BackgroundSelf-rated health (SRH) has been widely studied to assess health inequalities in both developed and developing countries. However, no studies have been performed in Central Asia. The aim of the study was to assess gender-, ethnic-, and social inequalities in SRH in Almaty, Kazakhstan.MethodsAltogether, 1500 randomly selected adults aged 45 years or older were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study and 1199 agreed (response rate 80%). SRH was classified as poor, satisfactory, good and excellent. Multinomial logistic regression was applied to study associations between SRH and socio-demographic characteristics. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) for poor vs. good and for satisfactory vs. good health were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAltogether, poor, satisfactory, good and excellent health was reported by 11.8%, 53.7%, 31.0% and 3.2% of the responders, respectively. Clear gradients in SRH were observed by age, education and self-reported material deprivation in both crude and adjusted analyses. Women were more likely to report poor (OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-3.1) or satisfactory (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2-2.1) than good health. Ethnic Russians and unmarried participants had greater odds for poor vs. good health (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.5-3.7 and OR = 4.0, 95% CI: 2.7-6.1, respectively) and for satisfactory vs. good health (OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.9 and OR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.4-2.5, respectively) in crude analysis, but the estimates were reduced to non-significant levels after adjustment. Unemployed and pensioners were less likely to report good health than white-collar workers while no difference in SRH was observed between white- and blue-collar workers.ConclusionConsiderable levels of inequalities in SRH by age, gender, education and particularly self-reported material deprivation, but not by ethnicity or marital status were found in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Further research is warranted to identify the factors behind the observed associations in Kazakhstan.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to implement health technology assessment (HA) in the First General City Hospital in Astana, Kazakhstan. Methods: We organized trainings to familiarize hospital staff with the purpose and details of HTA. An HTA committee was established, with representation from hospital physicians and managers, and criteria for prioritization of health technologies determined. Clinical departments of the hospital were asked to prepare applications for new technologies for their services. Results: The HTA committee reviewed five applications and selected a technology from one of these, on single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), for assessment. A short HTA report on SILS was prepared, covering its safety, clinical effectiveness, and cost effectiveness. The report was used to support a request to the Department of Health for additional funding to implement this technology within the hospital. This funding was approved and SILS was established in several hospital departments. Conclusions: This successful initial experience with HTA has paved the way for its routine use by the hospital for informing decisions on the procurement and use of new health technologies. METHODSThe overall approach to development of the HTA program is shown in Figure 1.We first studied models of hospital -based HTA that had been used in different countries, obtaining information from various databases including those available through HTAi, PubMed and INAHTA.Consultation was held with hospital physicians and administrative staff to provide them with details of the role and scope of HTA. Training workshops were organized for 5 physicians (as the experts who used new technologies in the hospital), hospital economists and managers to examine organizational aspects of technology implementation.After completion of initial training we created a hospital HTA Committee, which was comprised of senior doctors, hospital managers and hospital economists, following a model considered by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group (8). Details of each stage of the HTA process were discussed with the committee.Prioritization criteria for hospital projects were formulated in discussion with the HTA Committee, having regard to accepted HTA practice (9). The criteria selected were budget impact, clinical effectiveness, safety, and availability of alternativetechnology.An application form was developed for submitting proposals on technologies which physicians or other stakeholders wished to include or exclude from hospital services. With members of the hospital's innovative technology department (ITDH), which reports directly to the Chief of Hospital, we asked each clinical department of the hospital to prepare applications. RESULTSWithin a month, applications had been submitted for 15 technologies to provide a range of services at the hospital. Information in the applications was analyzed and brief details on the technologies were sent to members of the HTA Committee. Points considered included demands for the technology in the region, wha...
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop criteria for the prioritization of topics for health technology assessment (HTA) in the healthcare system of Kazakhstan. Methods: Initial proposals for criteria were suggested through consultation with Ministry of Health (MoH) policy areas. These were refined through a workshop attended by HTA department staff, persons from medical universities and research institutes, and MoH policy makers. The workshop included discussion on methods used in international HTA practice. Opinions of participants on selection of criteria from those specified in a review of prioritization processes were used to define a list for inclusion in an instrument for routine use. A scoring system was established in later discussion. Results: Selected criteria for HTA prioritization were burden of disease, availability of alternative technology, clinical effectiveness, economic efficiency, budget impact, and ethical, legal, and/or psychosocial aspects. For each criterion, a health technology under consideration is given a score from 3 (High) to 1 (Low). The total score determines whether the technology is of high to medium priority or of low priority. Determination of priorities for assessment, using the instrument, should be carried out by an expert group appointed by the MoH. The process was applied in 2014 to a selection of topics, and three health technologies were chosen for full assessments. Conclusions: Criteria for prioritization have evolved with development of the HTA program in Kazakhstan. A method for HTA prioritization has been developed that is easy to apply, requires comparatively few resources, and is compatible with processes required by the MoH. Methods: Initial proposals for criteria were suggested through consultation with Ministry of Health (MoH) policy areas. These were refined through a workshop attended by HTA department staff, persons from medical universities and research institutes, and MoH policy makers. The workshop included discussion on methods used in international HTA practice. Opinions of participants on selection of criteria from those specified in a review of prioritization processes were used to define a list for inclusion in an instrument for routine use. A scoring system was established in later discussion.Results: Selected criteria for HTA prioritization were burden of disease, availability of alternative technology, clinical effectiveness, economic efficiency, budget impact, and ethical, legal and/or psychosocial aspects. For each criterion a health technology under consideration is given a score from 3 (High) to Low (1). The total score determines whether the technology is of high to medium priority or of low priority. Determination of priorities for assessment, using the instrument, should be carried out by an expert group appointed by the MoH. The process was applied in 2014 to selection of topics and three health technologies were chosen for full assessments. ConclusionCriteria for prioritization have evolved with development of the HTA pro...
COVID-19 has affected all aspects of human life so far. From the outset of the pandemic, preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the observance of health protocols, especially the use of sanitizers and disinfectants was given more attention. Despite the effectiveness of disinfection chemicals in controlling and preventing COVID-19, there are critical concerns about their adverse effects on human health. This study aims to assess the health effects of sanitizers and disinfectants on a global scale. A total of 91,056 participants from 154 countries participated in this cross-sectional study. Information on the use of sanitizers and disinfectants and health was collected using an electronic questionnaire, which was translated into 26 languages via web-based platforms. The findings of this study suggest that detergents, alcohol-based substances, and chlorinated compounds emerged as the most prevalent chemical agents compared to other sanitizers and disinfectants examined. Most frequently reported health issues include skin effects and respiratory effects. The Chi-square test showed a significant association between chlorinated compounds (sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine) with all possible health effects under investigation ( p -value <0.001). Examination of risk factors based on multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that alcohols and alcohols-based materials were associated with skin effects (OR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.87–2.09), per-chlorine was associated with eye effects (OR, 1.83; 95%CI, 1.74–1.93), and highly likely with itching and throat irritation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.90–2.11). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92–2.44). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92–2.44). The use of sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine also had a high chance of having respiratory effects. The findings of the current study suggest that health authorities need to implement more awareness programs about the side effects of using sanitizers and disinfectants during viral epidemics especially when they are used or overused. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-023-27197-6.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.