Atmospheric pollution 1980: proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium, UNESCO Building, Paris, France, May 5-8, 1980
In: Studies in environmental science 8
74 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Studies in environmental science 8
In: Journal of broadcasting & electronic media: an official publication of the Broadcast Education Association, Band 49, Heft 4, S. 468-487
ISSN: 1550-6878
In: Journal of broadcasting & electronic media: an official publication of the Broadcast Education Association, Band 52, Heft 2, S. 303-322
ISSN: 1550-6878
In Mali, small ruminants (SRs) are an important means for enhanced livelihood through income generation, especially for women and youth. Unfortunately, opportunities for livestock farmers to tap into these resources for economic growth are hindered by high burden of endemic diseases such as peste des petits ruminants (PPR). A key component for the control of PPR is vaccination of SRs. However, low participation of farmers to vaccination was identified by stakeholders of the livestock value chains as a key constraint to successful vaccination programs. This study was implemented in the framework of a project which aimed at improving the domestic ruminant livestock value chains in Mali by upscaling proven interventions in animal health, feeds and feeding and livestock marketing. The objectives of the study were to review the context of livestock vaccination in Mali and evaluate the impact of innovation platforms (IP) as a means for engaging stakeholders in the vaccination process. Desk review, key informant interviews (KII) and net-mapping were used to understand the context of livestock vaccination, while vaccination coverage and sero-monitoring together with group interviews were used to measure the impact of the intervention. IPs were created in 24 communes in three regions: 15 IPs in Sikasso, 4 IPs in Mopti and 5 IPs in Timbuktu. They developed work plans and implemented activities focusing on improving interaction among key vaccine chain delivery stakeholders such as farmers, private veterinarians, vaccine manufacturers, local leaders and public veterinary services; involving them in the planning, implementation and evaluation of vaccination programs and fostering knowledge sharing, communication and capacity building. After 2 years of implementation of IPs, vaccination coverage for SRs increased significantly in target communes. During the first year, seroprevalence rate for PPR increased from 57% (CI95: 54–60%) at baseline to 70% (CI95: 67–73%) post-vaccination in Sikasso region, while in Mopti region, seroprevalence increased from 51% (CI95: 47–55%) at baseline to 57% (CI85: 53–61%) post-vaccination. Stakeholder engagement in the vaccination process through facilitated IPs was successful in fostering participation of farmers to vaccination. However, a sustainable vaccination strategy for Mali would benefit from consolidating the IP model, supported by Government investment to strengthen and adjust the underlying public-private-partnership. ; United States Agency for International Development ; Peer Review
BASE
International audience ; ObjectiveAn overview of the economic consequences – overall costs as well as cost breakdown (direct and indirect) – of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) worldwide.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases for articles was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligible criteria. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were converted to an annual cost and to 2013 euros (€) by using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.ResultsA total of 45 abstracts were selected, and 32 articles were considered for the review. The studied populations were heterogeneous: administrative, hospital and national health survey data. Annual total costs per patient ranged from 0.7 to 12 k€, direct costs per patient from 0.5 to 10.9 k€ and indirect costs per patient from 0.2 to 12.3 k€. The weighted average annual costs per patient living with knee and hip OA were 11.1, 9.5 and 4.4 k€ for total, direct and indirect costs, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity of studies and lack of methodologic consensus to obtain reliable cost-of-illness estimates for lower-limb OA. However, costs induced by the disease seem substantial and deserve to be more extensively explored.
BASE
International audience ; ObjectiveAn overview of the economic consequences – overall costs as well as cost breakdown (direct and indirect) – of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) worldwide.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases for articles was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligible criteria. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were converted to an annual cost and to 2013 euros (€) by using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.ResultsA total of 45 abstracts were selected, and 32 articles were considered for the review. The studied populations were heterogeneous: administrative, hospital and national health survey data. Annual total costs per patient ranged from 0.7 to 12 k€, direct costs per patient from 0.5 to 10.9 k€ and indirect costs per patient from 0.2 to 12.3 k€. The weighted average annual costs per patient living with knee and hip OA were 11.1, 9.5 and 4.4 k€ for total, direct and indirect costs, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity of studies and lack of methodologic consensus to obtain reliable cost-of-illness estimates for lower-limb OA. However, costs induced by the disease seem substantial and deserve to be more extensively explored.
BASE
International audience ; ObjectiveAn overview of the economic consequences – overall costs as well as cost breakdown (direct and indirect) – of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) worldwide.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases for articles was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligible criteria. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were converted to an annual cost and to 2013 euros (€) by using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.ResultsA total of 45 abstracts were selected, and 32 articles were considered for the review. The studied populations were heterogeneous: administrative, hospital and national health survey data. Annual total costs per patient ranged from 0.7 to 12 k€, direct costs per patient from 0.5 to 10.9 k€ and indirect costs per patient from 0.2 to 12.3 k€. The weighted average annual costs per patient living with knee and hip OA were 11.1, 9.5 and 4.4 k€ for total, direct and indirect costs, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity of studies and lack of methodologic consensus to obtain reliable cost-of-illness estimates for lower-limb OA. However, costs induced by the disease seem substantial and deserve to be more extensively explored.
BASE
International audience ; ObjectiveAn overview of the economic consequences – overall costs as well as cost breakdown (direct and indirect) – of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) worldwide.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases for articles was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligible criteria. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were converted to an annual cost and to 2013 euros (€) by using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.ResultsA total of 45 abstracts were selected, and 32 articles were considered for the review. The studied populations were heterogeneous: administrative, hospital and national health survey data. Annual total costs per patient ranged from 0.7 to 12 k€, direct costs per patient from 0.5 to 10.9 k€ and indirect costs per patient from 0.2 to 12.3 k€. The weighted average annual costs per patient living with knee and hip OA were 11.1, 9.5 and 4.4 k€ for total, direct and indirect costs, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity of studies and lack of methodologic consensus to obtain reliable cost-of-illness estimates for lower-limb OA. However, costs induced by the disease seem substantial and deserve to be more extensively explored.
BASE
International audience ; ObjectiveAn overview of the economic consequences – overall costs as well as cost breakdown (direct and indirect) – of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) worldwide.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases for articles was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligible criteria. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were converted to an annual cost and to 2013 euros (€) by using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.ResultsA total of 45 abstracts were selected, and 32 articles were considered for the review. The studied populations were heterogeneous: administrative, hospital and national health survey data. Annual total costs per patient ranged from 0.7 to 12 k€, direct costs per patient from 0.5 to 10.9 k€ and indirect costs per patient from 0.2 to 12.3 k€. The weighted average annual costs per patient living with knee and hip OA were 11.1, 9.5 and 4.4 k€ for total, direct and indirect costs, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity of studies and lack of methodologic consensus to obtain reliable cost-of-illness estimates for lower-limb OA. However, costs induced by the disease seem substantial and deserve to be more extensively explored.
BASE
International audience ; ObjectiveAn overview of the economic consequences – overall costs as well as cost breakdown (direct and indirect) – of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) worldwide.MethodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases for articles was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligible criteria. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were converted to an annual cost and to 2013 euros (€) by using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.ResultsA total of 45 abstracts were selected, and 32 articles were considered for the review. The studied populations were heterogeneous: administrative, hospital and national health survey data. Annual total costs per patient ranged from 0.7 to 12 k€, direct costs per patient from 0.5 to 10.9 k€ and indirect costs per patient from 0.2 to 12.3 k€. The weighted average annual costs per patient living with knee and hip OA were 11.1, 9.5 and 4.4 k€ for total, direct and indirect costs, respectively.ConclusionsThis review highlights the heterogeneity of studies and lack of methodologic consensus to obtain reliable cost-of-illness estimates for lower-limb OA. However, costs induced by the disease seem substantial and deserve to be more extensively explored.
BASE
Background: Informal markets are vital to food and job security across many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). There is emerging data on microbiological food safety hazards and risks along food supply chains that allow targeting mitigation options. Efforts include training in better practices and technologies, but these have mostly targeted production, neglecting the market-based processing and retail level, where much cross-contamination occurs, exposing the final consumer to risk. Poor practices are largely due to a lack of knowledge and appropriate technology but also lack of incentives to change poor practices. Previous studies have shown that even poor consumers do care about the safety of their food but have no alternatives in the market or little power to demand for safer food. Objectives: This four-year project (2019 to 2022) investigates if consumer demand can provide the same incentive or "pull approach" for microbiological food safety in LMIC as it has done in high-income countries. It also builds capacity of value chain actors to respond to demand and of regulators to provide an enabling environment (the "push approach"). At the same time, it strengthens food safety capacity at national level through generating evidence on the national burden of foodborne diseases and selected hazards and risks in chicken meat and vegetables. Methods: The project is organized in seven technical work packages: 1) Estimating burden and cost of key foodborne illnesses in Burkina Faso and Ethiopia; 2) Understanding the poultry and vegetable value chains in urban markets in Burkina Faso and Ethiopia; 3) Quantitative microbial risk assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis of candidate market-based interventions; 4) Build capacity and motivation of regulators to manage food safety (intervention 1, push approach); 5) Empower market-level value chain actors to manage food safety (intervention 2, push approach); 6) Design and implementation of a consumer campaign (intervention 3, pull approach); 7) conduct an impact assessment of the push-pull intervention. Expected results: Investments that improve public health are considered highly rewarding. With this project we aim to achieve measurably safer food, credentialed capacity in regulators and value chain actors, improvements in knowledge and practice among value chain actors, and improvements in food safety awareness and practices among consumers. ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ; Government of the United Kingdom
BASE
In: Preckel , B , Staender , S , Arnal , D , Brattebo , G , Feldman , J M , Ffrench-O'Carroll , R , Fuchs-Buder , T , Goldhaber-Fiebert , S N , Haller , G , Haugen , A S , Hendrickx , J F A , Kalkman , C J , Meybohm , P , Neuhaus , C , Ostergaard , D , Plunkett , A , Schuler , H U , Smith , A F , Struys , M M R F , Subbe , C P , Wacker , J , Welch , J , Whitaker , D K , Zacharowski , K & Mellin-Olsen , J 2020 , ' Ten years of the Helsinki Declaration on patient safety in anaesthesiology : An expert opinion on peri-operative safety aspects ' , European Journal of Anaesthesiology , vol. 37 , no. 7 , pp. 521-610 . https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001244 ; ISSN:0265-0215
Patient safety is an activity to mitigate preventable patient harm that may occur during the delivery of medical care. The European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA)/European Union of Medical Specialists had previously published safety recommendations on minimal monitoring and postanaesthesia care, but with the growing public and professional interest it was decided to produce a much more encompassing document. The EBA and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) published a consensus on what needs to be done/achieved for improvement of peri-operative patient safety. During the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki/Finland in 2010, this vision was presented to anaesthesiologists, patients, industry and others involved in health care as the 'Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology'. In May/June 2020, ESA and EBA are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology; a good opportunity to look back and forward evaluating what was achieved in the recent 10 years, and what needs to be done in the upcoming years. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee (PSQC) of ESA invited experts in their fields to contribute, and these experts addressed their topic in different ways; there are classical, narrative reviews, more systematic reviews, political statements, personal opinions and also original data presentation. With this publication we hope to further stimulate implementation of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, as well as initiating relevant research in the future.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE