Surgical decision making around paediatric preoperative anaemia in low-income and middle-income countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 814-821
Author(s):  
Somy Charuvila ◽  
Sarah E Davidson ◽  
Jecko Thachil ◽  
Kokila Lakhoo
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. e001523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kudakwashe Paul Vanyoro ◽  
Kate Hawkins ◽  
Matthew Greenall ◽  
Helen Parry ◽  
Lynda Keeru

Health policy and systems researchers (HPSRs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) aim to influence health systems planning, costing, policy and implementation. Yet, there is still much that we do not know about the types of health systems evidence that are most compelling and impactful to policymakers and community groups, the factors that facilitate the research to decision-making process and the real-world challenges faced when translating research findings into practice in different contexts. Drawing on an analysis of HPSR from LMICs presented at the Fifth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research (HSR 2018), we argue that while there is a recognition in policy studies more broadly about the role of co-production, collective ownership and the value of localised HPSR in the evidence-to-policy discussion, ‘ownership’ of research at country level is a research uptake catalyst that needs to be further emphasised, particularly in the HPSR context. We consider embedded research, participatory or community-initiated research and emergent/responsive research processes, all of which are ‘owned’ by policymakers, healthcare practitioners/managers or community members. We embrace the view that ownership of HPSR by people directly affected by health problems connects research and decision-making in a tangible way, creating pathways to impact.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxiao Jiang Kwete ◽  
Yemane Berhane ◽  
Mary Mwanyika-Sando ◽  
Ayo Oduola ◽  
Yuning Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Decision making process for Official Development Assistance (ODA) for healthcare sector in low-income and middle-income countries involves multiple agencies, each with their unique power, priorities and funding mechanisms. This process at country level has not been well studied. Methods This paper developed and applied a new framework to analyze decision-making process for priority setting in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Tanzania, and collected primary data to validate and refine the model. The framework was developed following a scoping review of published literature. Interviews were then conducted using a pre-determined interview guide developed by the research team. Transcripts were reviewed and coded based on the framework to identify what principles, players, processes, and products were considered during priority setting. Those elements were further used to identify where the potential capacity of local decision-makers could be harnessed. Results A framework was developed based on 40 articles selected from 6860 distinct search records. Twenty-one interviews were conducted in three case countries from 12 institutions. Transcripts or meeting notes were analyzed to identify common practices and specific challenges faced by each country. We found that multiple stakeholders working around one national plan was the preferred approach used for priority setting in the countries studied. Conclusions Priority setting process can be further strengthened through better use of analytical tools, such as the one described in our study, to enhance local ownership of priority setting for ODA and improve aid effectiveness.


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 405-405
Author(s):  
Suman Chatterjee ◽  
Jonathon Ng ◽  
Edward D. Matsumoto

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Osswald ◽  
U Tochtermann ◽  
S Keller ◽  
D Badowski-Zyla ◽  
V Gegouskov ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 60-61
Author(s):  
Kadie Clancy ◽  
Esmaeel Dadashzadeh ◽  
Christof Kaltenmeier ◽  
JB Moses ◽  
Shandong Wu

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This retrospective study aims to create and train machine learning models using a radiomic-based feature extraction method for two classification tasks: benign vs. pathologic PI and operation of benefit vs. operation not needed. The long-term goal of our study is to build a computerized model that incorporates both radiomic features and critical non-imaging clinical factors to improve current surgical decision-making when managing PI patients. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Searched radiology reports from 2010-2012 via the UPMC MARS Database for reports containing the term “pneumatosis” (subsequently accounting for negations and age restrictions). Our inclusion criteria included: patient age 18 or older, clinical data available at time of CT diagnosis, and PI visualized on manual review of imaging. Cases with intra-abdominal free air were excluded. Collected CT imaging data and an additional 149 clinical data elements per patient for a total of 75 PI cases. Data collection of an additional 225 patients is ongoing. We trained models for two clinically-relevant prediction tasks. The first (referred to as prediction task 1) classifies between benign and pathologic PI. Benign PI is defined as either lack of intraoperative visualization of transmural intestinal necrosis or successful non-operative management until discharge. Pathologic PI is defined as either intraoperative visualization of transmural PI or withdrawal of care and subsequent death during hospitalization. The distribution of data samples for prediction task 1 is 47 benign cases and 38 pathologic cases. The second (referred to as prediction task 2) classifies between whether the patient benefitted from an operation or not. “Operation of benefit” is defined as patients with PI, be it transmural or simply mucosal, who benefited from an operation. “Operation not needed” is defined as patients who were safely discharged without an operation or patients who had an operation, but nothing was found. The distribution of data samples for prediction task 2 is 37 operation not needed cases and 38 operation of benefit cases. An experienced surgical resident from UPMC manually segmented 3D PI ROIs from the CT scans (5 mm Axial cut) for each case. The most concerning ~10-15 cm segment of bowel for necrosis with a 1 cm margin was selected. A total of 7 slices per patient were segmented for consistency. For both prediction task 1 and prediction task 2, we independently completed the following procedure for testing and training: 1.) Extracted radiomic features from the 3D PI ROIs that resulted in 99 total features. 2.) Used LASSO feature selection to determine the subset of the original 99 features that are most significant for performance of the prediction task. 3.) Used leave-one-out cross-validation for testing and training to account for the small dataset size in our preliminary analysis. Implemented and trained several machine learning models (AdaBoost, SVM, and Naive Bayes). 4.) Evaluated the trained models in terms of AUC and Accuracy and determined the ideal model structure based on these performance metrics. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Prediction Task 1: The top-performing model for this task was an SVM model trained using 19 features. This model had an AUC of 0.79 and an accuracy of 75%. Prediction Task 2: The top-performing model for this task was an SVM model trained using 28 features. This model had an AUC of 0.74 and an accuracy of 64%. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to use radiomic-based machine learning models for the prediction of tissue ischemia, specifically intestinal ischemia in the setting of PI. In this preliminary study, which serves as a proof of concept, the performance of our models has demonstrated the potential of machine learning based only on radiomic imaging features to have discriminative power for surgical decision-making problems. While many non-imaging-related clinical factors play a role in the gestalt of clinical decision making when PI presents, we have presented radiomic-based models that may augment this decision-making process, especially for more difficult cases when clinical features indicating acute abdomen are absent. It should be noted that prediction task 2, whether or not a patient presenting with PI would benefit from an operation, has lower performance than prediction task 1 and is also a more challenging task for physicians in real clinical environments. While our results are promising and demonstrate potential, we are currently working to increase our dataset to 300 patients to further train and assess our models. References DuBose, Joseph J., et al. “Pneumatosis Intestinalis Predictive Evaluation Study (PIPES): a multicenter epidemiologic study of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 75.1 (2013): 15-23. Knechtle, Stuart J., Andrew M. Davidoff, and Reed P. Rice. “Pneumatosis intestinalis. Surgical management and clinical outcome.” Annals of Surgery 212.2 (1990): 160.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document