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 Participants will be free to withdraw at any time without penalty; however, their interview data can only be withdrawn up to 1 week after data collection.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

Social acceptance of renewable energy: Some examples from Europe and Developing Africa

Current energy systems are in most instances not fully working sustainably. The provision and use of energy only consider limited resources, risk potential or financial constraints on a limited scale. Furthermore, the knowledge and benefits are only available for a minor group of the population or are outright neglected. The availability of different resources for energy purposes determines economic development, as well as the status of the society and the environment. The access to energy grids has an impact on socio-economic living standards of communities. This not fully developed system is causing climate change with all its related outcomes. This investigation takes into consideration different views on renewable energy systems — such as international discussions about biomass use for energy production, “fuel versus food”, biogas use — and attempts to compare major prospects of social acceptance of renewable energy in Europe and Africa. Can all obstacles to the use of renewable energy be so profound that the overall strategy of reducing anthropogenic causes of climate change be seriously affected

Needs of Young African Neurosurgeons and Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Africa has many untreated neurosurgical cases due to limited access to safe, affordable, and timely care. In this study, we surveyed young African neurosurgeons and trainees to identify challenges to training and practice. Methods: African trainees and residents were surveyed online by the Young Neurosurgeons Forum from April 25th to November 30th, 2018. The survey link was distributed via social media platforms and through professional society mailing lists. Univariate and bivariate data analyses were run and a P-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: 112 respondents from 20 countries participated in this study. 98 (87.5%) were male, 63 (56.3%) were from sub-Saharan Africa, and 52 (46.4%) were residents. 39 (34.8%) had regular journal club sessions at their hospital, 100 (89.3%) did not have access to cadaver dissection labs, and 62 (55.4%) had never attended a WFNS-endorsed conference. 67.0% of respondents reported limited research opportunities and 58.9% reported limited education opportunities. Lack of mentorship (P = 0.023, Phi = 0.26), lack of access to journals (P = 0.002, Phi = 0.332), and limited access to conferences (P = 0.019, Phi = 0.369) were associated with the country income category. Conclusion: This survey identified barriers to education, research, and practice among African trainees and young neurosurgeons. The findings of this study should inform future initiatives aimed at reducing the barriers faced by this group

Decompressive craniotomy: an international survey of practice.

Funder: National Institute for Health Research; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272Funder: University of Cambridge and the Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandBACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke have devastating consequences and are major global public health issues. For patients that require a cerebral decompression after suffering a TBI or stroke, a decompressive craniectomy (DC) is the most commonly performed operation. However, retrospective non-randomized studies suggest that a decompressive craniotomy (DCO; also known as hinge or floating craniotomy), where a bone flap is replaced but not rigidly fixed, has comparable outcomes to DC. The primary aim of this project was to understand the current extent of usage of DC and DCO for TBI and stroke worldwide. METHOD: A questionnaire was designed and disseminated globally via emailing lists and social media to practicing neurosurgeons between June and November 2019. RESULTS: We received 208 responses from 60 countries [40 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)]. DC is used more frequently than DCO, however, about one-quarter of respondents are using a DCO in more than 25% of their patients. The three top indications for a DCO were an acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and a GCS of 9-12, ASDH with contusions and a GCS of 3-8, and ASDH with contusions and a GCS of 9-12. There were 8 DCO techniques used with the majority (60/125) loosely tying sutures to the bone flap. The majority (82%) stated that they were interested in collaborating on a randomized trial of DCO vs. DC. CONCLUSION: Our results show that DCO is a procedure carried out for TBI and stroke, especially in LMICs, and most commonly for an ASDH. The majority of the respondents were interested in collaborating on a is a future randomized trial

Global Perspectives on Task Shifting and Task Sharing in Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical task shifting and task sharing (TS/S), delegating clinical care to non-neurosurgeons, is ongoing in many hospital systems in which neurosurgeons are scarce. Although TS/S can increase access to treatment, it remains highly controversial. This survey investigated perceptions of neurosurgical TS/S to elucidate whether it is a permissible temporary solution to the global workforce deficit. METHODS: The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of individuals providing neurosurgical care. A digital survey link was distributed through electronic mailing lists of continental neurosurgical societies and various collectives, conference announcements, and social media platforms (July 2018-January 2019). Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and univariate regression of Likert Scale scores. RESULTS: Survey respondents represented 105 of 194 World Health Organization member countries (54.1%; 391 respondents, 162 from high-income countries and 229 from low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]). The most agreed on statement was that task sharing is preferred to task shifting. There was broad consensus that both task shifting and task sharing should require competency-based evaluation, standardized training endorsed by governing organizations, and maintenance of certification. When perspectives were stratified by income class, LMICs were significantly more likely to agree that task shifting is professionally disruptive to traditional training, task sharing should be a priority where human resources are scarce, and to call for additional TS/S regulation, such as certification and formal consultation with a neurosurgeon (in person or electronic/telemedicine). CONCLUSIONS: Both LMIC and high-income countries agreed that task sharing should be prioritized over task shifting and that additional recommendations and regulations could enhance care. These data invite future discussions on policy and training programs

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