In: Child abuse & neglect: the international journal ; official journal of the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Band 125, S. 105509
Abstract Background The impacts of infectious disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics are not gender neutral. Instead, infectious diseases and gender-based violence (GBV) mutually reinforce each other. Women and girls in humanitarian settings are disproportionately impacted as crises exacerbate gender inequality, violence, and community transmission. A syndemic model of infectious disease and GBV draws attention to their critical linkage, enabling more effective approaches to address both infectious disease transmission and GBV prevalence.
Main body Implementation of infectious disease control measures have been consistently absent of critical gender considerations in humanitarian settings. We drew learnings from Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19 to highlight how women and girls living in humanitarian settings have faced bi-directional syndemic vulnerabilities between GBV and infectious disease. Our findings indicate that Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19 exacerbated GBV risk and experience of GBV increased community transmission of these infectious diseases. Moreover, we identified a failure of existing policies to address this mutually deleterious linkage. Thus, we advocate for policymakers to ask three foundational questions: (i) What are the gendered bi-directional risk pathways between infectious disease and GBV?; (ii) How can we act on the gendered risk pathways?; and, (iii) Who should be involved in designing, implementing, and evaluating gender-sensitive policies?
Conclusion Our syndemic policy framework challenges existing thinking on a neglected issue that disproportionally impacts women and girls. By offering foundational guidance to address and thwart the syndemic of infectious disease and GBV in humanitarian settings, we endeavor to proactively and holistically address the reinforcing linkage between GBV and current or emergent infectious diseases.
Background: One of the challenges when transitioning from International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) to International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) is to ensure clinical coding accuracy. Objective: To determine the accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 in comparison with ICD-10 and identify causes of coding errors in real clinical coding environments. Method: The study was conducted prospectively in two general hospitals. Medical records of discharged inpatients were coded by hospital clinical coders with both ICD-11 and ICD-10 on different days. These medical records were recoded by five mentors. Codes assigned by mentors were used as the gold standard for the evaluation of accuracy. Results: The accuracy of ICD-10 and ICD-11 coding for 1578 and 2168 codes was evaluated. Coding accuracy was 89.1% and 74.2% for ICD-10 and ICD-11. In ICD-11, the lowest accuracy was observed in chapters 22 (injuries), 10 (ear) and 11 (circulatory) (51.1%, 53.8% and 62.7%, respectively). In both ICD-10 and ICD-11, the most important cause of the coding errors was clinical coders' mistakes (79.5% and 81.8% for ICD-10 and ICD-11, respectively). Conclusion: Accuracy of clinical coding with ICD-11 was lower relative to ICD-10. Hence, it is essential to carry out initial preparations, particularly the training of clinical coders based on their needs, as well as the necessary interventions to enhance the documentation of medical records according to ICD-11 before or simultaneous with the country-wide implementation. Implications: Clinical coders need complete training, especially in using extension codes and post-coordination coding. Local ICD-11 guidelines based on the needs of local users and reporting policies should be developed. Furthermore, documentation guidelines based on ICD-11 requirements should be developed.
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid development of preparedness and response plans to quell transmission and prevent illness across the world. Increasingly, there is an appreciation of the need to consider equity issues in the development and implementation of these plans, not least with respect to gender, given the demonstrated differences in the impacts both of the disease and of control measures on men, women, and non-binary individuals. Humanitarian crises, and particularly those resulting from conflict or violence, exacerbate pre-existing gender inequality and discrimination. To this end, there is a particularly urgent need to assess the extent to which COVID-19 response plans, as developed for conflict-affected states and forcibly displaced populations, are gender responsive.
Methods Using a multi-step selection process, we identified and analyzed 30 plans from states affected by conflict and those hosting forcibly displaced refugees and utilized an adapted version of the World Health Organization's Gender Responsive Assessment Scale (WHO-GRAS) to determine whether existing COVID-19 response plans were gender-negative, gender-blind, gender-sensitive, or gender-transformative.
Results We find that although few plans were gender-blind and none were gender-negative, no plans were gender-transformative. Most gender-sensitive plans only discuss issues specifically related to women (such as gender-based violence and reproductive health) rather than mainstream gender considerations throughout all sectors of policy planning.
Conclusions Despite overwhelming evidence about the importance of intentionally embedding gender considerations into the COVID-19 planning and response, none of the plans reviewed in this study were classified as 'gender transformative.' We use these results to make specific recommendations for how infectious disease control efforts, for COVID-19 and beyond, can better integrate gender considerations in humanitarian settings, and particularly those affected by violence or conflict.
In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization: the international journal of public health = Bulletin de l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, Band 100, Heft 8, S. 474-483
Background The burden of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising globally, with substantial variation in levels and trends of disease in different countries and regions. Understanding these geographical differences is crucial for formulating effective strategies for preventing and treating IBD. We report the prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of IBD in 195 countries and territories between 1990 and 2017, based on data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017. Methods We modelled mortality due to IBD using a standard Cause of Death Ensemble model including data mainly from vital registrations. To estimate the non-fatal burden, we used data presented in primary studies, hospital discharges, and claims data, and used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, to ensure consistency between measures. Mortality, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs) due to premature death, years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were estimated. All of the estimates were reported as numbers and rates per 100 000 population, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UI). Findings In 2017, there were 6·8 million (95% UI 6·4–7·3) cases of IBD globally. The age-standardised prevalence rate increased from 79·5 (75·9–83·5) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 84·3 (79·2–89·9) per 100 000 population in 2017. The age-standardised death rate decreased from 0·61 (0·55–0·69) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 0·51 (0·42–0·54) per 100 000 population in 2017. At the GBD regional level, the highest age-standardised prevalence rate in 2017 occurred in high-income North America (422·0 [398·7–446·1] per 100 000) and the lowest age-standardised prevalence rates were observed in the Caribbean (6·7 [6·3–7·2] per 100 000 population). High Socio-demographic Index (SDI) locations had the highest age-standardised prevalence rate, while low SDI regions had the lowest age-standardised prevalence rate. At the national level, the USA had the highest age-standardised prevalence rate (464·5 [438·6–490·9] per 100 000 population), followed by the UK (449·6 [420·6–481·6] per 100 000). Vanuatu had the highest age-standardised death rate in 2017 (1·8 [0·8–3·2] per 100 000 population) and Singapore had the lowest (0·08 [0·06–0·14] per 100 000 population). The total YLDs attributed to IBD almost doubled over the study period, from 0·56 million (0·39–0·77) in 1990 to 1·02 million (0·71–1·38) in 2017. The age-standardised rate of DALYs decreased from 26·5 (21·0–33·0) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 23·2 (19·1–27·8) per 100 000 population in 2017. Interpretation The prevalence of IBD increased substantially in many regions from 1990 to 2017, which might pose a substantial social and economic burden on governments and health systems in the coming years. Our findings can be useful for policy makers developing strategies to tackle IBD, including the education of specialised personnel to address the burden of this complex disease.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine hospital services globally. This study estimated the total number of adult elective operations that would be cancelled worldwide during the 12 weeks of peak disruption due to COVID-19. Methods: A global expert response study was conducted to elicit projections for the proportion of elective surgery that would be cancelled or postponed during the 12 weeks of peak disruption. A Bayesian β-regression model was used to estimate 12-week cancellation rates for 190 countries. Elective surgical case-mix data, stratified by specialty and indication (surgery for cancer versus benign disease), were determined. This case mix was applied to country-level surgical volumes. The 12-week cancellation rates were then applied to these figures to calculate the total number of cancelled operations. Results: The best estimate was that 28 404 603 operations would be cancelled or postponed during the peak 12 weeks of disruption due to COVID-19 (2 367 050 operations per week). Most would be operations for benign disease (90·2 per cent, 25 638 922 of 28 404 603). The overall 12-week cancellation rate would be 72·3 per cent. Globally, 81·7 per cent of operations for benign conditions (25 638 922 of 31 378 062), 37·7 per cent of cancer operations (2 324 070 of 6 162 311) and 25·4 per cent of elective caesarean sections (441 611 of 1 735 483) would be cancelled or postponed. If countries increased their normal surgical volume by 20 per cent after the pandemic, it would take a median of 45 weeks to clear the backlog of operations resulting from COVID-19 disruption. Conclusion: A very large number of operations will be cancelled or postponed owing to disruption caused by COVID-19. Governments should mitigate against this major burden on patients by developing recovery plans and implementing strategies to restore surgical activity safely.