ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Burn injuries are a leading cause of morbidity and disability, with the burden of disease being disproportionately higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Burn prevention programmes have led to significant reductions in the incidence of burns in high-income countries. However, a previous systematic review published in 2015 highlighted that implementation and evaluation of similar programmes has been limited in LMIC. The objective of this scoping review and narrative synthesis was to summarise and understand the initiatives that have been carried out to reduce burn injuries in LMIC and their effectiveness. METHODS: We aimed to identify publications that described studies of effectiveness of burn prevention interventions applied to any population within a LMIC and measured burn incidence or burns-related outcomes. Suitable publications were identified from three sources. Firstly, data was extracted from manuscripts identified in the systematic review published by Rybarczyk et al. We then performed a search for manuscripts on burn prevention interventions published between January 2015 and September 2020. Finally, we extracted data from two systematic reviews where burn evidence was not the primary outcome, which were identified by senior authors. A quality assessment and narrative synthesis of included manuscripts were performed. RESULTS: In total, 24 manuscripts were identified and categorized according to intervention type. The majority of manuscripts (n = 16) described education-based interventions. Four manuscripts focused on environmental modification interventions and four adopted a mixed-methods approach. All of the education-based initiatives demonstrated improvements in knowledge relating to burn safety or first aid, however few measured the impact of their intervention on burn incidence. Four manuscripts described population-based educational interventions and noted reductions in burn incidence. Only one of the four manuscripts describing environmental modification interventions reported burns as a primary outcome measure, noting a reduction in burn incidence. All mixed-method interventions demonstrated some positive improvements in either burn incidence or burns-related safety practices. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of published literature describing large-scale burn prevention programmes in LMIC that can demonstrate sustained reductions in burn incidence. Population-level, collaborative projects are necessary to drive forward burn prevention through specific environmental or legislative changes and supplementary educational programmes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Scar assessment plays a key role during burns aftercare, to monitor scar remodelling and patients' psychosocial well-being. To aid assessment, subjective scar assessment scales are available that use health-care professionals' and patients' opinions to score scar characteristics. The subjective scales are more widely used in clinical practice over objective scar measures. To date, there is no research that considers patients' views on scar assessment and the role of subjective and objective assessment tools. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore patients' perspectives on scar assessment and the utility of scar assessment tools during burns rehabilitation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 adult burn patients who were being reviewed in clinic for scarring. Participants were recruited via their clinical care team and research nurses at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. Topics covered during interview included patient experience of scar assessment, the use of scar assessment tools and discussion surrounding important factors to be addressed when assessing scars. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was conducted. RESULTS: Participants identified key subthemes that contribute towards the overarching theme of patient-centred scar assessment. These are: patient-led care; continuity in care; learning how to self-manage scarring; and psychological assessment. Links were demonstrated between these subthemes and the remaining themes that describe scar assessment strategies, indicating their potential patient-centred contributions. The subjective opinions of clinicians were found to be valued above the use of subjective or objective scar assessment tools. Scar assessment scales were perceived to be a beneficial method for self-reflection in relation to psychosocial functioning. However, minimal feedback and review of completed assessment scales led to uncertainty regarding their purpose. Patients perceived objective tools to be of primary use for health-care professionals, though the measures may aid patients' understanding of scar properties. CONCLUSIONS: Scar assessment tools should be used to support, rather than replace, health-care professionals' subjective judgements of scarring. Adapting the way in which clinicians introduce and use scar assessment tools, according to patient needs, can support a patient-centred approach to scar assessment.
