Filter
3746
Text search:
comparison
Featured
267
941
Language
3447
120
102
98
39
35
29
22
13
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Document type
2213
756
426
161
63
52
31
19
12
5
5
1
1
1
Countries / Regions
165
162
104
78
74
73
73
66
64
59
56
55
54
53
51
51
50
49
48
44
43
40
38
32
32
32
32
28
28
26
23
23
23
23
22
22
21
21
20
20
17
17
16
16
16
15
14
14
12
11
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Authors & Publishers
493
229
207
145
91
75
68
59
57
47
27
24
23
20
19
18
17
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Publication Years
894
2516
319
16
1
Category
1306
331
210
168
135
49
45
2
Toolboxes
409
284
277
226
150
143
122
101
100
73
71
71
67
63
58
57
54
24
16
16
16
13
10
2
Paying for performance (P4P) provides financial incentives for providers to increase the use and quality of care. P4P can affect health care by providing incentives for providers to put more effort into specific activities, and by increasing the amount of resources available to finance the delivery
...
of services. This paper evaluates the impact of P4P on the use and quality of prenatal, institutional delivery, and child preventive care using data produced from a prospective quasi-experimental evaluation nested into the national rollout of P4P in Rwanda. Treatment facilities were enrolled in the P4P scheme in 2006 and comparison facilities were enrolled two years later. The incentive effect is isolated from the resource effect by increasing comparison facilities’ input-based budgets by the average P4P payments to the treatment facilities. The data were collected from 166 facilities and a random sample of 2158 households. P4P had a large and significant positive impact on institutional deliveries and preventive care visits by young children, and improved quality of prenatal care. The authors find no effect on the number of prenatal care visits or on immunization rates. P4P had the greatest effect on those services that had the highest payment rates and needed the lowest provider effort. P4P financial performance incentives can improve both the use of and the quality of health services. Because the analysis isolates the incentive effect from the resource effect in P4P, the results indicate that an equal amount of financial resources without the incentives would not have achieved the same gain in outcomes.
more
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 1; (6): 1–61 -Published online 2016 July 1
Background
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of reduction, cessation, and resumption of smoking on cancer development.
Methods
The authors identified 893,582 participants who currently smoked, had undergone a health screening in 2009, and had a follow-up screening in 20
...
11. Among them, 682,996 participated in a third screening in 2013. Participants were categorized as quitters, reducers I (≥50% reduction), reducers II (<50% reduction), sustainers (referent), or increasers (≥20% increase). Outcome data were obtained through December 31, 2018.
Results
Reducers I exhibited a decreased risk of all cancers (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.99), smoking-related cancers (aHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99), and lung cancer (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88). Quitters had the lowest risk of all cancers (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96), smoking-related cancers (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93), and lung cancer (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83). In further analysis with 3 consecutive screenings, additional smoking reduction (from reducers II to reducers I) lowered the risk of lung cancer (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94) in comparison with sustainers. Quitting among reducers I further decreased the risk of all cancers (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00), smoking-related cancers (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92), and lung cancer (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84) in comparison with sustainers. Smoking resumption after quitting, even at a lower level, increased the risk of smoking-related cancers (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.33) and lung cancer (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.21-1.80) in comparison with sustained quitting.
Conclusions
Smoking cessation and, to a lesser extent, smoking reduction decreased the risks of cancer. Smoking resumption increased cancer risks in comparison with sustained quitting.
more
The report is based on comprehensive information collected at representative sample health facilities all over the country by well-organized and trained teams during May and August 2015. This is a continuation of 2014 Assessment activities and findings also reflect
...
comparison between two consecutive years.
more
Living Conditions among People with Activity Limitations in Malawi. A National Representative Study.
This research report provides results from the study on living conditions
among people with disabilities in Malawi. Comparisons are made between
individuals with and without disabilities and also between households with and without a disabled family member. Results obtained in Malawi are also comp
...
ared those obtained in earlier studies carried out in Namibia and Zimbabwe. The Malawian study was undertaken in 2003.
more
COVID-19 Vaccines: 1 Safety Surveillance 2 Manual
While there is no indication that pregnant women have an increased susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2, there is evidence that pregnancy may increase the risk of severe illness and mortality from COVID-19 disease in
...
comparison with non-pregnant women of reproductive age. As seen with non-pregnant women, a high proportion of pregnant women have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease is associated with recognized medical (e.g., high body-mass index (BMI), diabetes, pre-existing pulmonary or cardiac conditions) and social (e.g., social deprivation, ethnicity) risk factors. Pregnant women with symptomatic COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation and death in comparison with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, although the absolute risks remain low. COVID-19 may increase the risk of preterm birth, compared with pregnant women without COVID-19, although the evidence is inconclusive.
more
Based on the Vulnerability Index developed in this review, an estimated 22.7 million persons in Myanmar, or 44% of the population, were found to have some form of vulnerability related to human development and/or exposure to active conflict/violence. These people experience varying combinations of p
...
oor housing, lack of education, poor educational attainment, lack of access to safe sanitation and improved drinking water, and direct exposure to conflict.
Shan and Ayeyarwady have the largest populations of vulnerable persons, a function of both their size and relative vulnerability in comparison to other States and Regions. Yangon and Shan show the widest variation in vulnerability across townships (in terms of the number of vulnerable persons and their level of vulnerability), followed by Mandalay, Chin and Rakhine.
Original file: 15 MB more
Shan and Ayeyarwady have the largest populations of vulnerable persons, a function of both their size and relative vulnerability in comparison to other States and Regions. Yangon and Shan show the widest variation in vulnerability across townships (in terms of the number of vulnerable persons and their level of vulnerability), followed by Mandalay, Chin and Rakhine.
Original file: 15 MB more
This is a report from a National, representative household survey carried out in Botswana in 2012 – 2014. The study was carried out on behalf of the Norwegian Federation of Organisations of Disabled Persons (FFO), Southern Africa Federation of the Disabled (SASFOD) and Botswana Federation of Disab
...
led People (BOFOD). The study was led by Professor Tlamelo Mmatli of the University of Botswana, in collaboration with SINTEF Technology and Society. The study would not have been possible without a strong commitment from the Office of the President of Botswana and support from the Central Statistical Office. The study presents a broad picture of the situation among individuals with disability and households with disabled members in Botswana. It offers comparison with individuals without disability and households without disabled members, between provinces and between genders and locations (urban/rural). The study reveals that households with disabled members and individuals with disability score lower on a range on indicators on level of living.
more
The objective of the study was the validation and implementation of GeneXpert MTB/RIF for routine use in the rapid detection of tuberculosis and sensitivity to rifampicin in clinical samples; for this, 1592 respiratory samples were collected and analyzed in the laboratory of Instituto Nacional de In
...
vestigación en Salud Pública Guayaquil. The analysis of the results of GeneXpert in comparison with smear microscopy showed an initial sensitivity of 99.8% and specificity of 93.2%; The analysis of discrepancies using the results of the culture as a reference method showed that the GeneXpert results considered false negatives turned out to be true negatives, the same happens with the false positives that correspond to true positives. Recalculated the sensitivity and specificity of the GeneXpert was 99.8% and 100% correspondingly. The comparison with the drugs susceptibility test showed a sensitivity of 91.4% and a specificity of 95.5% for the GeneXpert MTB/RIF system. It is concluded that the implementation of the GeneXpert system allows solution to certain problems associated with the application of conventional diagnostic methodologies, decreasing the waiting times, and increasing the sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis, thus generating a valuable opportunity for early diagnosis.
more
DHS Comparative Reports No. 42
Conhecimento, atitudes e práticas sobre tuberculose em prisões e no serviço público de saúde
Rev Bras Epidemiol 2013; 16(1): 100-113
PNAS 119 (8) e2113947119 | https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113947119
Environmental exposure to active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) can have negative effects on the health of ecosystems and humans. While numerous studies have monitored APIs in rivers, these employ different analytical methods, m
...
easure different APIs, and have ignored many of the countries of the world. This makes it difficult to quantify the scale of the problem from a global perspective. Furthermore, comparison of the existing data, generated for different studies/regions/continents, is challenging due to the vast differences between the analytical methodologies employed. Here, we present a global-scale study of API pollution in 258 of the world’s rivers, representing the environmental influence of 471.4 million people across 137 geographic regions. Samples were obtained from 1,052 locations in 104 countries (representing all continents and 36 countries not previously studied for API contamination) and analyzed for 61 APIs. Highest cumulative API concentrations were observed in sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia, and South America. The most contaminated sites were in low- to middle-income countries and were associated with areas with poor wastewater and waste management infrastructure and pharmaceutical manufacturing. The most frequently detected APIs were carbamazepine, metformin, and caffeine (a compound also arising from lifestyle use), which were detected at over half of the sites monitored. Concentrations of at least one API at 25.7% of the sampling sites were greater than concentrations considered safe for aquatic organisms, or which are of concern in terms of selection for antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, pharmaceutical pollution poses a global threat to environmental and human health, as well as to delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
more
Report on assessment of WASH and healthcare waste management in District Sadar Hospital, Cox's Bazar
How safe is our hospital sanitation? An example from a public hospital
There has been no systematic comparison of how the policy response to past infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics was funded. This study aims to collate and analyse funding for the Ebola epidemic and Zika outbreak between 2014 and 2019 in order
...
to understand the shortcomings in funding reporting and suggest improvements. Methods: Data were collected via a literature review and analysis of financial reporting databases, including both amounts donated and received. Funding information from three financial databases was analysed: Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation’s Development Assistance for Health database, the Georgetown Infectious Disease Atlas and the United Nations Financial Tracking Service. A systematic literature search strategy was devised and applied to seven databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and EconLit. Funding information was extracted from articles meeting the eligibility criteria and measures were taken to avoid double counting. Funding was collated, then amounts and purposes were compared within, and between, data sources.
more
19 February 2021
The overall objective of this prospective meta-analyses (PMA) is to estimate the effect of anti-IL-6 therapy compared with usual care in hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary comparison is of the c
...
lass effect of anti-IL-6 therapies. It will also estimate the effects of specific anti-IL-6 therapies.
more
Child and adolescent mental health policy in South Africa: history, current policy development and implementation, and policy analysis
S. Mokitimi; M. Schneider; P. J. de Vries
International Journal of Mental Health Systems; BioMed Central
(2018)
CC
Mental health problems represent the greatest global burden of disease among children and adolescents. There is, however, lack of policy development and implementation for child and adolescent mental health (CAMH), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where children and adolescen
...
ts represent up to 50% of populations. South Africa, an upper-middle income country is often regarded as advanced in health and social policy-making and implementation in comparison to other LMICs. It is, however, not clear whether this is the case for CAMH.
more
Monitoring is a crucial element in any successful programme. It is important to
know if health care facilities – and ultimately countries – are meeting the agreed
goals and objectives for preventing and managing cardiovascular diseases (CVD).
Monitoring is the on-going collection, management
...
and use of information to
assess whether an activity or programme is proceeding according to plan and/
or achieving defined targets. Not all outcomes of interest can be monitored. Clear
outcomes must be identified that relate to the most important changes expected to result from the project and to what is realistic and measurable within the timescale of the project. Once these outcomes have been articulated, indicators can be chosen that best measure whether the desired outcomes are being met.
To allow progress to be monitored, this module provides a set of indicators on
CVD management. Agreeing on a set of indicators allows countries to compare
progress in CVD management and treatment across different districts or
subnational jurisdictions, as well as at a facility level, identify where performance
can be improved, and track trends in implementation over time. Monitoring
these indicators also helps identify problems that may be encountered so that
implementation efforts can be redirected.
This module starts from the collection of data at facility level, which is then
“transferred up” the system: facility-level data are aggregated at subnational level
to produce reports that allow tracking of facility and subnational performance over time and allow for comparison among facilities. National-level data are obtained through population-based surveys.
Implementing a monitoring system requires action at many levels. At national and
subnational levels, staff can determine how best to integrate data elements into
existing data collection systems – such as the routine service-delivery data that are collected through facility-level Health Management Information Systems (HMIS).
In the facility setting, personnel must be aware of what data are needed. Sample
data-collection tools are included, recognizing that countries use different datamanagement systems for HMIS, so the CVD monitoring tools will be adapted to work with the HMIS system being used by the country, such that the indicators can be collected with minimal disruption/work to existing systems and tools
more
