Correction to: Challenges and opportunities for infection prevention and control in hospitals in conflict-affected settings: a qualitative study

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in the author name of Julie Barnet. The incorrect author name is: Julie Barnett The correct author name is: Julie Barnet The author group has been updated above and the original article [1] has been corrected

Correction to: Challenges and opportunities for infection prevention and control in hospitals in conflict-affected settings: a qualitative study.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in the author name of Julie Barnet. The incorrect author name is: Julie Barnett The correct author name is: Julie Barnet The author group has been updated above and the original article [1] has been corrected

Challenges and opportunities for infection prevention and control in hospitals in conflict-affected settings: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Healthcare associated infections (HAIs) are the most frequent adverse outcome in healthcare delivery worldwide. In conflict-affected settings HAIs, in particular surgical site infections, are prevalent. Effective infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to ending avoidable HAIs and an integral part of safe, effective, high quality health service delivery. However, armed conflict and widespread violence can negatively affect the quality of health care through workforce shortages, supply chain disruptions and attacks on health facilities and staff. To improve IPC in these settings it is necessary to understand the specific barriers and facilitators experienced locally. METHODS: In January and February of 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital staff working for the International Committee of the Red Cross across eight conflict-affected countries (Central African Republic, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan). We explored barriers and facilitators to IPC, as well as the direct impact of conflict on the hospital and its' IPC programme. Data was analysed thematically. RESULTS: We found that inadequate hospital infrastructure, resource and workforce shortages, education of staff, inadequate in-service IPC training and supervision and large visitor numbers are barriers to IPC in hospitals in this study, similar to barriers seen in other resource-limited settings. High patient numbers, supply chain disruptions, high infection rates and attacks on healthcare infrastructures, all as a direct result of conflict, exacerbated existing challenges and imposed an additional burden on hospitals and their IPC programmes. We also found examples of local strategies for improving IPC in the face of limited resources, including departmental IPC champions and illustrated guidelines for in-service training. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals included in this study demonstrated how they overcame certain challenges in the face of limited resources and funding. These strategies present opportunities for learning and knowledge exchange across contexts, particularly in the face of the current global coronavirus pandemic. The findings are increasingly relevant today as they provide evidence of the fragility of IPC programmes in these settings. More research is required on tailoring IPC programmes so that they can be feasible and sustainable in unstable settings

Transforming Epidemiology for 21st Century Medicine and Public Health

In 2012, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) engaged the scientific community to provide a vision for cancer epidemiology in the 21st century. Eight overarching thematic recommendations, with proposed corresponding actions for consideration by funding agencies, professional societies, and the research community emerged from the collective intellectual discourse. The themes are (i) extending the reach of epidemiology beyond discovery and etiologic research to include multilevel analysis, intervention evaluation, implementation, and outcomes research; (ii) transforming the practice of epidemiology by moving towards more access and sharing of protocols, data, metadata, and specimens to foster collaboration, to ensure reproducibility and replication, and accelerate translation; (iii) expanding cohort studies to collect exposure, clinical and other information across the life course and examining multiple health-related endpoints; (iv) developing and validating reliable methods and technologies to quantify exposures and outcomes on a massive scale, and to assess concomitantly the role of multiple factors in complex diseases; (v) integrating “big data” science into the practice of epidemiology; (vi) expanding knowledge integration to drive research, policy and practice; (vii) transforming training of 21st century epidemiologists to address interdisciplinary and translational research; and (viii) optimizing the use of resources and infrastructure for epidemiologic studies. These recommendations can transform cancer epidemiology and the field of epidemiology in general, by enhancing transparency, interdisciplinary collaboration, and strategic applications of new technologies. They should lay a strong scientific foundation for accelerated translation of scientific discoveries into individual and population health benefits

Application of analytic hierarchy process for user needs elicitation : a preliminary study on a device for auto-injection of epinephrine

Understanding user needs is essential to design biomedical devices that are efficacious in real life (clinically effective). Few studies propose analytic quantitative methods to elicit user needs. This paper presents a preliminary application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to elicit user needs. As a case study we focused on the use of a biomedical device for auto-injection of epinephrine to treat severe allergic reactions. Although the study presented is on-going, the methods we describe provide valuable insights into how quantitative methods can be applied to user needs elicitation

Transforming Epidemiology for 21st Century Medicine and Public Health

In 2012, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) engaged the scientific community to provide a vision for cancer epidemiology in the 21(st) century. Eight overarching thematic recommendations, with proposed corresponding actions for consideration by funding agencies, professional societies, and the research community emerged from the collective intellectual discourse. The themes are (i) extending the reach of epidemiology beyond discovery and etiologic research to include multilevel analysis, intervention evaluation, implementation, and outcomes research; (ii) transforming the practice of epidemiology by moving towards more access and sharing of protocols, data, metadata, and specimens to foster collaboration, to ensure reproducibility and replication, and accelerate translation; (iii) expanding cohort studies to collect exposure, clinical and other information across the life course and examining multiple health-related endpoints; (iv) developing and validating reliable methods and technologies to quantify exposures and outcomes on a massive scale, and to assess concomitantly the role of multiple factors in complex diseases; (v) integrating “big data” science into the practice of epidemiology; (vi) expanding knowledge integration to drive research, policy and practice; (vii) transforming training of 21(st) century epidemiologists to address interdisciplinary and translational research; and (viii) optimizing the use of resources and infrastructure for epidemiologic studies. These recommendations can transform cancer epidemiology and the field of epidemiology in general, by enhancing transparency, interdisciplinary collaboration, and strategic applications of new technologies. They should lay a strong scientific foundation for accelerated translation of scientific discoveries into individual and population health benefits