Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Br J Gen Pract ; 73(731): 244-245, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232638
2.
BMJ Open ; 13(5): e062686, 2023 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2315844

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Kenya has long and porous borders with its neighbouring countries. These regions, predominantly inhabited by highly mobile rural communities with strong cross-border cultural ties, present major challenges in managing movement of people and COVID-19 preventive measures. Our study sought to assess knowledge of COVID-19 prevention behaviours, how these varied by socioeconomic (SEC) factors and the challenges of engagement and implementation, in two border counties of Kenya. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study using a household e-survey (Busia, N=294; Mandera, N=288; 57% females, 43% males), and qualitative telephone interviews (N=73: Busia 55; Mandera 18) with policy actors, healthcare workers, truckers and traders, and community members. Interviews were transcribed, English translated and analysed using the framework method. Associations between SEC (wealth quintiles, educational level) and knowledge of COVID-19 preventive behaviours were explored using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Participants were mostly educated to primary school level (54.4% Busia, 61.6% Mandera). Knowledge of COVID-19 prevention varied by behaviour: hand washing-86.5%, use of hand sanitiser-74.8%, wearing a face mask-63.1%, covering the mouth when sneezing or coughing-56.3% and social distancing-40.1%. Differences in knowledge by area, educational level and the wealth index were marked, greatest for Mandera, the less educated and the poor. Interviews with stakeholders revealed challenges in health messaging, psychosocial and socioeconomic factors, lack of preparedness for truck border crossings, language barrier, denial and livelihood insecurity as key challenges to engagement with and implementation of COVID-19 prevention behaviours in the border regions. CONCLUSION: The influence of SEC disparities and border dynamics on knowledge and engagement with COVID-19 prevention behaviours calls for contextually appropriate risk communication strategies that are cognisant of community needs and local patterns of information flow. Coordinating response measures across border points is crucial in winning communities' trust and maintaining essential economic and social activities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Male , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Kenya/epidemiology , Socioeconomic Factors , Communication
3.
Br J Gen Pract ; 71(712): e826-e835, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430995

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variation in the use of urgent suspected cancer referral (2-week wait [2WW]) between practices. AIM: To examine the change in use of 2WW referrals in England over 10 years (2009/2010 to 2018/2019) and the practice and population factors associated with cancer detection. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional study of English general practices and their 2WW referral and Cancer Waiting Times database detection data (all cancers other than non-melanoma skin cancers) from 2009/2010 to 2018/2019. METHOD: A retrospective study conducted using descriptive statistics of changes over 10 years in 2WW referral data. Yearly linear regression models were used to determine the association between cancer detection rates and quintiles of practice and population characteristics. Predicted cancer detection rates were calculated, as well as the difference between lowest to highest quintiles. RESULTS: Over the 10 years studied there were 14.89 million 2WW referrals (2.24 million in 2018/2019), and 2.68 million new cancer diagnoses, of which 1.26 million were detected following 2WW. The detection rate increased from 41% to 52% over the time period. In 2018/2019 an additional 66 172 cancers were detected via 2WW compared with 2009/2010. Higher cancer detection via 2WW referrals was associated with larger practices and those with younger GPs. From 2016/2017 onwards more deprived practice populations were associated with decreased cancer detection. CONCLUSION: From 2009/2010 to 2018/2019 2WW referrals increased on average by 10% year on year. The most consistent association with higher cancer detection was found for larger practices and those with younger GPs, though these differences became attenuated over time. The more recent association between increased practice deprivation and lower cancer detection is a cause for concern. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant impacts on 2WW referral activity and the impact on patient outcomes will need to be studied.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Cross-Sectional Studies , Early Detection of Cancer , England/epidemiology , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pandemics , Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Br J Gen Pract ; 71(706): e331-e338, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256677

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the context for antimicrobial stewardship in primary care. AIM: To assess the effect of the pandemic on antibiotic prescribing, accounting for changes in consultations for respiratory and urinary tract infections (RTIs/UTIs). DESIGN AND SETTING: Population-based cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database from January 2017 to September 2020. METHOD: Interrupted time-series analysis evaluated changes in antibiotic prescribing and RTI/UTI consultations adjusting for age, sex, season, and secular trends. The authors assessed the proportion of COVID-19 episodes associated with antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: There were 253 655 registered patients in 2017 and 232 218 in 2020, with 559 461 antibiotic prescriptions, 216 110 RTI consultations, and 36 402 UTI consultations. Compared with prepandemic months, March 2020 was associated with higher antibiotic prescribing (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.16). Antibiotic prescribing fell below predicted rates between April and August 2020, reaching a minimum in May (ARR 0.73; 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.75). Pandemic months were associated with lower rates of RTI/UTI consultations, particularly in April for RTIs (ARR 0.23; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.25). There were small reductions in the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotic prescribed and no reduction for UTIs. Among 25 889 COVID-19 patients, 2942 (11%) had antibiotics within a COVID-19 episode. CONCLUSION: Pandemic months were initially associated with increased antibiotic prescribing, which then fell below expected levels during the national lockdown. Findings are reassuring that antibiotic stewardship priorities have not been neglected because of COVID-19. Research is required into the effects of reduced RTI/UTI consultations on incidence of serious bacterial infections.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antimicrobial Stewardship/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Pandemics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Urinary Tract Infections/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Urinary Tract Infections/epidemiology , Young Adult
5.
Br J Cancer ; 125(5): 629-640, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1223084

ABSTRACT

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL