Protection of Mice against Experimental Cryptococcosis by Synthesized Peptides Delivered in Glucan Particles

Cryptococcosis, due to infection by fungi of the Cryptococcus neoformans species complex, is responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised persons, particularly those with AIDS. Cryptococcal vaccines are a public health priority yet are not available for human use.

They Won't Teach You This in School

Diabetes mellitus (DM) has shown growing global morbidity, thus becoming a public health priority. In 2017, approximately 425 million people suffered from diabetes, and it is estimated that by 2045 the number will increase to 629 million. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), with 90% of reported cases, is the most common type and is followed by type 1. In 2018, 8.6 million people over 20 years of age were diagnosed with diabetes in Mexico. This represents 10.6% of the population. In some states with a higher incidence such as Nuevo León, it is estimated that 12.6% of the population above 20 years has been diagnosed with DM. This chapter seeks to inform about type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, its way of acting and complications that it entails, and how social media can be advantageous in patient education.

Public health priority setting: A case for priority to the worse off in well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions. Keywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity

Frailty in Indigenous Populations: A Scoping Review

Background: Indigenous populations experience high rates of age-related illness when compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Frailty is a challenging expression of aging and an important public health priority. The purpose of this review was to map what the existing literature reports around frailty in Indigenous populations and to highlight the current gaps in frailty research within the Indigenous landscape.Method: Scoping review of English language original research articles focusing on frailty within Indigenous adult populations in settler colonial countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA). Ten electronic databases and eight relevant institutional websites were searched from inception to October 2020.Results: Nine articles met our inclusion criteria, finding this population having a higher prevalence of frailty and frailty occurring at younger ages when compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts, but two did not use a formal frailty tool. Females presented with higher levels of frailty. No culturally specific frailty tool was identified, and the included articles did not assess strategies or interventions to manage or prevent frailty in Indigenous peoples.Conclusions: There was little definitive evidence of the true frailty prevalence, approaches to frailty screening and of potential points of intervention to manage or prevent the onset of frailty. Improvements in the quality of evidence are urgently needed, along with further research to determine the factors contributing to higher rates of frailty within Indigenous populations. Incorporation of Indigenous views of frailty, and instruments and programs that are led and designed by Indigenous communities, are crucial to address this public health priority.

Clinical usefulness of brief screening tool for activating weight management discussions in primary cARE (AWARE): A nationwide mixed methods pilot study

Objective The Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) is based on weight related health complications among individuals with overweight and obesity requiring clinical intervention. We aimed to assess the clinical usefulness of a new screening tool based on the EOSS for activating weight management discussions in general practice. Methods We enrolled five General Practitioners (GPs) and 25 of their patients located nationwide in metropolitan areas of Australia to test the feasibility, acceptability, and accuracy of the new ‘EOSS-2 Risk Tool’, using cross-sectional and qualitative study designs. Diagnostic accuracy of the tool for the presence of EOSS ≥2 criteria was based on clinical information collected prospectively. To assess feasibility and applicability, we explored the views of GP and patient participants by thematic analysis of transcribed verbatim and de-identified data collected by semi-structured telephone interviews. Results Nineteen (76%) patients were aged ≥45 years, five (20%) were male, and 20 (80%) were classified with obesity. All 25 patients screened positive for EOSS ≥2 criteria by the tool. Interviews with patients continued until data saturation was reached resulting in a total of 23 interviews. Our thematic analysis revealed five themes: GP recognition of obesity as a health priority (GPs expressed strong interest in and understanding of its importance as a health priority); obesity stigma (GPs reported the tool helped them initiate health based and non-judgmental conversations with their patients); patient health literacy (GPs and patients reported increased awareness and understanding of weight related health risks), patient motivation for self-management (GPs and patients reported the tool helped focus on self-management of weight related complications), and applicability and scalability (GPs stated it was easy to use, relevant to a range of their patient groups, and scalable if integrated into existing patient management systems). Conclusion The EOSS-2 Risk Tool is potentially clinically useful for activating weight management discussions in general practice. Further research is required to assess feasibility and applicability.

How West African countries prioritize health

Background The goal of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is to ensure that everyone is able to obtain the health services they need without suffering financial hardship. UHC remains a mirage if government health expenditure is not improved. Health priority refers to general government health expenditure as a percentage of general government expenditure. It indicates the priority of the government to spend on healthcare from its domestic public resources. Our study aimed to assess health priorities in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) using the health priority index from the WHO’s Global Health Expenditure Database. Method We extracted and analysed data on health priority in the WHO’s Global Health Expenditure Database across the 15 members of the ECOWAS (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo) from 2010 to 2018 to assess how these countries prioritize health. The data are presented using descriptive statistics. Results Our findings revealed that no West African country beats the cutoff of a minimum of 15% health priority index. Ghana (8.43%), Carbo Verde (8.29%), and Burkina Faso (7.60%) were the top three countries with the highest average health priority index, while Guinea (3.05%), Liberia (3.46%), and Guinea-Bissau (3.56%) had the lowest average health priority in the West African region within the period of our analysis (2010 to 2018). Conclusion Our study reiterates the need for West African governments and other relevant stakeholders to prioritize health in their political agenda towards achieving UHC.

The COVID-19 pandemic: an opportunity to make mental health a higher public health priority

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first recognised in December 2019. The subsequent pandemic has caused 4.3 million deaths and affected the lives of billions. It has increased psychosocial risk factors for mental illness including fear, social isolation and financial insecurity and is likely to lead to an economic recession. COVID-19 is associated with a high rate of neuropsychiatric sequelae. The long-term effects of the pandemic on mental health remain uncertain but could be marked, with some predicting an increased demand for psychiatric services for years to come. COVID-19 has turned a spotlight on mental health for politicians, policy makers and the public and provides an opportunity to make mental health a higher public health priority. We review longstanding reasons for prioritising mental health and the urgency brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlight strategies to improve mental health and reduce the psychiatric fallout of the pandemic.