B. (Timothy), Hanson, C.L. (Christy L), Harrington, M. (Mark), Herbert, N. (Nick), Hopewell, P.C. (Philip C), Ikeda, C. (Chieko), Jamison, D.T. (Dean T), Khan, A.J. (Aamir J), Koek, I. (Irene), Krishnan, N. (Nalini), Motsoaledi, A. (Aaron), Pai, M. (Madhukar), Raviglione, M.C. (Mario C), Sharman, A. (Almaz), Small, P.M. (Peter M), Swaminathan, S. (Soumya), Temesgen, Z. (Zelalem), Vassall, A. (Anna), Venkatesan, N. (Nandita), van Weezenbeek, K. (Kitty), Yamey, G. (Gavin), Agins, B.D. (Bruce D), Alexandru, S. (Sofia), Andrews, J.R. (Jason R), Beyeler, N. (Naomi), Bivol, S. (Stela), Brigden, G. (Grania), Cattamanchi, A. (Adithya), Cazabon, D. (Danielle), Crudu, V. (Valeriu), Daftary, A. (Amrita), Dewan, P. (Puneet), Doepel, L.K. (Laurie K), Eisinger, R.W. (Robert W), Fan, V. (Victoria), Fewer, S. (Sara), Furin, J. (Jennifer), Goldhaber-Fiebert, J.D. (Jeremy D), Gomez, G.B. (Gabriela B), Graham, S.M. (Stephen M), Gupta, D. (Devesh), Kamene, M. (Maureen), Khaparde, S. (Sunil), Mailu, E.W. (Eunice W), Masini, E.O. (Enos O), McHugh, L. (Lorrie), Mitchell, E.M.H. (Ellen), Moon, S. (Suerie), Osberg, M. (Michael), Pande, T. (Tripti), Prince, L. (Lea), Rade, K. (Kirankumar), Rao, R. (Raghuram), Remme, M. (Michelle), Seddon, J.A. (James A), Selwyn, C. (Casey), Shete, P. (Priya), Sachdeva, K.S. (Kuldeep S), Stallworthy, G. (Guy), Vesga, J.F. (Juan F), Vilc, V. (Valentina), and Goosby, E.P. (Eric P)

Abstract

___Key messages___ The Commission recommends five priority investments to achieve a tuberculosis-free world within a generation. These investments are designed to fulfil the mandate of the UN High Level Meeting on tuberculosis. In addition, they answer t

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Building a tuberculosis-free world: The Lancet Commission on tuberculosis

Author

Reid, MJA, Arinaminpathy, N, Bloom, A, Bloom, BR, Boehm, C, Chaisson, R, Chin, DP, Churchyard, G, Cox, H, Ditiu, L, Dybul, M, Farrar, J, Fauci, AS, Fekodu, E, Fujiwara, PI, Hallett, TB, Hanson, CL, Harrington, M, Herbert, N, Hopewell, PC, Ikeda, C, Jamison, DT, Khan, AJ, Koek, I, Krishnan, N, Motsoaledi, A, Pai, M, Raviglione, MC, Sharman, A, Small, PM, Swaminathan, S, Temesgen, Z, Vassall, A, Venkatesan, N, van Weezenbeek, K, Yamey, G, Agins, BD, Arexandru, S, Andrews, JR, Beyeler, N, Bivol, S, Brigden, G, Cattamanchi, A, Cazabon, D, Crudu, V, Daftary, A, Dewan, P, Doepel, LK, Eisinger, RW, Fan, V, Fewer, S, Furin, J, Goldhaber-Fiebert, JD, Gomez, GB, Graham, SM, Gupta, D, Kamene, M, Khaparde, S, Mailu, EW, Masini, EO, McHugh, L, Mitchell, E, Moon, S, Osberg, M, Pande, T, Prince, L, Rade, K, Rao, R, Remme, M, Seddon, JA, Selwyn, C, Shete, P, Sachdeva, KS, Stallworthy, G, Vesga, JF, Vilc, V, Goosby, EP, Reid, MJA, Arinaminpathy, N, Bloom, A, Bloom, BR, Boehm, C, Chaisson, R, Chin, DP, Churchyard, G, Cox, H, Ditiu, L, Dybul, M, Farrar, J, Fauci, AS, Fekodu, E, Fujiwara, PI, Hallett, TB, Hanson, CL, Harrington, M, Herbert, N, Hopewell, PC, Ikeda, C, Jamison, DT, Khan, AJ, Koek, I, Krishnan, N, Motsoaledi, A, Pai, M, Raviglione, MC, Sharman, A, Small, PM, Swaminathan, S, Temesgen, Z, Vassall, A, Venkatesan, N, van Weezenbeek, K, Yamey, G, Agins, BD, Arexandru, S, Andrews, JR, Beyeler, N, Bivol, S, Brigden, G, Cattamanchi, A, Cazabon, D, Crudu, V, Daftary, A, Dewan, P, Doepel, LK, Eisinger, RW, Fan, V, Fewer, S, Furin, J, Goldhaber-Fiebert, JD, Gomez, GB, Graham, SM, Gupta, D, Kamene, M, Khaparde, S, Mailu, EW, Masini, EO, McHugh, L, Mitchell, E, Moon, S, Osberg, M, Pande, T, Prince, L, Rade, K, Rao, R, Remme, M, Seddon, JA, Selwyn, C, Shete, P, Sachdeva, KS, Stallworthy, G, Vesga, JF, Vilc, V, and Goosby, EP

Published
2019

7. Preterm birth: The role of knowledge transfer and exchange

Author

Horvath, H, Brindis, CD, Reyes, EM, Yamey, G, Franck, L, Autry, M, Dawson-Rose, C, Duncan, L, Lynch, M, Macfarlane, S, Myers, J, Partridge, JC, Schmidt, L, Taylor, D, de Castro, B, Henderson, P, Liu, G, Liu, W, Park, H, Sehgal, R, Sullivan, J, Tam, G, DeRoo, D, Hansen, C, Johnson, J, and Lavis, J

Abstract

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Preterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of death in children under age five. Healthcare policy and other decision-making relevant to PTB may rely on obsolete, incomplete or inapplicable research evidence, leading to worsened outcomes. Appropriate knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) strategies are an important component of efforts to reduce the global PTB burden. We sought to develop a 'landscape' analysis of KTE strategies currently used in PTB and related contexts, and to make recommendations for optimising programmatic implementation and for future research. Methods: In the University of California, San Francisco's Preterm Birth Initiative, we convened a multidisciplinary working group and examined KTE frameworks. After selecting a widely-used, adaptable, theoretically-strong framework we reviewed the literature to identify evidence-based KTE strategies. We analysed KTE approaches focusing on key PTB stakeholders (individuals, families and communities, healthcare providers and policymakers). Guided by the framework, we articulated KTE approaches that would likely improve PTB outcomes. We further applied the KTE framework in developing recommendations. Results: We selected the Linking Research to Action framework. Searches identified 19 systematic reviews, including two 'reviews of reviews'. Twelve reviews provided evidence for KTE strategies in the context of maternal, neonatal and child health, though not PTB specifically; seven reviews provided 'cross-cutting' evidence that could likely be generalised to PTB contexts. For individuals, families and communities, potentially effective KTE strategies include community-based approaches, 'decision aids', regular discussions with providers and other strategies. For providers, KTE outcomes may be improved through local opinion leaders, electronic reminders, multifaceted strategies and other approaches. Policy decisions relevant to PTB may best be informed through the use of evidence briefs, deliberative dialogues, the SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed policymaking and other strategies. Our recommendations for research addressed knowledge gaps in regard to partner engagement, applicability and context, implementation strategy research, monitoring and evaluation, and infrastructure for sustainable KTE efforts. Conclusions: Evidence-based KTE, using strategies appropriate to each stakeholder group, is essential to any effort to improve health at the population level. PTB stakeholders should be fully engaged in KTE and programme planning from its earliest stages, and ideally before planning begins.

Published
2017

8. Global Surgery 2030: a roadmap for high income country actors

Author

Ng-Kamstra, JS, Greenberg, SLM, Abdullah, F, Amado, V, Anderson, GA, Cossa, M, Costas-Chavarri, A, Davies, J, Debas, HT, Dyer, GSM, Erdene, S, Farmer, PE, Gaumnitz, A, Hagander, L, Haider, A, Leather, AJM, Lin, Y, Marten, R, Marvin, JT, McClain, CD, Meara, JG, Mehes, M, Mock, C, Mukhopadhyay, S, Orgoi, S, Prestero, T, Price, RR, Raykar, NP, Riesel, JN, Riviello, R, Rudy, SM, Saluja, S, Sullivan, R, Tarpley, JL, Taylor, RH, Telemaque, L-F, Toma, G, Varghese, A, Walker, M, Yamey, G, Shrime, MG, Ng-Kamstra, JS, Greenberg, SLM, Abdullah, F, Amado, V, Anderson, GA, Cossa, M, Costas-Chavarri, A, Davies, J, Debas, HT, Dyer, GSM, Erdene, S, Farmer, PE, Gaumnitz, A, Hagander, L, Haider, A, Leather, AJM, Lin, Y, Marten, R, Marvin, JT, McClain, CD, Meara, JG, Mehes, M, Mock, C, Mukhopadhyay, S, Orgoi, S, Prestero, T, Price, RR, Raykar, NP, Riesel, JN, Riviello, R, Rudy, SM, Saluja, S, Sullivan, R, Tarpley, JL, Taylor, RH, Telemaque, L-F, Toma, G, Varghese, A, Walker, M, Yamey, G, and Shrime, MG

Abstract

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the world's new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future.

Published
2016

9. Financial contributions to global surgery: an analysis of 160 international charitable organizations

Author

Gutnik, L, Yamey, G, Riviello, R, Meara, JG, Dare, AJ, Shrime, MG, Gutnik, L, Yamey, G, Riviello, R, Meara, JG, Dare, AJ, and Shrime, MG

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The non-profit and volunteer sector has made notable contributions to delivering surgical services in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). As an estimated 55 % of surgical care delivered in some LMICs is via charitable organizations; the financial contributions of this sector provides valuable insight into understanding financing priorities in global surgery. METHODS: Databases of registered charitable organizations in five high-income nations (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were searched to identify organizations committed exclusively to surgery in LMICs and their financial data. For each organization, we categorized the surgical specialty and calculated revenues and expenditures. All foreign currency was converted to U.S. dollars based on historical yearly average conversion rates. All dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: One hundred sixty organizations representing 15 specialties were identified. Adjusting for inflation, in 2014 U.S. dollars (US$), total aggregated revenue over the years 2008-2013 was $3·4 billion and total aggregated expenses were $3·1 billion. Twenty-eight ophthalmology organizations accounted for 45 % of revenue and 49 % of expenses. Fifteen cleft lip/palate organizations totaled 26 % of both revenue and expenses. The remaining 117 organizations, representing a variety of specialties, accounted for 29 % of revenue and 25 % of expenses. In comparison, from 2008 to 2013, charitable organizations provided nearly $27 billion for global health, meaning an estimated 11.5 % went towards surgery. CONCLUSION: Charitable organizations that exclusively provide surgery in LMICs primarily focus on elective surgeries, which cover many subspecialties, and often fill deep gaps in care. The largest funding flows are directed at ophthalmology, followed by cleft lip and palate surgery. Despite the number of contributing organizations, there is a clear need for improve

Published
2016

12. Funding allocation to surgery in low and middle-income countries: a retrospective analysis of contributions from the USA

Author

Gutnik, L, Dieleman, J, Dare, AJ, Ramos, MS, Riviello, R, Meara, JG, Yamey, G, Shrime, MG, Gutnik, L, Dieleman, J, Dare, AJ, Ramos, MS, Riviello, R, Meara, JG, Yamey, G, and Shrime, MG

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The funds available for global surgical delivery, capacity building and research are unknown and presumed to be low. Meanwhile, conditions amenable to surgery are estimated to account for nearly 30% of the global burden of disease. We describe funds given to these efforts from the USA, the world's largest donor nation. DESIGN: Retrospective database review. US Agency for International Development (USAID), National Institute of Health (NIH), Foundation Center and registered US charitable organisations were searched for financial data on any organisation giving exclusively to surgical care in low and middle income countries (LMICs). For USAID, NIH and Foundation Center all available data for all years were included. The five recent years of financial data per charitable organisation were included. All nominal dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 US dollars. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: USAID, NIH, Foundation Center, Charitable Organisations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative funds appropriated to global surgery. RESULTS: 22 NIH funded projects (totalling $31.3 million) were identified, primarily related to injury and trauma. Six relevant USAID projects were identified-all obstetric fistula care totalling $438 million. A total of $105 million was given to universities and charitable organisations by US foundations for 12 different surgical specialties. 95 US charitable organisations representing 14 specialties totalled revenue of $2.67 billion and expenditure of $2.5 billion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current funding flows to surgical care in LMICs are poorly understood. US funding predominantly comes from private charitable organisations, is often narrowly focused and does not always reflect local needs or support capacity building. Improving surgical care, and embedding it within national health systems in LMICs, will likely require greater financial investment. Tracking funds targeting surgery helps to quantify and cl

Published
2015

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results