Suchergebnisse

Importance Hypertension is the largest contributor to the Global Burden of Disease. In Rwanda, as in most low-income and middle-income countries, an increasing prevalence of hypertension and its associated morbidity and mortality is causing major healthcare and economic impact. Understanding healthcare systems context in hypertension care is necessary. Objective To study the hypertension healthcare context as perceived by healthcare providers using the Context Assessment for Community Health (COACH) tool. Design A cross-sectional cohort responded to the COACH questionnaire and a survey about hypertension training. Setting Three tertiary care hospitals in Rwanda. Participants Healthcare professionals (n=223). Primary outcome(s) and measure(s) The COACH tool consists of 49 items with eight subscales: resources, community engagement, commitment to work, informal payment, leadership, work culture, monitoring services for action (5-point Likert Scale) and sources of knowledge (on a 0-1 scale). Four questions surveyed training on hypertension. Results Responders (n=223, 75% women; 56% aged 20-35 years) included nurses (n=142, 64%, midwives (n=42, 19%), primary care physicians (n=28, 13%) and physician specialists (n=11, 5%)). The subscales commitment to work, leadership, work culture and informal payment scored between 4.7 and 4.1 and the community engagement, monitoring services for action and organizational resources scored between 3.1 and 3.5. Sources of knowledge had a mean score of 0.6 +/- 0.3. While 73% reported having attended a didactic hypertension seminar in the past year, only 28% had received long-term training and 51% had <3-year experience working with hypertension care delivery. The majority (99%) indicated a need for additional training in hypertension care. Conclusions There is a need for increased and continuous training in Rwanda. Healthcare responders stated a commitment to work and reported supportive leadership, while acknowledging limited resources and no monitoring systems. The COACH tool provides contextual guidance to develop training strategies prior to the implementation of a sustainable hypertension care programme.

<p class="Pa5"><strong>Objective: </strong>To report baseline character­istics of junior-level faculty participants in the Summer Institute Programs to Increase Diversity (SIPID) and the Programs to In­crease Diversity among individuals engaged in Health-Related Research (PRIDE), which aim to facilitate participants' career devel­opment as independent investigators in heart, lung, blood, and sleep research.</p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Design and Setting: </strong>Junior faculty from groups underrepresented in the biomedical-research workforce attended two, 2-3 week, annual summer research-education programs at one of six sites. Programs provided didactic and/or laboratory courses, workshops to develop research, writing and career-development skills, as well as a mentoring component, with regular contact maintained via phone, email and webinar conferences. Between summer institutes, trainees participated in a short mid-year meeting and an annual scientific meeting. Participants were surveyed during and after SIPID/PRIDE to evaluate program compo­nents.</p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Participants: </strong>Junior faculty from under­represented populations across the United States and Puerto Rico participated in one of three SIPID (2007-2010) or six PRIDE programs (2011-2014).</p><p class="Pa5"><strong>Results: </strong>Of 204 SIPID/PRIDE participants, 68% were female; 67% African American and 27% Hispanic/Latino; at enrollment, 75% were assistant professors and 15% instructors, with most (96%) on non-tenure track. Fifty-eight percent had research doctorates (PhD, ScD) and 42% had medi­cal (MD, DO) degrees. Mentees' feedback about the program indicated skills develop­ment (eg, manuscript and grant writing), access to networking, and mentoring were the most beneficial elements of SIPID and PRIDE programs. Grant awards shifted from primarily mentored research mechanisms to primarily independent investigator awards after training.</p><p class="Pa7"><strong> Conclusions: </strong>Mentees reported their career development benefited from SIPID and PRIDE participation.</p><p class="Pa7"><em>Ethn Dis. </em>2017;27(3):249-256; doi:10.18865/ed.27.3.249</p>

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. ...