ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle on clinical management and patient outcomes of adults in Malawi with open tibia fractures. Methods We conducted a before-and-after implementation study in Malawi in 2021 and 2022 to assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle, including a national education course for clinical officers and management guidelines for open fractures. We recruited 287 patients with open tibia fractures. The primary outcome was a before-and-after comparison of the self-reported short musculoskeletal function assessment score, a measure of patient function. Secondary outcomes included clinical management; and clinician knowledge and implementation evaluation outcomes of 57 health-care providers attending the course. We also constructed multilevel regression models to investigate associations between clinical knowledge, patient function, and implementation evaluation before and after the intervention. Findings The median patient function score at 1 year was 6.8 (interquartile range, IQR: 1.5 to 14.5) before intervention and 8.4 (IQR: 3.8 to 23.2) after intervention. Compared with baseline scores, we found clinicians' open fracture knowledge scores improved 1 year after the intervention was implemented (mean posterior difference: 1.6, 95% highest density interval: 0.9 to 2.4). However, we found no difference in most aspects of clinicians' open fracture management practice. Conclusion Despite possible improvement in clinician knowledge and positive evaluation of the intervention implementation, our study showed that there was no overall improvement in clinical management, and weak evidence of worsening patient function 1 year after injury, after implementation of the open fracture intervention bundle.
Subject(s)
Tibia , Disease ManagementABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As infectious diseases approach global elimination targets, spatial targeting is increasingly important to identify community hotspots of transmission and effectively target interventions. We aimed to synthesise relevant evidence to define best practice approaches and identify policy and research gaps. OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise evidence for the effectiveness of spatially targeted community public health interventions for HIV, tuberculosis (TB), leprosy and malaria. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 1 January 1993 and 22 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: The studies had to include HIV or TB or leprosy or malaria and spatial hotspot definition, and community interventions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A data extraction tool was used. For each study, we summarised approaches to identifying hotpots, intervention design and effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Ten studies, including one cluster randomised trial and nine with alternative designs (before-after, comparator area), satisfied our inclusion criteria. Spatially targeted interventions for HIV (one USA study), TB (three USA) and leprosy (two Brazil, one Federated States of Micronesia) each used household location and disease density to define hotspots followed by community-based screening. Malaria studies (one each from India, Indonesia and Kenya) used household location and disease density for hotspot identification followed by complex interventions typically combining community screening, larviciding of stagnant water bodies, indoor residual spraying and mass drug administration. Evidence of effect was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Studies investigating spatially targeted interventions were few in number, and mostly underpowered or otherwise limited methodologically, affecting interpretation of intervention impact. Applying advanced epidemiological methodologies supporting more robust hotspot identification and larger or more intensive interventions would strengthen the evidence-base for this increasingly important approach. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019130133.