Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Med Educ. 2016 November 25; Volume 16 (Issue 1); 304.; DOI:10.1186/s12909-016-0814-y
Kaffes I, Moser F, Pham M, Oetjen A, Fehling M
BMC Med Educ. 2016 November 25; Volume 16 (Issue 1); 304.; DOI:10.1186/s12909-016-0814-y
BACKGROUND
In times of increasing global challenges to health, it is crucial to create a workforce capable of tackling these complex issues. Even though a lack of GHE in Germany is perceived by multiple stakeholders, no systematic analysis of the current landscape exists. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of the global health education (GHE) capacity in Germany as well as to identify gaps, barriers and future strategies.
METHODS
An online search in combination with information provided by student representatives, course coordinators and lecturers was used to create an overview of the current GHE landscape in Germany. Additionally, a semi-structured questionnaire was sent to GHE educators and students engaged in global health (GH) to assess the capacity of German GHE, its barriers and suggested strategies for the future.
RESULTS
A total of 33 GHE activities were identified at 18 German universities. Even though medical schools are the main provider of GHE (42%), out of 38 medical schools, only 13 (34%) offer any kind of GHE. Modules offered for students of other health-related professions constitute 27% of all activities. Most survey respondents (92%, n = 48) consider current GHE activities in Germany insufficient. Suggested formats were GHE as part of medical curricula (82%, n = 45) and dual degree MD/MPH or PhD programs. Most important barriers mentioned were low priority of GH at faculties and academic management levels (n = 41, 75%) as well as lack of necessary institutional structures (n = 33, 60%).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite some innovative academic approaches, there is clearly a need for more systematic GHE in Germany. GHE educators and students can take an important role advocating for more awareness at university management level and suggesting ways to institutionalize GHE to overcome barriers. This study provides key evidence, relevant perceptions and suggestions to strengthen GHE in Germany.
In times of increasing global challenges to health, it is crucial to create a workforce capable of tackling these complex issues. Even though a lack of GHE in Germany is perceived by multiple stakeholders, no systematic analysis of the current landscape exists. The aim of this study is to provide an analysis of the global health education (GHE) capacity in Germany as well as to identify gaps, barriers and future strategies.
METHODS
An online search in combination with information provided by student representatives, course coordinators and lecturers was used to create an overview of the current GHE landscape in Germany. Additionally, a semi-structured questionnaire was sent to GHE educators and students engaged in global health (GH) to assess the capacity of German GHE, its barriers and suggested strategies for the future.
RESULTS
A total of 33 GHE activities were identified at 18 German universities. Even though medical schools are the main provider of GHE (42%), out of 38 medical schools, only 13 (34%) offer any kind of GHE. Modules offered for students of other health-related professions constitute 27% of all activities. Most survey respondents (92%, n = 48) consider current GHE activities in Germany insufficient. Suggested formats were GHE as part of medical curricula (82%, n = 45) and dual degree MD/MPH or PhD programs. Most important barriers mentioned were low priority of GH at faculties and academic management levels (n = 41, 75%) as well as lack of necessary institutional structures (n = 33, 60%).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite some innovative academic approaches, there is clearly a need for more systematic GHE in Germany. GHE educators and students can take an important role advocating for more awareness at university management level and suggesting ways to institutionalize GHE to overcome barriers. This study provides key evidence, relevant perceptions and suggestions to strengthen GHE in Germany.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 July 1; Volume 65 (Issue 7); DOI:10.1093/jac/dkq120
Plinke C, Cox HS, Zarkua N, Karimovich HA, Braker K, et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 July 1; Volume 65 (Issue 7); DOI:10.1093/jac/dkq120
Mechanisms of resistance to ethambutol in Mycobacterium tuberculosis remain inadequately described. Although there is mounting evidence that mutations of codon 306 in embB play a key role, a significant number of phenotypically ethambutol-resistant strains do not carry mutations in this codon. Here, other mutations in the embCAB operon are suggested to be involved in resistance development.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012 February 8; Volume 16 (Issue 4); DOI:10.5588/ijtld.11.0451
Cox HS, Ford NP
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012 February 8; Volume 16 (Issue 4); DOI:10.5588/ijtld.11.0451
BACKGROUND: Current treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) is inadequate, and outcomes are significantly poorer than for drug-susceptible TB, particularly for patients previously treated with second-line drugs, treatment failures or extensively drug-resistant (XDR-) TB patients (complicated DR-TB). Linezolid is not recommended for routine DR-TB treatment due to the lack of efficacy data, but is suggested for patients where adequate second-line regimens are difficult to design.OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and metaanalysis to assess existing evidence of efficacy and safety of linezolid for DR-TB treatment.METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and abstracts from World Conferences of The Union for studies published through February 2011. We included all studies in which linezolid was given systematically to DR-TB patients and where treatment outcomes were reported.RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included in our review, representing 148 patients. The pooled proportion for treatment success was 67.99% (95%CI 58.00-78.99, τ2 129.42). There were no significant differences in success comparing daily linezolid dose (≤600 vs. >600 mg) and mean linezolid duration (≤7 vs. >7 months). The pooled estimate for the frequency of any adverse events was 61.48% (95%CI 40.15-82.80), with 36.23% (95%CI 20.67-51.79) discontinuing linezolid due to adverse events.CONCLUSION: Treatment success with linezolid was equal to or better than that commonly achieved for uncomplicated DR-TB, and better than previous reports for previously treated patients and those with XDR-TB. While data are limited, linezolid appears be a useful drug, albeit associated with significant adverse events, and should be considered in the treatment of complicated DR-TB.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
PLOS One. 2013 February 5; Volume 8 (Issue 2); DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0055373
Davies A, Singh K, du Cros PAK, Mills EJ, Cooke GS, et al.
PLOS One. 2013 February 5; Volume 8 (Issue 2); DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0055373