"The poor have no memories" - Oral histories of women with oral cancer in Pakistan

This thesis explores how women with oral cancer in Pakistan make sense of their experiences. The social context of Pakistan is seen as integral to people’s meanings and experiences because it is intimately connected. Oral history interviews were conducted with fifteen women diagnosed with oral cancer receiving treatment at the Foundation University College of Dentistry, Pakistan. The findings suggested that the pathways to diagnosis with oral cancer could be direct or circuitous. These variations reflected the interplay of the social determinants of health, which included socioeconomic status, gender, beliefs in alternative medicine and religious influences. Socioeconomic status mediated access to diagnosis with some participants reporting extensive consultations with spiritual healers before accessing medical services. This contributed to late presentation for diagnosis. The diagnosis often left participants feeling that God had decided they would develop cancer. Cancer was interpreted as a death sentence and in some cases as a personal punishment. Participants also tended to resort to home remedies and alternative medicines before accessing dental professionals. Gender acted as a determinant by promoting the isolation of women from social participation in education and health. Participants interpreted the use of naswar, areca nut, chillum, bleeding gums, boils/ulcers and past sins as the main causes of oral cancer. Some women reported having to go through their husbands and complex private networks in order to secure diagnosis. This meant that they would often present late, which has implications for disease progression. The social position of women also affected how they made sense of their disease through their faith and talking more about its impact on their family. The findings of this thesis suggest that oral cancer diagnosis in the context of Pakistan develops within complex individual cosmologies and pathways, determined by the perplex interplay of the social determinants of health

Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10 years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37 years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

The impact of COVID-19 on smoking patterns in Pakistan : findings from a longitudinal survey of smokers

Introduction We investigated the influence of COVID-19 on smoking patterns in Pakistan. Methods In a longitudnal survey, we asked cigarette smokers in Pakistan about their smoking behaviours before and since COVID-19. Smokers were recruited before COVID-19 using two-stage random probability sampling. Since COVID-19, three subsequent waves were conducted over the telephone, asking additional questions on social determinants, mental health and wellbeing. Based on the first two waves, we estimated the proportion of smokers who stopped, decreased, maintained, or increased smoking. We also explored any factors associated with the change in smoking patterns. In those who stopped smoking soon after COVID-19, we estimated the proportion relapsed in subsequent waves. We estimated all proportions based on complete-case analysis. Results We recruited 6,014 smokers between September 2019 and February 2020; of these, 2,087 (2,062 reported smoking outcomes) were followed up in May 2020 after COVID-19. Since COVID-19, 14% (290/2,062) smokers reported quitting. Among those who continued smoking: 68% (1210/1772) reduced, 14% (239/1772) maintained, and 18% (323/1772) increased cigarette consumption; 37% (351/938) reported at least one quit attempt; 41% (669/1619) were more motivated while 21% (333/1619) were less motivated to quit. Changes in smoking patterns varied with nicotine dependence, motivation to quit, and financial stability since COVID-19. Among those reporting quitting soon after COVID-19, 39% (81/206) relapsed in the subsequent months (June-July 2020). Conclusions There have been significant bidirectional changes in smoking patterns since COVID-19 in Pakistan. While many people stopped, reduced, or tried quitting smoking, some increased smoking, and some relapsed after quitting

Children Learning About Second-hand Smoke (CLASS III) : Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based Smoke-Free Intervention in Bangladesh and Pakistan

Introduction Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is a major cause of premature death and disease, especially among children. Children in economically developing countries are particularly affected as smoke-free laws are typically only partially implemented and private homes and cars remain a key source of SHS exposure. Currently, firm conclusions cannot be drawn from the available evidence on the effectiveness of non-legislative interventions designed to protect children from SHS exposure. Following the success of two feasibility studies and a pilot trial, we plan to evaluate a school-based approach to protect children from SHS exposure in Bangladesh and Pakistan—countries with a strong commitment to smoke-free environments but with high levels of SHS exposure in children. We will conduct a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh and Pakistan to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a school-based smoke-free intervention (SFI) in reducing children’s exposure to SHS and the frequency and severity of respiratory symptoms. Methods and analysis We plan to recruit 68 randomly selected schools from two cities—Dhaka in Bangladesh and Karachi in Pakistan. From each school, we will recruit approximately 40 students in a year (9–12 years old) with a total of 2720 children. Half of the schools will be randomly allocated to the intervention arm receiving SFI and the other half will receive usual education. Salivary cotinine concentration—a highly sensitive and specific biomarker of SHS exposure—is the primary outcome, which will be measured at month 3 post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include frequency and severity of respiratory symptoms, healthcare contacts, school absenteeism, smoking uptake and quality of life. Embedded economic and process evaluations will also be conducted. Ethics and dissemination The trial has received ethics approval from the Research Governance Committee at the University of York. Approvals have also been obtained from Bangladesh Medical Research Council and Pakistan Health Research Council. If SFI is found effective, we will use a variety of channels to share our findings with both academic and non-academic audiences. We will work with the education departments in Bangladesh and Pakistan and advocate for including SFI within the curriculum. Trial registration number ISRCTN2887836

Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study an international prospective cohort study

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care. We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care