Neurotrauma clinicians' perspectives on the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up following traumatic brain injury in low-income and middle-income countries: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health concern; however, low/middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. The WHO recognises the significant differences between patient outcomes following injuries in high-income countries versus those in LMICs. Outcome data are not reliably recorded in LMICs and despite improved injury surveillance data, data on disability and long-term functional outcomes remain poorly recorded. Therefore, the full picture of outcome post-TBI in LMICs is largely unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional pragmatic qualitative study using individual semistructured interviews with clinicians who have experience of neurotrauma in LMICs. The aim of this study is to understand the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up of patients following TBI in LMICs. For the purpose of the study, we define 'long-term' as any data collected following discharge from hospital. We aim to conduct individual semistructured interviews with 24-48 neurosurgeons, beginning February 2020. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis will be conducted supported by NVivo software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee approved this study in February 2020. Ethical issues within this study include consent, confidentiality and anonymity, and data protection. Participants will provide informed consent and their contributions will be kept confidential. Participants will be free to withdraw at any time without penalty; however, their interview data can only be withdrawn up to 1 week after data collection. Findings generated from the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders such as the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications

History of Spinal Neurosurgery and Spine Societies

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Variation in postoperative outcomes of patients with intracranial tumors: insights from a prospective international cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the international variation in surgical neuro-oncology practice and 30-day outcomes of patients who had surgery for an intracranial tumor during the COVID-19 pandemic./ METHODS: We prospectively included adults aged ≥18 years who underwent surgery for a malignant or benign intracranial tumor across 55 international hospitals from 26 countries. Each participating hospital recorded cases for 3 consecutive months from the start of the pandemic. We categorized patients’ location by World Bank income groups (high [HIC], upper-middle [UMIC], and low- and lower-middle [LLMIC]). Main outcomes were a change from routine management, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 30-day mortality. We used a Bayesian multilevel logistic regression stratified by hospitals and adjusted for key confounders to estimate the association between income groups and mortality./ RESULTS: Among 1016 patients, the number of patients in each income group was 765 (75.3%) in HIC, 142 (14.0%) in UMIC, and 109 (10.7%) in LLMIC. The management of 200 (19.8%) patients changed from usual care, most commonly delayed surgery. Within 30 days after surgery, 14 (1.4%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis and 39 (3.8%) patients died. In the multivariable model, LLMIC was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 2.83, 95% credible interval 1.37–5.74) compared to HIC./ CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the pandemic had a significant impact on surgical decision-making. While the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 30 days after surgery was low, there was a disparity in mortality between countries and this warrants further examination to identify any modifiable factors

Neurosurgeons’ experiences of conducting and disseminating clinical research in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative study protocol

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden of neurotrauma. However, most of the research published in scientific journals originates from high-income countries, suggesting those in LMICs are either not engaging in research or are not publishing it. Evidence originating in high-income countries may not be generalisable to LMICs; therefore, it is important to nurture research capacity in LMICs so that a relevant evidence base can be developed. However, little is published about specific challenges or contextual issues relevant to increasing research activity of neurosurgeons in LMICs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to understand neurosurgeons’ experiences of, aspirations for and ability to conduct and disseminate clinical research in LMICs.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic qualitative study situated within the naturalistic paradigm using focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of neurosurgeons from LMICs. First, we will conduct asynchronous online focus groups with 36 neurosurgeons to broadly explore issues relevant to the study aim. Second, we will select 20 participants for follow-up semistructured interviews to explore concepts in more depth and detail than could be achieved in the focus group. Interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis will be conducted following Braun and Clarke’s six stages and will be supported by NVIVO software.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee reviewed this study and provided a favourable opinion in January 2020 (REF PRE.2020.006). Participants will provide informed consent, be able to withdraw at any time and will have their contributions kept confidential. The findings of the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications.</jats:sec

Qualitative research methods in neurosurgery: an unexplored avenue.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the value and potential of qualitative research to neurosurgery and provide insight and understanding to this underused methodology. BACKGROUND: The definition of qualitative research is critically discussed and the heterogeneity within this field of inquiry explored. The value of qualitative research to the field of neurosurgery is articulated through its contribution to understanding complex clinical problems. DISCUSSION: To resolve some of the misunderstanding of qualitative research, this paper discusses research design choices. We explore approaches that use qualitative techniques but are not, necessarily, situated within a qualitative paradigm in addition to how qualitative research philosophy aids researchers to conduct interpretive inquiry that can reveal more than simply what was said by participants. Common research designs associated with qualitative inquiry are introduced, and how complex analysis may contribute more in-depth insights is explained. Approaches to quality are discussed briefly to support improvements in qualitative methods and qualitative manuscripts. Finally, we consider the future of qualitative research in neurosurgery, and suggest how to move forward in the qualitative neurosurgical evidence base. CONCLUSION: There is enormous potential for qualitative research to contribute to the advancement of person-centred care within neurosurgery. There are signs that more qualitative research is being conducted and that neurosurgical journals are increasingly open to this methodology. While studies that do not engage fully within the qualitative paradigm can make important contributions to the evidence base, due regard should be given to immersive inquiry within qualitative paradigms to allow complex, in-depth, investigations of the human experience

The World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Young Neurosurgeons Survey (Part I): Demographics, Resources, and Education.

BACKGROUND: Providing a comprehensive and effective neurosurgical service requires adequate numbers of well-trained, resourced, and motivated neurosurgeons. The survey aims to better understand 1) the demographics of young neurosurgeons worldwide; 2) the challenges in training and resources that they face; 3) perceived barriers; and 4) needs for development. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in which a widely disseminated online survey (April 2018-November 2019) was used to procure a nonprobabilistic sample from current neurosurgical trainees and those within 10 years of training. Data were grouped by World Bank income classifications and analyzed using χ2 tests because of its categorical nature. RESULTS: There were 1294 respondents, with 953 completed responses included in the analysis. Of respondents, 45.2% were from high-income countries (HICs), 23.2% from upper-middle-income countries, 26.8% lower-middle-income countries, and 4.1% from low-income countries. Most respondents (79.8%) were male, a figure more pronounced in lower-income groups. Neuro-oncology was the most popular in HICs and spinal surgery in all other groups. Although access to computed tomography scanning was near universal (98.64%), magnetic resonance imaging access decreased to 66.67% in low-income countries, compared with 98.61% in HICs. Similar patterns were noted with access to operating microscopes, image guidance systems, and high-speed drills. Of respondents, 71.4% had dedicated time for neurosurgical education. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm and quantify disparities in the equipment and training opportunities among young neurosurgeons practicing in different income groups. We hope that this study will act as a guide to further understand these differences and target resources to remedy them