A rotatividade de membros da equipa e a eficácia da mesma: o papel moderador da liderança e da centralidade.

As empresas de consultoria debatem-se anualmente com o problema de altas taxas de rotatividade dos membros das suas equipas, algo que impacta negativamente o desempenho e eficácia das mesmas. Neste sentido, o objetivo do presente trabalho foi o de avaliar não só o papel da liderança do tipo funcional, como também o da centralidade dos membros que saíram, enquanto moderadoras desta relação. Para levar a cabo esta investigação, foram passados dois tipos de questionários em papel a colaboradores de empresas de consultoria, sendo um destinado aos membros de uma dada equipa e o outro ao seu respetivo líder. Participaram neste estudo 42 equipas, 154 indivíduos, todos integrantes de empresas de consultoria. Os resultados demonstraram que nem a liderança funcional, nem a centralidade exercem um papel moderador desta relação, não suportando assim as hipóteses da presente investigação. Apesar da literatura sugerir que há uma relação, os resultados não serem significativos podem ser explicados por uma série de fatores, nomeadamente o tipo de contexto e equipa em questão, o timing da saída dos colaboradores e o facto da centralidade ser estudada através de redes sociais.Consulting firms debate annually with the problem of high membership exchange rates, something that negatively impacts their team’s performance and effectiveness. In this sense, the present study aimed to evaluate not only the role of functional leadership, but also the centrality of the members who left, as moderators of this relationship. To carry out this research, two types of paper questionnaires were distributed to employees of consulting firms, one for members of a given team and the other for their respective leader. Forty two teams, 154 individuals, all members of consulting firms, participated in this study. The results showed that neither functional leadership nor centrality play a moderating role in this relationship, thus not supporting the hypotheses of the present investigation. Although the literature suggests that there is a relationship, the results not being significant can be explained by a series of factors, namely the type of context and team in question, the timing of employee departure and the fact centrality is studied through social networks

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Field and classroom initiatives for portable sequence-based monitoring of dengue virus in Brazil

This work was supported by Decit, SCTIE, Brazilian Ministry of Health, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico - CNPq (440685/ 2016-8, 440856/2016-7 and 421598/2018-2), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES - (88887.130716/2016-00), European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ZIKAlliance Grant Agreement (734548), STARBIOS (709517), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ (E-26/2002.930/2016), International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Canada (108411-001), European Union’s Horizon 2020 under grant agreements ZIKACTION (734857) and ZIKAPLAN (734548).Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil / Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil / Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane. Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Milton Bezerra Sobral. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Vitória da Conquista, BA, Brazil.Laboratorio Central de Salud Pública. Asunción, Paraguay.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilMinistério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. San Lorenzo, Paraguay.Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Milton Bezerra Sobral. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, Ba, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Hospital das Forças Armadas. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical. Lisboa, Portugal.University of Sydney. School of Life and Environmental Sciences and School of Medical Sciences. Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity. Sydney, NSW, Australia.University of KwaZulu-Natal. College of Health Sciences. KwaZulu-Natal Research Innovation and Sequencing Platform. Durban, South Africa.University of Oxford. Peter Medawar Building. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Universidade de Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Salvador. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Hantaviroses e Rickettsioses. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane. Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Paraná. Curitiba, PR, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Rondônia. Porto Velho, RO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Amazonas. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Instituto Adolfo Lutz. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of Oxford. Peter Medawar Building. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Virales Humanas Dr. Julio Maiztegui. Pergamino, Argentina.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Instituto de Salud Pública de Chile. Santiago, Chile.Instituto de Diagnóstico y Referencia Epidemiológicos Dr. Manuel Martínez Báez. Ciudad de México, México.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas Dr Carlos G Malbrán. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Ministerio de Salud Pública de Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay.Instituto Costarricense de Investigación y Enseñanza em Nutrición y Salud. Tres Ríos, Costa Rica.Instituto Nacional de Investigacion en Salud Publica Dr Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez. Guayaquil, Ecuador.Instituto Nacional de Investigacion en Salud Publica Dr Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez. Guayaquil, Ecuador.Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Recife, PE, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte. MG, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Brazil experienced a large dengue virus (DENV) epidemic in 2019, highlighting a continuous struggle with effective control and public health preparedness. Using Oxford Nanopore sequencing, we led field and classroom initiatives for the monitoring of DENV in Brazil, generating 227 novel genome sequences of DENV1-2 from 85 municipalities (2015–2019). This equated to an over 50% increase in the number of DENV genomes from Brazil available in public databases. Using both phylogenetic and epidemiological models we retrospectively reconstructed the recent transmission history of DENV1-2. Phylogenetic analysis revealed complex patterns of transmission, with both lineage co-circulation and replacement. We identified two lineages within the DENV2 BR-4 clade, for which we estimated the effective reproduction number and pattern of seasonality. Overall, the surveillance outputs and training initiative described here serve as a proof-of-concept for the utility of real-time portable sequencing for research and local capacity building in the genomic surveillance of emerging viruses

Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone

As part of an EU funded project to investigate the factors influencing bone preservation in the archaeological record, more than 250 bones from 41 archaeological sites in five countries spanning four climatic regions were studied for diagenetic alteration. Sites were selected to cover a range of environmental conditions and archaeological contexts. Microscopic and physical (mercury intrusion porosimetry) analyses of these bones revealed that the majority (68%) had suffered microbial attack. Furthermore, significant differences were found between animal and human bone in both the state of preservation and the type of microbial attack present. These differences in preservation might result from differences in early taphonomy of the bones. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Brazilian Flora 2020: Leveraging the power of a collaborative scientific network

International audienceThe shortage of reliable primary taxonomic data limits the description of biological taxa and the understanding of biodiversity patterns and processes, complicating biogeographical, ecological, and evolutionary studies. This deficit creates a significant taxonomic impediment to biodiversity research and conservation planning. The taxonomic impediment and the biodiversity crisis are widely recognized, highlighting the urgent need for reliable taxonomic data. Over the past decade, numerous countries worldwide have devoted considerable effort to Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), which called for the preparation of a working list of all known plant species by 2010 and an online world Flora by 2020. Brazil is a megadiverse country, home to more of the world's known plant species than any other country. Despite that, Flora Brasiliensis, concluded in 1906, was the last comprehensive treatment of the Brazilian flora. The lack of accurate estimates of the number of species of algae, fungi, and plants occurring in Brazil contributes to the prevailing taxonomic impediment and delays progress towards the GSPC targets. Over the past 12 years, a legion of taxonomists motivated to meet Target 1 of the GSPC, worked together to gather and integrate knowledge on the algal, plant, and fungal diversity of Brazil. Overall, a team of about 980 taxonomists joined efforts in a highly collaborative project that used cybertaxonomy to prepare an updated Flora of Brazil, showing the power of scientific collaboration to reach ambitious goals. This paper presents an overview of the Brazilian Flora 2020 and provides taxonomic and spatial updates on the algae, fungi, and plants found in one of the world's most biodiverse countries. We further identify collection gaps and summarize future goals that extend beyond 2020. Our results show that Brazil is home to 46,975 native species of algae, fungi, and plants, of which 19,669 are endemic to the country. The data compiled to date suggests that the Atlantic Rainforest might be the most diverse Brazilian domain for all plant groups except gymnosperms, which are most diverse in the Amazon. However, scientific knowledge of Brazilian diversity is still unequally distributed, with the Atlantic Rainforest and the Cerrado being the most intensively sampled and studied biomes in the country. In times of “scientific reductionism”, with botanical and mycological sciences suffering pervasive depreciation in recent decades, the first online Flora of Brazil 2020 significantly enhanced the quality and quantity of taxonomic data available for algae, fungi, and plants from Brazil. This project also made all the information freely available online, providing a firm foundation for future research and for the management, conservation, and sustainable use of the Brazilian funga and flora

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research