Improving equity in malaria treatment: Relationship of socio-economic status with health seeking as well as with perceptions of ease of using the services of different providers for the treatment of malaria in Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Equitable improvement of treatment-seeking for malaria will depend partly on how different socio-economic groups perceive the ease of accessing and utilizing malaria treatment services from different healthcare providers. Hence, it was important to investigate the link between socioeconomic status (SES) with differences in perceptions of ease of accessing and receiving treatment as well as with actual health seeking for treatment of malaria from different providers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Structured questionnaires were used to collect data from 1,351 health providers in four malaria-endemic communities in Enugu state, southeast Nigeria. Data was collected on the peoples' perceptions of ease of accessibility and utilization of different providers of malaria treatment using a pre-tested questionnaire. A SES index was used to examine inequities in perceptions and health seeking.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patent medicine dealers (vendors) were the most perceived easily accessible providers, followed by private hospitals/clinics in two communities with full complement of healthcare providers: public hospital in the community with such a health provider and traditional healers in a community that is devoid of public healthcare facilities. There were inequities in perception of accessibility and use of different providers. There were also inequity in treatment-seeking for malaria and the poor spend proportionally more to treat the disease.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Inequities exist in how different SES groups perceive the levels of ease of accessibility and utilization of different providers for malaria treatment. The differentials in perceptions of ease of access and use as well as health seeking for different malaria treatment providers among SES groups could be decreased by reducing barriers such as the cost of treatment by making health services accessible, available and at reduced cost for all groups.</p

The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: Systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence is accumulating that pesticide self-poisoning is one of the most commonly used methods of suicide worldwide, but the magnitude of the problem and the global distribution of these deaths is unknown.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We have systematically reviewed the worldwide literature to estimate the number of pesticide suicides in each of the World Health Organisation's six regions and the global burden of fatal self-poisoning with pesticides. We used the following data sources: Medline, EMBASE and psycINFO (1990–2007), papers cited in publications retrieved, the worldwide web (using Google) and our personal collections of papers and books. Our aim was to identify papers enabling us to estimate the proportion of a country's suicides due to pesticide self-poisoning.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We conservatively estimate that there are 258,234 (plausible range 233,997 to 325,907) deaths from pesticide self-poisoning worldwide each year, accounting for 30% (range 27% to 37%) of suicides globally. Official data from India probably underestimate the incidence of suicides; applying evidence-based corrections to India's official data, our estimate for world suicides using pesticides increases to 371,594 (range 347,357 to 439,267). The proportion of all suicides using pesticides varies from 4% in the European Region to over 50% in the Western Pacific Region but this proportion is not concordant with the volume of pesticides sold in each region; it is the pattern of pesticide use and the toxicity of the products, not the quantity used, that influences the likelihood they will be used in acts of fatal self-harm.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Pesticide self-poisoning accounts for about one-third of the world's suicides. Epidemiological and toxicological data suggest that many of these deaths might be prevented if (a) the use of pesticides most toxic to humans was restricted, (b) pesticides could be safely stored in rural communities, and (c) the accessibility and quality of care for poisoning could be improved.</p