Community perceptions of health and chronic disease in South Indian rural transitional communities: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are now the leading cause of death and disability worldwide; this epidemic has been linked to rapid economic growth and urbanisation in developing countries. Understanding how characteristics of the physical, social, and economic environment affect behaviour in the light of these changes is key to identifying successful interventions to mitigate chronic disease risk. DESIGN: We undertook a qualitative study consisting of nine focus group discussions (FGDs) (n=57) in five villages in rural Andhra Pradesh, South India, to understand people's perceptions of community development and urbanisation in relation to chronic disease in rural transitional communities. Specifically, we sought to understand perceptions of change linked to diet, physical activity, and pollution (because these exposures are most relevant to chronic diseases), with the aim of defining future interventions. The transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants believed their communities were currently less healthy, more polluted, less physically active, and had poorer access to nutritious food and shorter life expectancies than previously. There were contradictory perceptions of the effects of urbanisation on health within and between individuals; several of the participants felt their quality of life had been reduced. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, residents viewed change and development within their villages as an inevitable and largely positive process but with some negative health consequences. Understanding how these changes are affecting populations in transitional rural areas and how people relate to their environment may be useful to guide community planning for health. Measures to educate and empower people to make healthy choices within their community may help reduce the spread of chronic disease risk factors in future years

Towards climate resilient and environmentally sustainable health care facilities

The aim of building climate resilient and environmentally sustainable health care facilities is: (a) to enhance their capacity to protect and improve the health of their target communities in an unstable and changing climate; and (b) to empower them to optimize the use of resources and minimize the release of pollutants and waste into the environment. Such health care facilities contribute to high quality of care and accessibility of services and, by helping reduce facility costs, also ensure better affordability. They are an important component of universal health coverage. Action is needed in at least four areas which are fundamental requirements for providing safe and quality care: having adequate numbers of skilled human resources, with decent working conditions, empowered and informed to respond to these environmental challenges; sustainable and safe management of water, sanitation and health care waste; sustainable energy services; and appropriate infrastructure and technologies, including all the operations that allow for the efficient functioning of a health care facility. Importantly, this work contributes to promoting actions to ensure that health care facilities are constantly and increasingly strengthened and continue to be efficient and responsive to improve health and contribute to reducing inequities and vulnerability within their local settings. To this end, we propose a framework to respond to these challenges

Extending the use of the World Health Organisations' water sanitation and hygiene assessment tool for surveys in hospitals - from WASH-FIT to WASH-FAST

BACKGROUND: Poor water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in health care facilities increases hospital-associated infections, and the resulting greater use of second-line antibiotics drives antimicrobial resistance. Recognising the existing gaps, the World Health Organisations' Water and Sanitation for Health Facility Improvement Tool (WASH-FIT) was designed for self-assessment. The tool was designed for small primary care facilities mainly providing outpatient and limited inpatient care and was not designed to compare hospital performance. Together with technical experts, we worked to adapt the tool for use in larger facilities with multiple inpatient units (wards), allowing for comparison between facilities and prompt action at different levels of the health system. METHODS: We adapted the existing facility improvement tool (WASH-FIT) to create a simple numeric scoring approach. This is to illustrate the variation across hospitals and to facilitate monitoring of progress over time and to group indicators that can be used to identify this variation. Working with stakeholders, we identified those responsible for action to improve WASH at different levels of the health system and used piloting, analysis of interview data to establish the feasibility and potential value of the WASH Facility Survey Tool (WASH-FAST) to demonstrate such variability. RESULTS: We present an aggregate percentage score based on 65 indicators at the facility level to summarise hospitals' overall WASH status and how this varies. Thirty-four of the 65 indicators spanning four WASH domains can be assessed at ward level enabling within hospital variations to be highlighted. Three levels of responsibility for WASH service monitoring and improvement were identified with stakeholders: the county/regional level, senior hospital management and hospital infection prevention and control committees. CONCLUSION: We propose WASH-FAST can be used as a survey tool to assess, measure and monitor the progress of WASH in hospitals in resource-limited settings, providing useful data for decision making and tracking improvements over time

Extending the use of the World Health Organisations' water sanitation and hygiene assessment tool for surveys in hospitals - from WASH-FIT to WASH-FAST.

BackgroundPoor water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in health care facilities increases hospital-associated infections, and the resulting greater use of second-line antibiotics drives antimicrobial resistance. Recognising the existing gaps, the World Health Organisations' Water and Sanitation for Health Facility Improvement Tool (WASH-FIT) was designed for self-assessment. The tool was designed for small primary care facilities mainly providing outpatient and limited inpatient care and was not designed to compare hospital performance. Together with technical experts, we worked to adapt the tool for use in larger facilities with multiple inpatient units (wards), allowing for comparison between facilities and prompt action at different levels of the health system.MethodsWe adapted the existing facility improvement tool (WASH-FIT) to create a simple numeric scoring approach. This is to illustrate the variation across hospitals and to facilitate monitoring of progress over time and to group indicators that can be used to identify this variation. Working with stakeholders, we identified those responsible for action to improve WASH at different levels of the health system and used piloting, analysis of interview data to establish the feasibility and potential value of the WASH Facility Survey Tool (WASH-FAST) to demonstrate such variability.ResultsWe present an aggregate percentage score based on 65 indicators at the facility level to summarise hospitals' overall WASH status and how this varies. Thirty-four of the 65 indicators spanning four WASH domains can be assessed at ward level enabling within hospital variations to be highlighted. Three levels of responsibility for WASH service monitoring and improvement were identified with stakeholders: the county/regional level, senior hospital management and hospital infection prevention and control committees.ConclusionWe propose WASH-FAST can be used as a survey tool to assess, measure and monitor the progress of WASH in hospitals in resource-limited settings, providing useful data for decision making and tracking improvements over time

Methodological development of an exploratory randomised controlled trial of an early years' nutrition intervention: the CHERRY programme (choosing healthy eating when really young)

Good nutrition in the early years of life is vitally important for a child's development, growth and health. Children's diets in the United Kingdom are known to be poor, particularly among socially disadvantaged groups, and there is a need for timely and appropriate interventions that support parents to improve the diets of young children. The Medical Research Council has highlighted the importance of conducting developmental and exploratory research prior to undertaking full-scale trials to evaluate complex interventions, but have provided very limited detailed guidance on the conduct of these initial phases of research. This paper describes the initial developmental stage and the conduct of an exploratory randomised controlled trial undertaken to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a family-centred early years' nutrition intervention. Choosing Healthy Eating when Really Young (CHERRY) is a programme for families with children aged 18 months to 5 years, delivered in children's centres in one urban (Islington) and one rural (Cornwall) location in the United Kingdom. In the development stage, a mixed-methods approach was used to investigate the nature of the problem and options for support. A detailed review of the evidence informed the theoretical basis of the study and the creation of a logic model. In the feasibility and pilot testing stage of the exploratory trial, 16 children's centres, with a sample of 394 families were recruited onto the study. We hope that the methodology, which we present in this paper, will inform and assist other researchers in conducting community-based, exploratory nutrition research in early years settings

Nutrition-related health effects of organic foods: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty over the nutrition-related benefits to health of consuming organic foods. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the strength of evidence that nutrition-related health benefits could be attributed to the consumption of foods produced under organic farming methods. DESIGN: We systematically searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and Embase between 1 January 1958 and 15 September 2008 (and updated until 10 March 2010); contacted subject experts; and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts if they reported a comparison of health outcomes that resulted from consumption of or exposure to organic compared with conventionally produced foodstuffs. RESULTS: From a total of 98,727 articles, we identified 12 relevant studies. A variety of different study designs were used; there were 8 reports (67%) of human studies, including 6 clinical trials, 1 cohort study, and 1 cross-sectional study, and 4 reports (33%) of studies in animals or human cell lines or serum. The results of the largest study suggested an association of reported consumption of strictly organic dairy products with a reduced risk of eczema in infants, but the majority of the remaining studies showed no evidence of differences in nutrition-related health outcomes that result from exposure to organic or conventionally produced foodstuffs. Given the paucity of available data, the heterogeneity of study designs used, exposures tested, and health outcomes investigated, no quantitative meta-analysis was justified. CONCLUSION: From a systematic review of the currently available published literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs

Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing consumer demand for organically produced foods, information based on a systematic review of their nutritional quality is lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantitatively assess the differences in reported nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. DESIGN: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and CAB Abstracts for a period of 50 y from 1 January 1958 to 29 February 2008, contacted subject experts, and hand-searched bibliographies. We included peer-reviewed articles with English abstracts in the analysis if they reported nutrient content comparisons between organic and conventional foodstuffs. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, quality, and data. The analyses were restricted to the most commonly reported nutrients. RESULTS: From a total of 52,471 articles, we identified 162 studies (137 crops and 25 livestock products); 55 were of satisfactory quality. In an analysis that included only satisfactory-quality studies, conventionally produced crops had a significantly higher content of nitrogen, and organically produced crops had a significantly higher content of phosphorus and higher titratable acidity. No evidence of a difference was detected for the remaining 8 of 11 crop nutrient categories analyzed. Analysis of the more limited database on livestock products found no evidence of a difference in nutrient content between organically and conventionally produced livestock products. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods