Traditional healers' perception on scabies causation and management in Ghana.

INTRODUCTION: Scabies is an underdiagnosed skin infestation caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei mite. The infection causes severe itching and a skin rash but can be effectively treated using topical or systemic drugs. Scabies outbreaks are commonly reported in resource-poor countries, including Ghana. Traditional healers play an important role in primary care in rural areas. The role of these traditional healers in the management of scabies has so far not been explored. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the perceptions of traditional healers regarding the causation and management of scabies. METHODS: A phenomenological qualitative approach was employed. Traditional healers in the Asante Akim North and Central districts in Ghana were approached with an interview request. Using a semi-structured interview protocol, 15 traditional healers were interviewed. The results were coded and analysed, after which seven themes were extrapolated. RESULTS: Scabies infections were frequently reported by traditional healers. Itching and skin rash were unanimously regarded as the major symptoms of scabies. The majority acknowledged the infectious nature of scabies, but no participant reported the causative organism. A dichotomous disease classification was noted, consisting of 'natural' and 'spiritual' variants each with a unique disease profile and management requirements, as reported by the traditional healers. All but two traditional healers reported to treat scabies using almost exclusively herbs and spiritual rituals. CONCLUSION: The majority of traditional healers were open to collaboration with allopathic healthcare providers. Collaboration could broaden the primary care network in rural areas, but mistrust and lack of transparency form potential barriers to collaboration. We, therefore, emphasise the need for additional efforts to investigate strategies for future collaboration.

When courts intervene: public health, legal and ethical issues surrounding HIV, pregnant women, and newborn infants.

Ninety-three percent of pediatric AIDS cases are the result of perinatal HIV transmission, a disease that is almost entirely preventable with early intervention, which reduces the risk of perinatal HIV infection from 25% to <2%. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics both recommend routine HIV testing of all pregnant women and at-risk newborn infants. When pregnant women decline HIV testing and/or treatment, public health, legal, and ethical dilemmas can result. Federal courts consistently uphold a woman's right to refuse medical testing and treatment, even though it may benefit her fetus/newborn infant. Federal courts also reliably respect the rights of parents to make health care decisions for their newborn infants, which may include declining medical testing and treatment. Confusing the issue of HIV testing and treatment, however, is the fact that there is no definitive United States Supreme Court ruling on the issue. State laws and standards vary widely and serve as guiding principles for practicing clinicians, who must be vigilant of ongoing legal challenges and changes in the states in which they practice. We present a case of an HIV-positive pregnant woman who declined treatment and then testing or treatment of her newborn infant. Ultimately, the legal system intervened. Given the rarity of such cases, we use this as a primer for the practicing clinician to highlight the public health, legal, and ethical issues surrounding prenatal and newborn infant HIV testing and treatment in the United States, including summarizing key state-to-state regulatory differences.

Failure of prospective validation and derivation of a refined clinical decision rule for chest radiography in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: The authors previously derived a clinical decision rule (CDR) for chest radiography in patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) consisting of the absence of three predictors: history of congestive heart failure, history of smoking, and abnormalities on lung auscultation. The aim of the investigation was to prospectively validate and refine the CDR for chest radiography in an independent patient population. METHODS: Patients over 24 years of age with a primary complaint of chest pain and possible ACS were prospectively enrolled from September 2008 to January 2010 at an academic emergency department (ED) with 73,000 annual patient visits. Physicians completed standardized data collection forms before ordering chest radiographs. Two investigators, blinded to the data collection forms, independently classified chest radiographs as "normal,""abnormal not requiring intervention," or "abnormal requiring intervention" (e.g., heart failure, infiltrates), based on review of the radiology report and medical record. Analyses included descriptive statistics, interrater reliability assessment (kappa), and recursive partitioning. RESULTS: Of 1,159 visits for possible ACS in which chest radiography was obtained, mean (±SD) age was 60.3 (±15.6) years, and 51% were female. Twenty-four percent had a history of acute myocardial infarction, 10% congestive heart failure, and 11% atrial fibrillation. Sixty-nine (6.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.7% to 7.5%) patients had a radiographic abnormality requiring intervention. The kappa statistic for chest radiograph classification was 0.93 (95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97). The previously derived prediction rule (no history of congestive heart failure, no history of smoking, and no abnormalities on lung auscultation) was 78.3% sensitive (95% CI = 67.2% to 86.4%) and 45.1% specific (95% CI = 42.2% to 48.1%) and had a positive predictive value of 8.3% (95% CI = 6.4% to 10.7%) and a negative predictive value of 97.0% (95% CI = 95.2% to 98.2%). Due to suboptimal performance, the rule was refined. The refined rule (no shortness of breath, no history of smoking, no abnormalities on lung auscultation, and age < 55 years) was 100.0% sensitive (95% CI = 93.4% to 100.0%) and 11.5% specific (95% CI = 9.6% to 13.5%) and had a positive predictive value of 6.7% (95% CI = 5.3% to 8.4%) and a negative predictive value of 100.0% (95% CI = 96.3% to 100.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective validation of our previously derived CDR for clinically important chest radiographic abnormalities was not successful. Derivation of a refined rule identified all clinically important radiographic abnormalities, but was insufficiently specific. No CDR with adequate sensitivity and specificity could be found.