Small area analysis methods in an area of limited mapping : exploratory geospatial analysis of firearm injuries in Port-au-Prince, Haiti

Background: The city of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, is experiencing an epidemic of firearm injuries which has resulted in high burdens of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, little scientific literature exists on the topic. Geospatial research could inform stakeholders and aid in the response to the current firearm injury epidemic. However, traditional small-area geospatial methods are difficult to implement in Port-au-Prince, as the area has limited mapping penetration. Objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of geospatial analysis in Port-au-Prince, to seek to understand specific limitations to geospatial research in this context, and to explore the geospatial epidemiology of firearm injuries in patients presenting to the largest public hospital in Port-au-Prince. Results: To overcome limited mapping penetration, multiple data sources were combined. Boundaries of informally developed neighborhoods were estimated from the crowd-sourced platform OpenStreetMap using Thiessen polygons. Population counts were obtained from previously published satellite-derived estimates and aggregated to the neighborhood level. Cases of firearm injuries presenting to the largest public hospital in Port-au-Prince from November 22nd, 2019, through December 31st, 2020, were geocoded and aggregated to the neighborhood level. Cluster analysis was performed using Global Moran’s I testing, local Moran’s I testing, and the SaTScan software. Results demonstrated significant geospatial autocorrelation in the risk of firearm injury within the city. Cluster analysis identified areas of the city with the highest burden of firearm injuries. Conclusions: By utilizing novel methodology in neighborhood estimation and combining multiple data sources, geospatial research was able to be conducted in Port-au-Prince. Geospatial clusters of firearm injuries were identified, and neighborhood level relative-risk estimates were obtained. While access to neighborhoods experiencing the largest burden of firearm injuries remains restricted, these geospatial methods could continue to inform stakeholder response to the growing burden of firearm injuries in Port-au-Prince

Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences

Introduction Global health conferences are important platforms for knowledge exchange, decision-making and personal and professional growth for attendees. Neocolonial patterns in global health at large and recent opinion reports indicate that stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be under-represented at such conferences. This study aims to describe the factors that impact LMIC representation at global health conferences.Methods A systematic review of articles reporting factors determining global health conference attendance was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles presenting conference demographics and data on the barriers and/or facilitators to attendance were included. Articles were screened at title and abstract level by four independent reviewers. Eligible articles were read in full text, analysed and evaluated with a risk of bias assessment.Results Among 8765 articles screened, 46 articles met inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis yielded two themes: ‘barriers to conference attendance’ and ‘facilitators to conference attendance’. In total, 112 conferences with 254 601 attendees were described, of which 4% of the conferences were hosted in low-income countries. Of the 98 302 conference attendees, for whom affiliation was disclosed, 38 167 (39%) were from LMICs.Conclusion ‘Conference inequity’ is common in global health, with LMIC attendees under-represented at global health conferences. LMIC attendance is limited by systemic barriers including high travel costs, visa restrictions and lower acceptance rates for research presentations. This may be mitigated by relocating conferences to visa-friendly countries, providing travel scholarships and developing mentorship programmes to enable LMIC researchers to participate in global conferences

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