Whitaker John, O'Donohoe Nollaig, Denning Max, Poenaru Dan, Guadagno Elena, Leather Andrew J M, Davies Justine I
King's Centre for Global Health and Health Partnerships, King's College London Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, London, UK.
Academic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK.
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 May;6(5). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004324.
The large burden of injuries falls disproportionately on low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Health system interventions improve outcomes in high-income countries. Assessing LMIC trauma systems supports their improvement. Evaluating systems using a Three Delays framework, considering barriers to seeking (Delay 1), reaching (Delay 2) and receiving care (Delay 3), has aided maternal health gains. Rapid assessments allow timely appraisal within resource and logistically constrained settings. We systematically reviewed existing literature on the assessment of LMIC trauma systems, applying the Three Delays framework and rapid assessment principles.
We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis of articles assessing LMIC trauma systems. We searched seven databases and grey literature for studies and reports published until October 2018. Inclusion criteria were an injury care focus and assessment of at least one defined system aspect. We mapped each study to the Three Delays framework and judged its suitability for rapid assessment.
Of 14 677 articles identified, 111 studies and 8 documents were included. Sub-Saharan Africa was the most commonly included region (44.1%). Delay 3, either alone or in combination, was most commonly assessed (79.3%) followed by Delay 2 (46.8%) and Delay 1 (10.8%). Facility assessment was the most common method of assessment (36.0%). Only 2.7% of studies assessed all Three Delays. We judged 62.6% of study methodologies potentially suitable for rapid assessment.
Whole health system injury research is needed as facility capacity assessments dominate. Future studies should consider novel or combined methods to study Delays 1 and 2, alongside care processes and outcomes.
中低收入国家(LMICs)承受着不成比例的巨大伤害负担。卫生系统干预措施改善了高收入国家的治疗效果。评估中低收入国家的创伤系统有助于其改进。使用“三个延误”框架评估系统,考虑寻求(延误1)、到达(延误2)和接受治疗(延误3)的障碍,有助于改善孕产妇健康状况。快速评估能够在资源和后勤受限的环境中进行及时评估。我们系统回顾了关于评估中低收入国家创伤系统的现有文献,应用了“三个延误”框架和快速评估原则。
我们对评估中低收入国家创伤系统的文章进行了系统回顾和叙述性综合分析。我们在七个数据库和灰色文献中搜索截至2018年10月发表的研究和报告。纳入标准是以创伤护理为重点并评估至少一个明确的系统方面。我们将每项研究映射到“三个延误”框架,并判断其是否适合快速评估。
在识别出的14677篇文章中,纳入了111项研究和8份文件。撒哈拉以南非洲是最常被纳入的地区(44.1%)。最常被评估的是延误3,单独或与其他因素结合评估(79.3%),其次是延误2(46.8%)和延误1(10.8%)。机构评估是最常见的评估方法(36.0%)。只有2.7%的研究评估了所有三个延误。我们判断62.6%的研究方法可能适合快速评估。
由于机构能力评估占主导地位,因此需要进行全卫生系统的伤害研究。未来的研究应考虑采用新颖或综合的方法来研究延误1和延误2,以及护理过程和结果。