Suchergebnisse

Background: Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of chronic parasitic diseases and related conditions that are the most common diseases among the 2·7 billion people globally living on less than US$2 per day. In response to the growing challenge of NTDs, Ethiopia is preparing to launch a NTD Master Plan. The purpose of this review is to underscore the burden of NTDs in Ethiopia, highlight the state of current interventions, and suggest ways forward. Results: This review indicates that NTDs are significant public health problems in Ethiopia. From the analysis reported here, Ethiopia stands out for having the largest number of NTD cases following Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Ethiopia is estimated to have the highest burden of trachoma, podoconiosis and cutaneous leishmaniasis in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the second highest burden in terms of ascariasis, leprosy and visceral leishmaniasis, and the third highest burden of hookworm. Infections such as schistosomiasis, trichuriasis, lymphatic filariasis and rabies are also common. A third of Ethiopians are infected with ascariasis, one quarter is infected with trichuriasis and one in eight Ethiopians lives with hookworm or is infected with trachoma. However, despite these high burdens of infection, the control of most NTDs in Ethiopia is in its infancy. In terms of NTD control achievements, Ethiopia reached the leprosy elimination target of 1 case/10,000 population in 1999. No cases of human African trypanosomiasis have been reported since 1984. Guinea worm eradication is in its final phase. The Onchocerciasis Control Program has been making steady progress since 2001. A national blindness survey was conducted in 2006 and the trachoma program has kicked off in some regions. Lymphatic Filariasis, podoconiosis and rabies mapping are underway. Conclusion: Ethiopia bears a significant burden of NTDs compared to other SSA countries. To achieve success in integrated control of NTDs, integrated mapping, rapid scale up of interventions and operational research into co implementation of intervention packages will be crucial.

OBJECTIVE: Globally, interest in excellence has grown exponentially, with public and private institutions shifting their attention from meeting targets to achieving excellence. Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are standing at the forefront of healthcare, research and innovations responding to the world's most complex problems. However, their potential is hindered by conceptual ambiguity. We conducted a global synthesis of the evidence to conceptualise CoEs. DESIGN: Scoping review, following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and methodological enhancement by Levac et al and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar and the Google engine until 1 January 2021. ELIGIBILITY: Articles that describe CoE as the main theme. RESULTS: The search resulted in 52 161 potential publications, with 78 articles met the eligibility criteria. The 78 articles were from 33 countries, of which 35 were from the USA, 3 each from Nigeria, South Africa, Spain and India, and 2 each from Ethiopia, Canada, Russia, Colombia, Sweden, Greece and Peru. The rest 17 were from various countries. The articles involved six thematic areas—healthcare, education, research, industry, information technology and general concepts on CoE. The analysis documented success stories of using the brand 'CoE'—an influential brand to stimulate best practices. We identified 12 essential foundations of CoE—specialised expertise; infrastructure; innovation; high-impact research; quality service; accreditation or standards; leadership; organisational structure; strategy; collaboration and partnership; sustainable funding or financial mechanisms; and entrepreneurship. CONCLUSIONS: CoEs have significant scientific, political, economic and social impacts. However, there are inconsistent use and self-designation of the brand without approval by an independent, external process of evaluation and with high ambiguity between 'CoEs' and the ordinary 'institutions' or ...

Objective- Globally, interest in excellence has grown exponentially, with public and private institutions shifting their attention from meeting targets to achieving excellence. Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are standing at the forefront of healthcare, research and innovations responding to the world's most complex problems. However, their potential is hindered by conceptual ambiguity. We conducted a global synthesis of the evidence to conceptualise CoEs. Design- Scoping review, following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and methodological enhancement by Levac et al and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Data sources- PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar and the Google engine until 1 January 2021. Eligibility- Articles that describe CoE as the main theme. Results- The search resulted in 52 161 potential publications, with 78 articles met the eligibility criteria. The 78 articles were from 33 countries, of which 35 were from the USA, 3 each from Nigeria, South Africa, Spain and India, and 2 each from Ethiopia, Canada, Russia, Colombia, Sweden, Greece and Peru. The rest 17 were from various countries. The articles involved six thematic areas—healthcare, education, research, industry, information technology and general concepts on CoE. The analysis documented success stories of using the brand 'CoE'—an influential brand to stimulate best practices. We identified 12 essential foundations of CoE—specialised expertise; infrastructure; innovation; high-impact research; quality service; accreditation or standards; leadership; organisational structure; strategy; collaboration and partnership; sustainable funding or financial mechanisms; and entrepreneurship. Conclusions- CoEs have significant scientific, political, economic and social impacts. However, there are inconsistent use and self-designation of the brand without approval by an independent, external process of evaluation and with high ambiguity between 'CoEs' and the ordinary 'institutions' or ...

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is one of the most debilitating and disfiguring diseases common in Ethiopia and is caused by Wuchereria bancrofti. Mapping for LF has shown that 70 woredas (districts) are endemic and 5.9 million people are estimated to be at risk. The national government's LF elimination programme commenced in 2009 in 5 districts integrated with the onchocerciasis programme. The programme developed gradually and has shown significant progress over the past 6 years, reaching 100% geographical coverage for mass drug administration (MDA) by 2016. To comply with the global LF elimination goals an integrated morbidity management and disability prevention (MMDP) guideline and a burden assessment programme has also been developed; MMDP protocols and a hydrocoele surgical handbook produced for country-wide use. In Ethiopia, almost all LF endemic districts are co-endemic with malaria and vector control aspects of the activities are conducted in the context of malaria programme as the vectors for both diseases are mosquitoes. In order to monitor the elimination, 11 sentinel and spot-check sites have been established and baseline information has been collected. Although significant achievements have been achieved in the scale up of the LF elimination programme, there is still a need to strengthen operational research to generate programme-relevant evidence, to increase access to morbidity management services, and to improve monitoring and evaluation of the LF programme. However, the current status of implementation of the LF national programme indicates that Ethiopia is poised to achieve the 2020 goal of elimination of LF. Nevertheless, to achieve this goal, high and sustained treatment coverage and strong monitoring and evaluation of the programme are essential.