RESUMO
Gastrointestinal tract obstructions are the most common surgical emergencies in neonatal period. The aetiology of these disorders is diverse and mostly the consequences prenatal developmental malformations. The management and survival are still a challenge, especially in developing countries like India.METHODSA prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care paediatric institute from October 2016 to September 2019. Newborns in the age group of one to 28 days, who were operated in the hospital for gastrointestinal tract obstruction were analysed. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was taken. Data with regard to demographic patterns, clinical profile, management approach and outcome, were collected and analysed.RESULTSOut of 531 newborns operated for gastrointestinal obstruction, 80% cases presented within first week of life. Male neonates were more commonly affected than females (M: F=2.2:1) and 58% cases were having low birth weight. Anorectal malformation was the commonest cause of obstruction (40.7% cases) followed by intestinal atresia (18% cases). Hirschsprung’s disease, malrotation, meconium ileus and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis were among the important aetiologies. The overall mortality in this study was 13% and septicaemia was the leading cause.CONCLUSIONSAetiology of gastrointestinal obstruction in newborn is diverse ranging from oesophageal atresia to anorectal malformations. Low birth weight and other co-morbidities are associated in many cases. The overall outcome is in improving trend due to gradual understanding about the pathology and advancement of neonatal care. Early diagnosis, surgical intervention and availability of well-equipped neonatal intensive care unit facility are essential for better survival.
RESUMO
Background: In India, Out of Pocket Health Expenditures (OOPHE) is as high as 70-80% of total health expenditures, borne by the families of ailing persons. In most cases such high OOPHE is catastrophic in nature, in the backdrop of high poverty level in the country. High OOPHE and Catastrophic Health Expenditures (CHE) have a potential to impoverish people. It is therefore important to identify the predictors of OOPHE and CHE, to formulate an equitable and efficient financial protection measure from health expenditure. Methods: The study tried to understand the factors of out-of-pocket health expenditure and catastrophic health expenditure using the cross-sectional data from 986 sampled households in Koderma district of the state of Jharkhand in India. A multi-staged sampling method was followed to select households with incidences of in-patient care in the last one and child birth in the last two years and of out-patient care in the last one month. Alongside health expenditure data of the sampled households, their socio-demographic and socio-economic information were also collected using survey questionnaire. Findings: Male headed households, families with more than five members, household head who were unemployed or were engaged in agriculture or labour works as compared to those in service; household head aged above 60 years, households from higher expenditure quintiles, households with any member suffering from chronic illness, households reporting any episode of hospitalisation, in-patient or delivery services availed from private providers in the reference periods, families living closer to service providers especially private providers were significant predictors of high OOPHE. Residence in rural area (aOR: 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 - 2.49), families living in ‘kutcha’ (mud house) houses (aOR: 1.46, 95% CI 1.06 - 2.0), families with lower social status like Schedule Tribe (aOR: 1.76, 95% CI 1.0 – 3.13), Scheduled Caste (aOR: 1.73, 95% CI 1.02 - 2.92) and Other Backward Classes (aOR: 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 - 2.01) compared to General castes, families where any member suffering from chronic illness (aOR: 2.33, 99% CI 1.48 – 3.67), families where any member had received in-patient care in the last one year irrespective of type of providers (aOR: 2.18, 99% CI 1.60 - 2.97), longer distance from health service providers, had higher likelihood of CHE. Conclusion: The study tried to identify different predictors of Out of Pocket Health Expenditure (OOPHE) and Catastrophic Health Expenditure (CHE), incurred by families seeking medical care for various ailments. OOPHE was found higher among families from higher expenditure quintile; however, people from disadvantaged socio economic profile had higher likelihood of CHE. Apparently, even smaller OOPHE is proving to be catastrophic for families from lower socio-economic segments. Families with any member suffering from chronic illness were at a higher risk of CHE. OOPHE was considerably higher when services have been sought from private providers compared to public health providers, however, for in-patient care, expenditure incurred in both situations were found to be catastrophic. Urgent action is needed for designing healthcare finance policies that is more equitable and efficient and has a potential to reduce OOPHE and incidences of CHE.
RESUMO
Public health interventions usually operate at the level of groups rather than individuals, and cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are one means of evaluating their effectiveness. Using examples from six such trials in Bangladesh, India, Malawi and Nepal, we discuss our experience of the ethical issues that arise in their conduct. We set cluster RCTs in the broader context of public health research, highlighting debates about the need to reconcile individual autonomy with the common good and about the ethics of public health research in low-income settings in general. After a brief introduction to cluster RCTs, we discuss particular challenges we have faced. These include the nature of and responsibility for group consent, and the need for consent by individuals within groups to intervention and data collection. We discuss the timing of consent in relation to the implementation of public health strategies, and the problem of securing ethical review and approval in a complex domain. Finally, we consider the debate about benefits to control groups and the standard of care that they should receive, and the issue of post-trial adoption of the intervention under test.