A step forward for understanding the morbidity burden in Guinea: a national descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little evidence on the burden of disease has been reported about Guinea. This study was conducted to demonstrate the morbidity burden in Guinea and provide basic evidence for setting health priorities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective descriptive study was designed to present the morbidity burden of Guinea. Morbidity data were extracted from the National Health Statistics Report of Guinea of 2008. The data are collected based on a pyramid of facilities which includes two national hospitals (teaching hospitals), seven regional hospitals, 26 prefectural hospitals, 8 communal medical centers, 390 health centers, and 628 health posts. Morbidity rates were calculated to measure the burden of non-fatal diseases. The contributions of the 10 leading diseases were presented by sex and age group.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 2008, a total of 3,936,599 cases occurred. The morbidity rate for males was higher than for females, 461 versus 332 per 1,000 population. Malaria, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, helminthiases, and malnutrition ranked in the first 5 places and accounted for 74% of the total burden, respectively having a rate of 148, 64, 33, 32, and 14 per 1,000 population. The elderly aged 65+ had the highest morbidity rate (611 per 1,000 population) followed by working-age population (458 per 1,000 population) and children (396 per 1,000 population) while the working-age population aged 25-64 contributed the largest part (39%) to total cases. The sex- and age-specific spectrum of morbidity burden showed a similar profile except for small variations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Guinea has its unique morbidity burden. The ten leading causes of morbidity burden, especially for malaria, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, helminthiases, and malnutrition, need to be prioritized in Guinea.</p

A critical analysis of the cycles of physical activity policy in England

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing focus on the importance of national policy to address population levels of physical inactivity. Components of a comprehensive national physical activity policy framework include: 1) national recommendations on physical activity levels; 2) setting population goals and targets; 3) surveillance or health monitoring systems; and 4) public education. The aim of the current paper was to analyse the policy actions which have addressed each of these elements in England and to identify areas of progress and remaining challenges.  METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify past and present documents relevant to physical activity policy in England. Each document was analysed to identify content relevant to the four key elements of policy which formed the focus of the current research.  RESULTS: Physical activity recommendations are an area where England has demonstrated a robust scientific approach and good practice; however, the physical activity campaigns in England have not been sufficiently sustained to achieve changes in social norms and behaviour. The setting of physical activity targets has been unrealistic and continuous changes to national surveillance measures have presented challenges for monitoring trends over time.  CONCLUSIONS: Overall, physical activity policy in England has fluctuated over the past two decades. The variations and cycles in policy reflect some of the challenges in implementing and sustaining physical activity policy in the face of political changes, changes in government direction, and changing opportunities to profile active lifestyles

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Youth social behaviour and network therapy (Y-SBNT) : adaptation of a family and social network intervention for young people who misuse alcohol and drugs – a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background: Family interventions appear to be effective at treating young people’s substance misuse. However, implementation of family approaches in UK services is low. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to an intervention based on an adaptation of adult social behaviour and network therapy. It also sought to involve young people with experience of using substance misuse services in the research process. Objectives: To demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting young people to family and social network therapy and to explore ways in which young people with experience of using substance misuse services could be involved in a study of this nature. Design: A pragmatic, two-armed, randomised controlled open feasibility trial. Setting: Two UK-based treatment services for young people with substance use problems, with recruitment taking place from May to November 2014. Participants: Young people aged 12–18 years, newly referred and accepted for structured interventions for drug and/or alcohol problems. Interventions: A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated young people to adapted youth social behaviour and network therapy (Y-SBNT) or treatment as usual (TAU). Y-SBNT participants were intended to receive up to six 50-minute sessions over a maximum of 12 weeks. TAU participants continued to receive usual care delivered by their service. Main outcome measures: Feasibility was measured by recruitment rates, retention in treatment and follow-up completion rates. The main clinical outcome was the proportion of days on which the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90-day period as captured by the Timeline Follow-Back interview at 3 and 12 months. Results: In total, 53 young people were randomised (Y-SBNT, n = 26; TAU, n = 27) against a target of 60 (88.3%). Forty-two young people attended at least one treatment session [Y-SBNT 22/26 (84.6%); TAU 20/27 (74.1%)]; follow-up rates were 77.4% at month 3 and 73.6% at month 12. Data for nine young people were missing at both months 3 and 12, so the main clinical outcome analysis was based on 24 young people (92.3%) in the Y-SBNT group and 20 young people (74.1%) in the TAU group. At month 12, the average proportion of days that the main problem substance was used in the preceding 90 days was higher in the Y-SBNT group than in the TAU group (0.54 vs. 0.41; adjusted mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval –0.12 to 0.39; p = 0.30). No adverse events were reported. Seventeen young people with experience of substance misuse services were actively involved throughout the study. They informed key elements of the intervention and research process, ensuring that the intervention was acceptable and relevant to our target groups; contributing to the design of key trial documents, ideas for a new model of public involvement and this report. Two parents were also involved. Conclusions: The adapted intervention could be delivered in young people’s services, and qualitative interviews found that Y-SBNT was acceptable to young people, family members and staff. Engagement of family and network members proved difficult within the intervention and research aspects. The study proved the feasibility of this work in routine services but outcome measurement based on narrow substance use variables may be limited and may fail to capture other important changes in wider areas of functioning for young people. Validation of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions for young people aged 12–18 years should be considered and flexible models for involvement of young people in research are required to achieve inclusive representation throughout all aspects of the research process. Although recommendation of a full trial of the Y-SBNT intervention compared with TAU is not supported, this study can inform future intervention development and UK research within routine addiction services. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93446265. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all

The proposals in this report are bold, but they are achievable

World facts and figures.

Issued with the United Nations publications sales numbers.Mode of access: Internet