ABSTRACT
Globally, 28.4 million non-emergent ('elective') surgical procedures have been deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elective breast- or colorectal cancer (CRC) procedure backlogs and attributable mortality, globally. Further, we evaluated the interaction between procedure deferrals and health systems, internationally. Relevant articles from any country, published between December 2019-24 November 2022, were identified through searches of online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and by examining the reference lists of retrieved articles. We organised health system-related findings thematically per the Structures-Processes-Outcomes conceptual model by Donabedian (1966). Of 337 identified articles, we included 50. Eleven (22.0%) were reviews. The majority of included studies originated from high-income countries (n = 38, 76.0%). An ecological, modelling study elucidated that global 12-week procedure cancellation rates ranged from 68.3%-73%; Europe and Central Asia accounted for the majority of cancellations (n = 8,430,348) and sub-Saharan Africa contributed the least (n = 520,459). The percentage reduction in global, institutional elective breast cancer surgery activity ranged from 5.68%-16.5%. For CRC, this ranged from 0%-70.9%. Significant evidence is presented on how insufficient pandemic preparedness necessitated procedure deferrals, internationally. We also outlined ancillary determinants of delayed surgery (e.g., patient-specific factors). The following global health system response themes are presented: Structural changes (i.e., hospital re-organisation), Process-related changes (i.e., adapted healthcare provision) and the utilisation of Outcomes (i.e., SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence among patients or healthcare personnel, postoperative pulmonary complication incidence, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay and tumour staging) as indicators of health system response efficacy. Evidence on procedure backlogs and attributable mortality was limited, partly due to insufficient, real-time surveillance of cancer outcomes, internationally. Elective surgery activity has decreased and cancer services have adapted rapidly, worldwide. Further research is needed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on cancer mortality and the efficacy of health system mitigation measures, globally.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate whether and how community youth teams facilitating participatory adolescent groups, youth leadership and livelihood promotion improved school attendance, dietary diversity, and mental health among adolescent girls in rural India. Design: A parallel group, two-arm, superiority, cluster-randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation. Setting intervention and participants: 38 clusters (19 intervention, 19 control) in West Singhbhum district in Jharkhand, India. The intervention included participatory adolescent groups and youth leadership for boys and girls aged 10-19 (intervention clusters only), and family-based livelihood promotion (intervention and control clusters) between June 2017 and March 2020. We surveyed 3324 adolescent girls aged 10-19 in 38 clusters at baseline, and 1478 in 29 clusters at endline. Four intervention and five control clusters were lost to follow up when the trial was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Adolescent boys were included in the process evaluation only. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary: school attendance, dietary diversity, and mental health; 12 secondary outcomes related to education, empowerment, experiences of violence, and sexual and reproductive health. Results: In intervention vs control clusters, mean dietary diversity score was 4·0 (SD 1·5) vs 3·6 (SD 1·2) (adjDiff 0·34; 95%CI -0·23, 0·93, p = 0·242); mean Brief Problem Monitor-Youth (mental health) score was 12·5 (SD 6·0) vs 11·9 (SD 5·9) (adjDiff 0·02, 95%CI -0·06, 0·13, p = 0·610); and school enrolment rates were 70% vs 63% (adjOR 1·39, 95%CI 0·89, 2·16, p = 0·142). Uptake of school-based entitlements was higher in intervention clusters (adjOR 2·01; 95%CI 1·11, 3·64, p = 0·020). Qualitative data showed that the community youth team had helped adolescents and their parents navigate school bureaucracy, facilitated re-enrolments, and supported access to entitlements. Overall intervention delivery was feasible, but positive impacts were likely undermined by household poverty. Conclusions: Participatory adolescent groups, leadership training and livelihood promotion delivered by a community youth team did not improve adolescent girls' mental health, dietary diversity, or school attendance in rural India, but may have increased uptake of education-related entitlements. Trial registration: ISRCTN17206016.