Protocol
BMJ Open. 2017 February 1; Volume 7 (Issue 2); e014067.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014067
Smith SL, Misago CN, Osrow RA, Franke MF, Iyamuremye JD, et al.
BMJ Open. 2017 February 1; Volume 7 (Issue 2); e014067.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014067
Integrating mental healthcare into primary care can reduce the global burden of mental disorders. Yet data on the effective implementation of real-world task-shared mental health programmes are limited. In 2012, the Rwandan Ministry of Health and the international healthcare organisation Partners in Health collaboratively adapted the Mentoring and Enhanced Supervision at Health Centers (MESH) programme, a successful programme of supported supervision based on task-sharing for HIV/AIDS care, to include care of neuropsychiatric disorders within primary care settings (MESH Mental Health). We propose 1 of the first studies in a rural low-income country to assess the implementation and clinical outcomes of a programme integrating neuropsychiatric care into a public primary care system.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
A mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted. First, we will conduct a quantitative outcomes evaluation using a pretest and post-test design at 4 purposively selected MESH MH participating health centres. At least 112 consecutive adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression or epilepsy will be enrolled. Primary outcomes are symptoms and functioning measured at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months using clinician-administered scales: the General Health Questionnaire and the brief WHO Disability Assessment Scale. We hypothesise that service users will experience at least a 25% improvement in symptoms and functioning from baseline after MESH MH programme participation. To understand any outcome improvements under the intervention, we will evaluate programme processes using (1) quantitative analyses of routine service utilisation data and supervision checklist data and (2) qualitative semistructured interviews with primary care nurses, service users and family members.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This evaluation was approved by the Rwanda National Ethics Committee (Protocol #736/RNEC/2016) and deemed exempt by the Harvard University Institutional Review Board. Results will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication, presented at conferences and disseminated to communities served by the programme.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
A mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted. First, we will conduct a quantitative outcomes evaluation using a pretest and post-test design at 4 purposively selected MESH MH participating health centres. At least 112 consecutive adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression or epilepsy will be enrolled. Primary outcomes are symptoms and functioning measured at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months using clinician-administered scales: the General Health Questionnaire and the brief WHO Disability Assessment Scale. We hypothesise that service users will experience at least a 25% improvement in symptoms and functioning from baseline after MESH MH programme participation. To understand any outcome improvements under the intervention, we will evaluate programme processes using (1) quantitative analyses of routine service utilisation data and supervision checklist data and (2) qualitative semistructured interviews with primary care nurses, service users and family members.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
This evaluation was approved by the Rwanda National Ethics Committee (Protocol #736/RNEC/2016) and deemed exempt by the Harvard University Institutional Review Board. Results will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication, presented at conferences and disseminated to communities served by the programme.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 October 8; Volume 42 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1017/ice.2020.1243
Toomey EC, Conway Y, Burton C, Smith SL, Smalle M, et al.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 October 8; Volume 42 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1017/ice.2020.1243
Background: Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination.
Objectives: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators.
Data sources: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews.
Methods: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized.
Results: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.
Conclusions: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.
Objectives: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators.
Data sources: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews.
Methods: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized.
Results: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.
Conclusions: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Lancet. 2018 September 8; Volume 392 (Issue 10150); 821-834.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31644-1
Ahmad N, Ahuja SD, Akkerman OW, Alffenaar JWC, Anderson LF, et al.
Lancet. 2018 September 8; Volume 392 (Issue 10150); 821-834.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31644-1
BACKGROUND
Treatment outcomes for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis remain poor. We aimed to estimate the association of treatment success and death with the use of individual drugs, and the optimal number and duration of treatment with those drugs in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify potentially eligible observational and experimental studies published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 30, 2016. We also searched reference lists from all systematic reviews of treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis published since 2009. To be eligible, studies had to report original results, with end of treatment outcomes (treatment completion [success], failure, or relapse) in cohorts of at least 25 adults (aged >18 years). We used anonymised individual patient data from eligible studies, provided by study investigators, regarding clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Using propensity score-matched generalised mixed effects logistic, or linear regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences for success or death during treatment, for specific drugs currently used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as the number of drugs used and treatment duration.
FINDINGS
Of 12 030 patients from 25 countries in 50 studies, 7346 (61%) had treatment success, 1017 (8%) had failure or relapse, and 1729 (14%) died. Compared with failure or relapse, treatment success was positively associated with the use of linezolid (adjusted risk difference 0·15, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·18), levofloxacin (0·15, 0·13 to 0·18), carbapenems (0·14, 0·06 to 0·21), moxifloxacin (0·11, 0·08 to 0·14), bedaquiline (0·10, 0·05 to 0·14), and clofazimine (0·06, 0·01 to 0·10). There was a significant association between reduced mortality and use of linezolid (-0·20, -0·23 to -0·16), levofloxacin (-0·06, -0·09 to -0·04), moxifloxacin (-0·07, -0·10 to -0·04), or bedaquiline (-0·14, -0·19 to -0·10). Compared with regimens without any injectable drug, amikacin provided modest benefits, but kanamycin and capreomycin were associated with worse outcomes. The remaining drugs were associated with slight or no improvements in outcomes. Treatment outcomes were significantly worse for most drugs if they were used despite in-vitro resistance. The optimal number of effective drugs seemed to be five in the initial phase, and four in the continuation phase. In these adjusted analyses, heterogeneity, based on a simulated I2 method, was high for approximately half the estimates for specific drugs, although relatively low for number of drugs and durations analyses.
INTERPRETATION
Although inferences are limited by the observational nature of these data, treatment outcomes were significantly better with use of linezolid, later generation fluoroquinolones, bedaquiline, clofazimine, and carbapenems for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. These findings emphasise the need for trials to ascertain the optimal combination and duration of these drugs for treatment of this condition.
Treatment outcomes for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis remain poor. We aimed to estimate the association of treatment success and death with the use of individual drugs, and the optimal number and duration of treatment with those drugs in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify potentially eligible observational and experimental studies published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 30, 2016. We also searched reference lists from all systematic reviews of treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis published since 2009. To be eligible, studies had to report original results, with end of treatment outcomes (treatment completion [success], failure, or relapse) in cohorts of at least 25 adults (aged >18 years). We used anonymised individual patient data from eligible studies, provided by study investigators, regarding clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Using propensity score-matched generalised mixed effects logistic, or linear regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences for success or death during treatment, for specific drugs currently used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as the number of drugs used and treatment duration.
FINDINGS
Of 12 030 patients from 25 countries in 50 studies, 7346 (61%) had treatment success, 1017 (8%) had failure or relapse, and 1729 (14%) died. Compared with failure or relapse, treatment success was positively associated with the use of linezolid (adjusted risk difference 0·15, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·18), levofloxacin (0·15, 0·13 to 0·18), carbapenems (0·14, 0·06 to 0·21), moxifloxacin (0·11, 0·08 to 0·14), bedaquiline (0·10, 0·05 to 0·14), and clofazimine (0·06, 0·01 to 0·10). There was a significant association between reduced mortality and use of linezolid (-0·20, -0·23 to -0·16), levofloxacin (-0·06, -0·09 to -0·04), moxifloxacin (-0·07, -0·10 to -0·04), or bedaquiline (-0·14, -0·19 to -0·10). Compared with regimens without any injectable drug, amikacin provided modest benefits, but kanamycin and capreomycin were associated with worse outcomes. The remaining drugs were associated with slight or no improvements in outcomes. Treatment outcomes were significantly worse for most drugs if they were used despite in-vitro resistance. The optimal number of effective drugs seemed to be five in the initial phase, and four in the continuation phase. In these adjusted analyses, heterogeneity, based on a simulated I2 method, was high for approximately half the estimates for specific drugs, although relatively low for number of drugs and durations analyses.
INTERPRETATION
Although inferences are limited by the observational nature of these data, treatment outcomes were significantly better with use of linezolid, later generation fluoroquinolones, bedaquiline, clofazimine, and carbapenems for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. These findings emphasise the need for trials to ascertain the optimal combination and duration of these drugs for treatment of this condition.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet. 2014 September 20; Volume 384 (Issue 9948); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61670-6
Isaakidis P, Smith SL, Majumdar S, Furin J, Reid AJ
Lancet. 2014 September 20; Volume 384 (Issue 9948); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61670-6
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Public Health Action. 2017 September 21; Volume 7 (Issue 3); 231-236.; DOI:10.5588/pha.16.0130
Nyirandagijimana B, Edwards JK, Venables E, Ali E, Rusangwa C, et al.
Public Health Action. 2017 September 21; Volume 7 (Issue 3); 231-236.; DOI:10.5588/pha.16.0130
SETTING
Programmes that integrate mental health care into primary care settings could reduce the global burden of mental disorders by increasing treatment availability in resource-limited settings, including Rwanda.
OBJECTIVE
We describe patient demographics, service use and retention of patients in care at health centres (HC) participating in an innovative primary care integration programme, compared to patients using existing district hospital-based specialised out-patient care.
DESIGN
This was a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data from six health centres and one district hospital from October 2014 to March 2015. Results: Of 709 patients, 607 were cared for at HCs; HCs accounted for 88% of the total visits for mental disorders. Patients with psychosis used HC services more frequently, while patients with affective disorders were seen more frequently at the district hospital. Of the 68% of patients who returned to care within 90 days of their first visit, 76% had a third visit within a further 90 days. There were no significant differences in follow-up rates between clinical settings.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that a programme of mentorship for primary care nurses can facilitate the decentralisation of out-patient mental health care from specialised district hospital mental health services to HCs in rural Rwanda.
Programmes that integrate mental health care into primary care settings could reduce the global burden of mental disorders by increasing treatment availability in resource-limited settings, including Rwanda.
OBJECTIVE
We describe patient demographics, service use and retention of patients in care at health centres (HC) participating in an innovative primary care integration programme, compared to patients using existing district hospital-based specialised out-patient care.
DESIGN
This was a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data from six health centres and one district hospital from October 2014 to March 2015. Results: Of 709 patients, 607 were cared for at HCs; HCs accounted for 88% of the total visits for mental disorders. Patients with psychosis used HC services more frequently, while patients with affective disorders were seen more frequently at the district hospital. Of the 68% of patients who returned to care within 90 days of their first visit, 76% had a third visit within a further 90 days. There were no significant differences in follow-up rates between clinical settings.
CONCLUSION
This study suggests that a programme of mentorship for primary care nurses can facilitate the decentralisation of out-patient mental health care from specialised district hospital mental health services to HCs in rural Rwanda.