Search results for: in-school tactile guide map

Authors: Tim Crocker-Buque, Sandra Mounier-Jack, Natasha Howard

Abstract:

Background: Due to both the increasing scale and speed of urbanisation, urban areas in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) host increasingly large populations of under-immunized children, with the additional associated risks of rapid disease transmission in high-density living environments. Multiple interdependent factors are associated with these coverage disparities in urban areas and most evidence comes from relatively few countries, e.g., predominantly India, Kenya, Nigeria, and some from Pakistan, Iran, and Brazil. This study aimed to identify, describe, and assess the main tools used to measure or improve coverage of immunisation services in poor urban areas. Methods: Authors used a qualitative review design, including academic and non-academic literature, to identify tools used to improve coverage of public health interventions in urban areas. Authors selected and extracted sources that provided good examples of specific tools, or categories of tools, used in a context relevant to urban immunization. Diagnostic (e.g., for data collection, analysis, and insight generation) and programme tools (e.g., for investigating or improving ongoing programmes) and interventions (e.g., multi-component or stand-alone with evidence) were selected for inclusion to provide a range of type and availability of relevant tools. These were then prioritised using a decision-analysis framework and a tool selection guide for programme managers developed. Results: Authors reviewed tools used in urban immunisation contexts and tools designed for (i) non-immunization and/or non-health interventions in urban areas, and (ii) immunisation in rural contexts that had relevance for urban areas (e.g., Reaching every District/Child/ Zone). Many approaches combined several tools and methods, which authors categorised as diagnostic, programme, and intervention. The most common diagnostic tools were cross-sectional surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, secondary analysis of routine data, and geographical mapping of outcomes, resources, and services. Programme tools involved multiple stages of data collection, analysis, insight generation, and intervention planning and included guidance documents from WHO (World Health Organisation), UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), USAID (United States Agency for International Development), and governments, and articles reporting on diagnostics, interventions, and/or evaluations to improve urban immunisation. Interventions involved service improvement, education, reminder/recall, incentives, outreach, mass-media, or were multi-component. The main gaps in existing tools were an assessment of macro/policy-level factors, exploration of effective immunization communication channels, and measuring in/out-migration. The proposed framework uses a problem tree approach to suggest tools to address five common challenges (i.e. identifying populations, understanding communities, issues with service access and use, improving services, improving coverage) based on context and available data. Conclusion: This study identified many tools relevant to evaluating urban LMIC immunisation programmes, including significant crossover between tools. This was encouraging in terms of supporting the identification of common areas, but problematic as data volumes, instructions, and activities could overwhelm managers and tools are not always suitably applied to suitable contexts. Further research is needed on how best to combine tools and methods to suit local contexts. Authors’ initial framework can be tested and developed further.

Keywords: health equity, immunisation, low and middle-income countries, poverty, urban health

Procedia PDF Downloads 125

Authors: Rebeca V. Tholen, Elaine Bundy

Abstract:

Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the only curative treatment for end-stage liver disease (ESLD). The effects of alcoholism can cause irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis and subsequent liver failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant occurs in 20-50% of patients and increases the risk for recurrent cirrhosis, organ rejection, and graft failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant has been identified as a problem among liver transplant recipients at a large urban academic transplant center in the United States. Transplantation will reverse the complications of ESLD, but it does not treat underlying alcoholism or reduce the risk of relapse after transplant. The purpose of this quality improvement project is to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a High-Risk Alcoholism Relapse (HRAR) Scale to screen and identify patients at high-risk for alcohol relapse after receiving an LT. Methods: The HRAR Scale is a predictive tool designed to determine the severity of alcoholism and risk of relapse after transplant. The scale consists of three variables identified as having the highest predictive power for early relapse including, daily number of drinks, history of previous inpatient treatment for alcoholism, and the number of years of heavy drinking. All adult liver transplant recipients at a large urban transplant center were screened with the HRAR Scale prior to hospital discharge. A zero to two ordinal score is ranked for each variable, and the total score ranges from zero to six. High-risk scores are between three to six. Results: Descriptive statistics revealed 25 patients were newly transplanted and discharged from the hospital during an 8-week period. 40% of patients (n=10) were identified as being high-risk for relapse and 60% low-risk (n=15). The daily number of drinks were determined by alcohol content (1 drink = 15g of ethanol) and number of drinks per day. 60% of patients reported drinking 9-17 drinks per day, and 40% reported ≤ 9 drinks. 50% of high-risk patients reported drinking ≥ 25 years, 40% for 11-25 years, and 10% ≤ 11 years. For number of inpatient treatments for alcoholism, 50% received inpatient treatment one time, 20% ≥ 1, and 30% reported never receiving inpatient treatment. Findings reveal the importance and value of a validated screening tool as a more efficient method than other screening methods alone. Integration of a structured clinical tool will help guide the drinking history portion of the psychosocial assessment. Targeted interventions can be implemented for all high-risk patients. Conclusions: Our findings validate the effectiveness of utilizing the HRAR scale to screen and identify patients who are a high-risk for alcohol relapse post-LT. Recommendations to help maintain post-transplant sobriety include starting a transplant support group within the organization for all high-risk patients. (ESLD). The effects of alcoholism can cause irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis and subsequent liver failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant occurs in 20-50% of patients, and increases the risk for recurrent cirrhosis, organ rejection, and graft failure. Alcohol relapse after transplant has been identified as a problem among liver transplant recipients at a large urban academic transplant center in the United States. Transplantation will reverse the complications of ESLD, but it does not treat underlying alcoholism or reduce the risk of relapse after transplant. The purpose of this quality improvement project is to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a High-Risk Alcoholism Relapse (HRAR) Scale to screen and identify patients at high-risk for alcohol relapse after receiving a LT. Methods: The HRAR Scale is a predictive tool designed to determine severity of alcoholism and risk of relapse after transplant. The scale consists of three variables identified as having the highest predictive power for early relapse including, daily number of drinks, history of previous inpatient treatment for alcoholism, and the number of years of heavy drinking. All adult liver transplant recipients at a large urban transplant center were screened with the HRAR Scale prior to hospital discharge. A zero to two ordinal score is ranked for each variable, and the total score ranges from zero to six. High-risk scores are between three to six. Results: Descriptive statistics revealed 25 patients were newly transplanted and discharged from the hospital during an 8-week period. 40% of patients (n=10) were identified as being high-risk for relapse and 60% low-risk (n=15). The daily number of drinks were determined by alcohol content (1 drink = 15g of ethanol) and number of drinks per day. 60% of patients reported drinking 9-17 drinks per day, and 40% reported ≤ 9 drinks. 50% of high-risk patients reported drinking ≥ 25 years, 40% for 11-25 years, and 10% ≤ 11 years. For number of inpatient treatments for alcoholism, 50% received inpatient treatment one time, 20% ≥ 1, and 30% reported never receiving inpatient treatment. Findings reveal the importance and value of a validated screening tool as a more efficient method than other screening methods alone. Integration of a structured clinical tool will help guide the drinking history portion of the psychosocial assessment. Targeted interventions can be implemented for all high-risk patients. Conclusions: Our findings validate the effectiveness of utilizing the HRAR scale to screen and identify patients who are a high-risk for alcohol relapse post-LT. Recommendations to help maintain post-transplant sobriety include starting a transplant support group within the organization for all high-risk patients.

Keywords: alcoholism, liver transplant, quality improvement, substance abuse

Procedia PDF Downloads 96