A conflict management tool for conservation agencies

1. Growing pressure on natural resources is leading to more conservation conflicts. Governments and their statutory agencies devote increasing financial and human resources to this subject, but tend to adopt reactive, ad hoc approaches to management. 2. We combined theory and empirical data about five conservation conflicts in a transdisciplinary collaboration to co-develop a novel decision-making tool. 3. This tool uses a systematic stepwise approach with six distinct decision stages: (i) establishing whether there is a conflict or an impact; (ii) understanding the context of the conflict, including the stakeholders affected; (iii) developing shared understanding of the conflict and goals; (iv) building a consensus on how to reach the goals; (v) implementing measures; and (vi) monitoring the outcomes. 4. Policy implications. We argue this new tool has wide applicability and democratic legitimacy and offers an exciting and practical approach to improve the management of conservation conflicts

Can a community health worker administered postnatal checklist increase health-seeking behaviors and knowledge?: evidence from a randomized trial with a private maternity facility in Kiambu County, Kenya

Background: Since the 2009 WHO and UNICEF recommendation that women receive home-based postnatal care within the first three days after birth, a growing number of low-income countries have explored integrating postnatal home visit interventions into their maternal and newborn health strategies. This randomized trial evaluates a pilot program in which community health workers (CHWs) visit or call new mothers three days after delivery in peri-urban Kiambu County, Kenya. Methods: Participants were individually randomized to one of three groups: 1) early postnatal care three days after delivery provided in-person with a CHW using a simple checklist, 2) care provided by phone with a CHW using the same checklist, or 3) a standard of care group. Surveys were conducted ten days and nine weeks postnatal to measure outcomes related to compliance with referrals, self-reported health problems for mother and baby, care-seeking behaviors, and postnatal knowledge and practices around the recognition of danger signs, feeding, nutrition, infant care and family planning. Results: The home visit administration of the checklist increased the likelihood that women recognized postnatal problems for themselves and their babies and increased the likelihood that they sought care to address those problems identified for the child. In both the home visit and mobile phone implementation of the checklist, actions taken for postnatal problems happened earlier, particularly for infants. Knowledge was found to be high across all groups, with limited evidence that the checklist impacted knowledge and postnatal practices around the recognition of danger signs, feeding, nutrition, infant care and family planning. Conclusion: We find evidence that CHW-administered postnatal checklists can lead to better recognition of postnatal problems and more timely care-seeking. Furthermore, our results suggest that CHWs can affordably deliver many of the benefits of postnatal checklists. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02104635; registered April 2, 2014

Can Reproductive Health Voucher Programs Improve Quality of Postnatal Care? A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Kenya’s Safe Motherhood Voucher Scheme

This study tests the group-level causal relationship between the expansion of Kenya’s Safe Motherhood voucher program and changes in quality of postnatal care (PNC) provided at voucher-contracted facilities. We compare facilities accredited since program inception in 2006 (phase I) and facilities accredited since 2010-2011 (phase II) relative to comparable non-voucher facilities. PNC quality is assessed using observed clinical content processes, as well as client-reported outcome measures. Two-tailed unpaired t-tests are used to identify differences in mean process quality scores and client-reported outcome measures, comparing changes between intervention and comparison groups at the 2010 and 2012 data collection periods. Difference-in-differences analysis is used to estimate the reproductive health (RH) voucher program’s causal effect on quality of care by exploiting group-level differences between voucher-accredited and non-accredited facilities in 2010 and 2012. Participation in the voucher scheme since 2006 significantly improves overall quality of postnatal care by 39% (p=0.02), where quality is defined as the observable processes or components of service provision that occur during a PNC consultation. Program participation since phase I is estimated to improve the quality of observed maternal postnatal care by 86% (p=0.02), with the largest quality improvements in counselling on family planning methods (IRR 5.0; p=0.01) and return to fertility (IRR 2.6; p=0.01). Despite improvements in maternal aspects of PNC, we find a high proportion of mothers who seek PNC are not being checked by any provider after delivery. Additional strategies will be necessary to standardize provision of packaged postnatal interventions to both mother and new-born. This study addresses an important gap in the existing RH literature by using a strong evaluation design to assess RH voucher program effectiveness on quality improvement

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: an observational study

Background: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected ‘big data’ in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based ‘high impact’ quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ‘risky’ prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. Results: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. Conclusions: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour

Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease (TAPS-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancies in women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are associated with a higher risk of sickle and pregnancy complications. Limited options exist for treating SCD during pregnancy. Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion (SPEBT) has been shown to be effective in treating SCD outside pregnancy, but evidence is lacking regarding its use during pregnancy. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a future phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of SPEBT in pregnant women with SCD. METHODS: The study is an individually randomised, two-arm, feasibility trial with embedded qualitative and health economic studies. Fifty women, 18 years of age and older, with SCD and a singleton pregnancy at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation will be recruited from six hospitals in England. Randomisation will be conducted using a secure online database and minimised by centre, SCD genotype and maternal age. Women allocated to the intervention arm will receive SPEBT commencing at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation, performed using automated erythrocytapheresis every 6-10 weeks until the end of pregnancy, aiming to maintain HbS% or combined HbS/HbC% below 30%. Women in the standard care arm will only receive transfusion when clinically indicated. The primary outcome will be the recruitment rate. Additional endpoints include reasons for refusal to participate, attrition rate, protocol adherence, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Women will be monitored throughout pregnancy to assess maternal, sickle, and foetal complications. Detailed information about adverse events (including hospital admission) and birth outcomes will be extracted from medical records and via interview at 6 weeks postpartum. An embedded qualitative study will consist of interviews with (a) 15-25 trial participants to assess experiences and acceptability, (b) 5-15 women who decline to participate to identify barriers to recruitment and (c) 15-20 clinical staff to explore fidelity and acceptability. A health economic study will inform a future cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study aims to rigorously evaluate SPEBT as a treatment for SCD in pregnancy and its impact on maternal and infant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov), registration number NCT03975894 (registered 05/06/19); ISRCTN (www.isrctn.com), registration number ISRCTN52684446 (retrospectively registered 02/08/19)

Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in Northern Ireland during 2020–2021

BackgroundWith the spread of SARS-CoV-2 impacting upon public health directly and socioeconomically, further information was required to inform policy decisions designed to limit virus spread during the pandemic. This study sought to contribute to serosurveillance work within Northern Ireland to track SARS-CoV-2 progression and guide health strategy.MethodsSera/plasma samples from clinical biochemistry laboratories were analysed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Samples were assessed using an Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 or anti-SARS-CoV-2 S ECLIA (Roche) on an automated cobas e 801 analyser. Samples were also assessed via an anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (Euroimmun). A subset of samples assessed via the Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA were subsequently analysed in an ACE2 pseudoneutralisation assay using a V-PLEX SARS-CoV-2 Panel 7 for IgG and ACE2 (Meso Scale Diagnostics).ResultsAcross three testing rounds (June–July 2020, November–December 2020 and June–July 2021 (rounds 1–3 respectively)), 4844 residual sera/plasma specimens were assayed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seropositivity rates increased across the study, peaking at 11.6 % (95 % CI 10.4%–13.0 %) during round 3. Varying trends in SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity were noted based on demographic factors. For instance, highest rates of seropositivity shifted from older to younger demographics across the study period. In round 3, Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant neutralising antibodies were most frequently detected across age groups, with median concentration of anti-spike protein antibodies elevated in 50–69 year olds and anti-S1 RBD antibodies elevated in 70+ year olds, relative to other age groups.ConclusionsWith seropositivity rates of <15 % across the assessment period, it can be concluded that the significant proportion of the Northern Ireland population had not yet naturally contracted the virus by mid-2021

The patient reporting and action for a safe environment (PRASE) intervention: a feasibility study

Background: There is growing interest in the role of patients in improving patient safety. One such role is providing feedback on the safety of their care. Here we describe the development and feasibility testing of an intervention that collects patient feedback on patient safety, brings together staff to consider this feedback and to plan improvement strategies. We address two research questions: i) to explore the feasibility of the process of systematically collecting feedback from patients about the safety of care as part of the PRASE intervention; and, ii) to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the PRASE intervention for staff, and to understand more about how staff use the patient feedback for service improvement. Method: We conducted a feasibility study using a wait-list controlled design across six wards within an acute teaching hospital. Intervention wards were asked to participate in two cycles of the PRASE (Patient Reporting & Action for a Safe Environment) intervention across a six-month period. Participants were patients on participating wards. To explore the acceptability of the intervention for staff, observations of action planning meetings, interviews with a lead person for the intervention on each ward and recorded researcher reflections were analysed thematically and synthesised. Results: Recruitment of patients using computer tablets at their bedside was straightforward, with the majority of patients willing and able to provide feedback. Randomisation of the intervention was acceptable to staff, with no evidence of differential response rates between intervention and control groups. In general, ward staff were positive about the use of patient feedback for service improvement and were able to use the feedback as a basis for action planning, although engagement with the process was variable. Gathering a multidisciplinary team together for action planning was found to be challenging, and implementing action plans was sometimes hindered by the need to co-ordinate action across multiple services. Discussion: The PRASE intervention was found to be acceptable to staff and patients. However, before proceeding to a full cluster randomised controlled trial, the intervention requires adaptation to account for the difficulties in implementing action plans within three months, the need for a facilitator to support the action planning meetings, and the provision of training and senior management support for participating ward teams. Conclusions: The PRASE intervention represents a promising method for the systematic collection of patient feedback about the safety of hospital care