Care for Chronic Diseases in Low Income Countries The health system perspective and self-management of diabetes

Schellevis, F.G. [Promotor]Kegels, A.G. [Copromotor

Management of Chronic Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: Cross-Fertilisation between HIV/AIDS and Diabetes Care

There is growing attention for chronic diseases in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and for bridges between the management of HIV/AIDS and other (noncommunicable) chronic diseases. This becomes more urgent with increasing numbers of people living with both HIV/AIDS and other chronic conditions. This paper discusses the commonalities between chronic diseases by reviewing models of care, focusing on the two most dominant ones, diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and HIV/AIDS. We argue that in order to cope with care for HIV patients and diabetes patients, health systems in SSA need to adopt new strategies taking into account essential elements of chronic disease care. We developed a “chronic dimension framework,” which analyses the “disease dimension,” the “health provider dimension,” the patient or “person dimension,” and the “environment dimension” of chronic diseases. Applying this framework to HIV/AIDS and DM2 shows that it is useful to think about management of both in tandem, comparing care delivery platforms and self-management strategies. A literature review on care delivery models for diabetes and HIV/AIDS in SSA revealed potential elements for cross-fertilisation: rapid scale-up approaches through the public health approach by simplification and decentralisation; community involvement, peer support, and self-management strategies; and strengthening health services. (aut.ref.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the lived experience of people with multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries

People living with multimorbidity (PLWMM) have multiple needs and require long-term personalised care, which necessitates an integrated people-centred approach to healthcare. However, people-centred care may risk being a buzzword in global health and cannot be achieved unless we consider and prioritise the lived experience of the people themselves. This study captures the lived experiences of PLWMM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by exploring their perspectives, experiences, and aspirations.We analysed 50 semi-structured interview responses from 10 LMICs across three regions—South Asia, Latin America, and Western Africa—using an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach.The bodily, social, and system experiences of illness by respondents were multidirectional and interactive, and largely captured the complexity of living with multimorbidity. Despite expensive treatments, many experienced little improvements in their conditions and felt that healthcare was not tailored to their needs. Disease management involved multiple and fragmented healthcare providers with lack of guidance, resulting in repetitive procedures, loss of time, confusion, and frustration. Financial burden was exacerbated by lost productivity and extreme finance coping strategies, creating a vicious cycle. Against the backdrop of uncertainty and disruption due to illness, many demonstrated an ability to cope with their conditions and navigate the healthcare system. Respondents’ priorities were reflective of their desire to return to a pre-illness way of life—resuming work, caring for family, and maintaining a sense of independence and normalcy despite illness. Respondents had a wide range of needs that required financial, health education, integrated care, and mental health support.In discussion with respondents on outcomes, it appeared that many have complementary views about what is important and relevant, which may differ from the outcomes established by clinicians and researchers. This knowledge needs to complement and be incorporated into existing research and treatment models to ensure healthcare remains focused on the human and our evolving needs

Afrikaans as Standaard Gemiddelde Europees:Wanneer ‘n lid uit sy taalarea beweeg

A recent trend in the study of Standard Average European is the extraterritorial perspective of examining the extent to which non-European languages have converged with this Sprachbund as a result of contact with one or more of its members. The present article complements this line of research in that it investigates the extent to which a European language has diverged from Standard Average European after leaving the linguistic area. The focus is on Dutch, a nuclear member of the Sprachbund, and Afrikaans, its colonial offshoot. The two languages are compared with respect to twelve of the most distinctive linguistic features of Standard Average European. Afrikaans is found to share ten of them with Dutch, including anticausative prominence and formally distinguished intensifiers and reflexives, and could therefore still be considered a core member of the Sprachbund, despite deviations in the expression of negative pronouns and the grammaticality of external possessor constructions. This relatively low degree of divergence may be attributed to the continuity from Settler Dutch to at least the variety of Afrikaans on which the standard language is based and to the important role that Dutch continued to play in the history of Afrikaans

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND:Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). METHODS:Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. RESULTS:The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. CONCLUSION:This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

Heterogeneous 2.5D integration on through silicon interposer

© 2015 AIP Publishing LLC. Driven by the need to reduce the power consumption of mobile devices, and servers/data centers, and yet continue to deliver improved performance and experience by the end consumer of digital data, the semiconductor industry is looking for new technologies for manufacturing integrated circuits (ICs). In this quest, power consumed in transferring data over copper interconnects is a sizeable portion that needs to be addressed now and continuing over the next few decades. 2.5D Through-Si-Interposer (TSI) is a strong candidate to deliver improved performance while consuming lower power than in previous generations of servers/data centers and mobile devices. These low-power/high-performance advantages are realized through achievement of high interconnect densities on the TSI (higher than ever seen on Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) or organic substrates), and enabling heterogeneous integration on the TSI platform where individual ICs are assembled at close proximity

Process evaluation in the field: global learnings from seven implementation research hypertension projects in low-and middle-income countries

Background Process evaluation is increasingly recognized as an important component of effective implementation research and yet, there has been surprisingly little work to understand what constitutes best practice. Researchers use different methodologies describing causal pathways and understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions in diverse contexts and settings. We report on challenges and lessons learned from undertaking process evaluation of seven hypertension intervention trials funded through the Global Alliance of Chronic Diseases (GACD). Methods Preliminary data collected from the GACD hypertension teams in 2015 were used to inform a template for data collection. Case study themes included: (1) description of the intervention, (2) objectives of the process evaluation, (3) methods including theoretical basis, (4) main findings of the study and the process evaluation, (5) implications for the project, policy and research practice and (6) lessons for future process evaluations. The information was summarized and reported descriptively and narratively and key lessons were identified. Results The case studies were from low- and middle-income countries and Indigenous communities in Canada. They were implementation research projects with intervention arm. Six theoretical approaches were used but most comprised of mixed-methods approaches. Each of the process evaluations generated findings on whether interventions were implemented with fidelity, the extent of capacity building, contextual factors and the extent to which relationships between researchers and community impacted on intervention implementation. The most important learning was that although process evaluation is time consuming, it enhances understanding of factors affecting implementation of complex interventions. The research highlighted the need to initiate process evaluations early on in the project, to help guide design of the intervention; and the importance of effective communication between researchers responsible for trial implementation, process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Conclusion This research demonstrates the important role of process evaluation in understanding implementation process of complex interventions. This can help to highlight a broad range of system requirements such as new policies and capacity building to support implementation. Process evaluation is crucial in understanding contextual factors that may impact intervention implementation which is important in considering whether or not the intervention can be translated to other contexts

Amputation-free survival in 17,353 people at high risk for foot ulceration in diabetes:a national observational study

Acknowledgements Some of the data were presented as an abstract at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference in 2017. Diabetes data for Scotland are available for analysis by members of the Scottish Diabetes Research Network (SDRN) thanks to the hard work and dedication of NHS staff across Scotland who enter the data and people and organisations (the Scottish Care Information –Diabetes Collaboration (SCI-DC) Steering Group, the Scottish Diabetes Group, the Scottish Diabetes Survey Group, the managed clinical network managers and staff in each Health Board) involved in setting up, maintaining and overseeing SCI-DC. The SDRN receives core support from the Chief Scientist’s Office at the Scottish Government Health Department. Members of the Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group who do not qualify for authorship but who contributed to data collection include R. Lindsay (Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, UK); J. McKnight (Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK); S. Philip (Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, UK); Members of the Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group who do not qualify for authorship but who contributed to data management include L. Blackbourn (Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK); B. Farran (Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK); D. McAllister (Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, UK); P. McKeigue (Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK); S. Read (Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK).Peer reviewedPublisher PD