Suchergebnisse

Background The perception of surgery as expensive and complex might be a barrier to its widespread acceptance in global health efforts. We did a systematic review and analysis of cost-effectiveness studies that assess surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries to help quantify the potential value of surgery. Methods We searched Medline for all relevant articles published between Jan 1, 1996 and Jan 31, 2013, and searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. We converted all results to 2012 US$. We extracted cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and appraised economic assessments for their methodological quality using the 10-point Drummond checklist. Findings Of the 584 identified studies, 26 met full inclusion criteria. Together, these studies gave 121 independent CERs in seven categories of surgical interventions. The median CER of circumcision ($13.78 per disability-adjusted life year [DALY]) was similar to that of standard vaccinations ($12.96-25.93 per DALY) and bednets for malaria prevention ($6.48-22.04 per DALY). Median CERs of cleft lip or palate repair ($47.74 per DALY), general surgery ($82.32 per DALY), hydrocephalus surgery ($108.74 per DALY), and ophthalmic surgery ($136 per DALY) were similar to that of the BCG vaccine ($51.86-220.39 per DALY). Median CERs of caesarean sections ($315.12 per DALY) and orthopaedic surgery ($381.15 per DALY) are more favourable than those of medical treatment for ischaemic heart disease ($500.41-706.54 per DALY) and HIV treatment with multidrug antiretroviral therapy ($453.74-648.20 per DALY). Interpretation Our findings suggest that many essential surgical interventions are cost-effective or very cost-effective in resource-poor countries. Quantification of the economic value of surgery provides a strong argument for the expansion of global surgery's role in the global health movement. However, economic value should not be the only argument for resource allocation-other organisational, ethical, and political arguments can also be made for its inclusion. Funding Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, and Stanford University Department of Surgery. Copyright (C) Chao et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY.

In a rights-based approach to health, the provision of essential surgical services is not a luxury, but a critical component of the "highest attainable standard of health." Yet while access to select basic health care interventions has increasingly been discussed as part of the human right to health, essential surgical services have generally not been part of this discussion. This is despite the substantial global burden of surgical conditions in low- and middle-income countries, extreme global disparities in access to surgical care, and the fact that relatively simple, cost-effective, and curative surgical procedures can avert disability and premature death from many life-threatening emergencies and other conditions. Many barriers, both supply and demand-related, such as constraints in human resources, infrastructure, and access to care, have limited the ability of health systems to deliver surgical services. In this paper, the authors share their experience -- as a group of surgeons, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and public health experts working with colleagues in varied resource-constrained settings to provide basic surgical care -- in addressing the challenge of realizing the right to surgery in resource-poor settings. We argue that essential surgical care should be included in the basic human right to health, and that the current emphasis on "vertical" disease-specific models of health service delivery should be broadened to include systems needed to provide surgical services. We outline the global burden of surgical conditions, discuss the public health importance of surgery, identify the most significant global disparities in access to surgical care, and provide economic arguments for surgical delivery. Adapted from the source document.

Natural disasters significantly contribute to human death and suffering. Moreover, they exacerbate pre-existing health inequalities by imposing an additional burden on the most vulnerable populations. Robust local health systems can greatly mitigate this burden by absorbing the extraordinary patient volume and case complexity immediately after a disaster. This resilience is largely determined by the predisaster local surgical capacity, with trauma, neurosurgical, obstetrical and anaesthesia care of particular importance. Nevertheless, the disaster management and global surgery communities have not coordinated the development of surgical systems in low/middle-income countries (LMIC) with disaster resilience in mind. Herein, we argue that an appropriate peridisaster response requires coordinated surgical and disaster policy, as only local surgical systems can provide adequate disaster care in LMICs. We highlight three opportunities to help guide this policy collaboration. First, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction set forth independent roadmaps for global surgical care and disaster risk reduction; however, ultimately both advocate for health system strengthening in LMICs. Second, the integration of surgical and disaster planning is necessary. Disaster risk reduction plans could recognise the role of surgical systems in disaster preparedness more explicitly and pre-emptively identify deficiencies in surgical systems. Based on these insights, National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anesthesia Plans, in turn, can better address deficiencies in systems and ensure increased disaster resilience. Lastly, the recent momentum for national surgical planning in LMICs represents a political window for the integration of surgical policy and disaster risk reduction strategies.

Although 5 billion people lack access to surgery and anaesthesia care, little systems-level data exist to address this health inequity and social injustice.1 Data drive quality improvement processes in business and health systems in high-resource settings, but clinicians and policymakers in low-resource environments have been metaphorically—and often literally—operating in the dark. The challenges to obtaining accurate health systems data involve nearly all clinical delivery platforms in global health and have been well documented and are also relevant to surgery and anaesthesia.2 They include insufficient national-level investment in analytics, insufficient donor investment in data collection, little analysis of global health funding streams, limited tools and resources for data collection at the local level, and limited accessibility of collected data to those best positioned to implement data-driven solutions. Such gaps undermine advocacy, as the problems remain invisible and thus fail to inspire political will.In January 2014, at the inception of a global surgical movement designed to realign stakeholders into a structured approach to surgical systems strengthening, Dr Jim Kim, President of the World Bank Group, challenged The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) to develop consensus-based indicators and time-bound targets to track progress. Sixteen months later, in April 2015, after thorough consultation with clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators and policymakers, the Commission recommended six core indicators to assess surgical and anaesthesia systems strength.3 When these indicators (summarised in table 1) are considered together, they serve as basic proxies of surgical health system functioning.View this table:In this windowIn a new windowTable 1 Data obtained per indicator including totalThe LCoGS indicators assess multiple aspects of surgical and anaesthesia care delivery within a country. Where are the facilities capable of providing surgical care and how close are they to the populations that need them? How many surgical and anaesthesia providers are present? What quantity of surgical care is provided to a population? …

Despite emergency and essential surgery and anaesthesia care being recognised as a part of Universal Health Coverage, 5 billion people worldwide lack access to safe, timely and affordable surgery and anaesthesia care. In Tanzania, 19% of all deaths and 17 % of disability-adjusted life years are attributable to conditions amenable to surgery. It is recommended that countries develop and implement National Surgical, Obstetric and Anesthesia Plans (NSOAPs) to systematically improve quality and access to surgical, obstetric and anaesthesia (SOA) care across six domains of the health system including (1) service delivery, (2) infrastructure, including equipment and supplies, (3) workforce, (4) information management, (5) finance and (6) Governance. This paper describes the NSOAP development, recommendations and lessons learnt from undertaking NSOAP development in Tanzania. The NSOAP development driven by the Ministry of Health Community Development Gender Elderly and Children involved broad consultation with over 200 stakeholders from across government, professional associations, clinicians, ancillary staff, civil society and patient organisations. The NSOAP describes time-bound, costed strategic objectives, outputs, activities and targets to improve each domain of the SOA system. The final NSOAP is ambitious but attainable, reflects on-the-ground priorities, aligns with existing health policy and costs an additional 3% of current healthcare expenditure. Tanzania is the third country to complete such a plan and the first to report on the NSOAP development in such detail. The NSOAP development in Tanzania provides a roadmap for other countries wishing to undertake a similar NSOAP development to strengthen their SOA system.

Bringing together the experience, perspective and expertise of Paul Farmer, Jim Yong Kim, and Arthur Kleinman, Reimagining Global Health provides an original, compelling introduction to the field of global health. Drawn from a Harvard course developed by their student Matthew Basilico, this work provides an accessible and engaging framework for the study of global health. Insisting on an approach that is historically deep and geographically broad, the authors underline the importance of a transdisciplinary approach, and offer a highly readable distillation of several historical and ethnographic perspectives of contemporary global health problems. The case studies presented throughout Reimagining Global Health bring together ethnographic, theoretical, and historical perspectives into a wholly new and exciting investigation of global health. The interdisciplinary approach outlined in this text should prove useful not only in schools of public health, nursing, and medicine, but also in undergraduate and graduate classes in anthropology, sociology, political economy, and history, among others