‘THEY CALL US KILLERS’: AN EXPLORATION OF HERBAL, SPIRITUAL AND WESTERN MEDICAL PRACTICES IN MOMBASA, KENYA

Background: This paper attempts to describe the multi-dimensional perceptions of mganga/waganga (Kiswahili: traditional healers) by members of their constituencies, patients, government health officials and religious leaders in Mombasa, Kenya. It also seeks to investigate how these conceptions and perceptions influence the relationships between traditional healers and other stakeholders in the delivery of public healthcare services in Mombasa. Materials and Methods: A qualitative approach consisting of in-depth interviews and focus group discussions was employed and 43 research participants were interviewed during the period of two months in the summer of 2010. Data were recorded (video and audio), transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparison method. Results: Findings indicate that varied opinions and interpretations of mganga influence both the decision-making process of the patient and the provision of healthcare by the healer. High tensions exist between mganga and other actors, and furthermore, such perceptions seem to evidence themselves in the government’s support for waganga, as well as the delineation of healthcare services—whereby certain stakeholders and participants are relegated to specific tasks. Conclusions: This research builds upon the growing body of knowledge on how African patients—in general and Kenya in particular—and healers inhabit a multifaceted arena of healing in order to effectively negotiate their positions and needs to make complex decisions involving care, contingent upon local economic, social, cultural, and religious factors

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p<0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p<0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Making a difference: 5 years of Cardiac Surgery Intersociety Alliance (CSIA)

Informed by the almost unimaginable unmet need for cardiac surgery in the developing regions of the world, leading surgeons, cardiologists, editors in chief of the major cardiothoracic journals as well as representatives of medical industry and government convened in December 2017 to address this unacceptable disparity in access to care. The ensuing "Cape Town Declaration" constituted a clarion call to cardiac surgical societies to jointly advocate the strengthening of sustainable, local cardiac surgical capacity in the developing world. The Cardiac Surgery Intersociety Alliance (CSIA) was thus created, comprising The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery (ASCVTS), the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the World Heart Federation (WHF). The guiding principle was advocacy for sustainable cardiac surgical capacity in low-income countries. As a first step, a global needs assessment confirmed rheumatic heart disease as the overwhelming pathology requiring cardiac surgery in these regions. Subsequently, CSIA published a request for proposals to support fledgling programmes that could demonstrate the backing by their governments and health care institution. Out of 11 applicants, and following an evaluation of the sites, including site visits to the 3 finalists, Mozambique and Rwanda were selected as the first Pilot Sites. Subsequently, a mentorship and training agreement was completed between Mozambique and the University of Cape Town, a middle-income country with a comparable burden of rheumatic heart disease. The agreement entails regular video calls between the heart teams, targeted training across all aspects of cardiac surgery, as well as on-site presence of mentoring teams for complex cases with the strict observance of 'assisting only'. In Rwanda, Team Heart, a US and Rwanda-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been performing cardiac surgery in Rwanda and helping to train the cardiac surgery workforce since 2008, has agreed to continue providing mentorship for the local team and to assist in the establishment of independent cardiac surgery with all that entails. This involves intermittent virtual conferences between Rwandan and US cardiologists for surgical case selection. Five years after CSIA was founded, its 'Seal of Approval' for the sustainability of endorsed programmes in Mozambique and Rwanda has resulted in higher case numbers, a stronger government commitment, significant upgrades of infrastructure, the nurturing of generous consumable donations by industry and the commencement of negotiations with global donors for major grants. Extending the CSIA Seal to additional deserving programmes could further align the international cardiac surgical community with the principle of local cardiac surgery capacity-building in developing countries

Making a difference: 5 years of Cardiac Surgery Intersociety Alliance (CSIA).

Informed by the almost unimaginable unmet need for cardiac surgery in the developing regions of the world, leading surgeons, cardiologists, editors in chief of the major cardiothoracic journals as well as representatives of medical industry and government convened in December 2017 to address this unacceptable disparity in access to care. The ensuing Cape Town Declaration constituted a clarion call to cardiac surgical societies to jointly advocate the strengthening of sustainable, local cardiac surgical capacity in the developing world. The Cardiac Surgery Intersociety Alliance (CSIA) was thus created, comprising The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery (ASCVTS), the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the World Heart Federation (WHF). The guiding principle was advocacy for sustainable cardiac surgical capacity in low-income countries. As a first step, a global needs assessment confirmed rheumatic heart disease as the overwhelming pathology requiring cardiac surgery in these regions. Subsequently, CSIA published a request for proposals to support fledgling programmes that could demonstrate the backing by their governments and health care institution. Out of 11 applicants, and following an evaluation of the sites, including site visits to the 3 finalists, Mozambique and Rwanda were selected as the first Pilot Sites. Subsequently, a mentorship and training agreement was completed between Mozambique and the University of Cape Town, a middle-income country with a comparable burden of rheumatic heart disease. The agreement entails regular video calls between the heart teams, targeted training across all aspects of cardiac surgery, as well as on-site presence of mentoring teams for complex cases with the strict observance of \u27assisting only\u27. In Rwanda, Team Heart, a US and Rwanda-based non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been performing cardiac surgery in Rwanda and helping to train the cardiac surgery workforce since 2008, has agreed to continue providing mentorship for the local team and to assist in the establishment of independent cardiac surgery with all that entails. This involves intermittent virtual conferences between Rwandan and US cardiologists for surgical case selection. Five years after CSIA was founded, its \u27Seal of Approval\u27 for the sustainability of endorsed programmes in Mozambique and Rwanda has resulted in higher case numbers, a stronger government commitment, significant upgrades of infrastructure, the nurturing of generous consumable donations by industry and the commencement of negotiations with global donors for major grants. Extending the CSIA Seal to additional deserving programmes could further align the international cardiac surgical community with the principle of local cardiac surgery capacity-building in developing countries

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

Background: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit