This study compares two antivenoms used to treat Echis ocellatus snake bite patients at Mathias Hospital, Yeji, central Ghana. FAV-Afrique antivenom (Aventis Pasteur) was given to 278 patients during 2001--2003, whilst Asna Antivenom C (Bharat Serum and Vaccines Ltd) was used in 2004 to treat 66 patients. The two groups had comparable patient attributes, time from snake bite to treatment and staff adherence to the tested treatment protocol. The antivenom C group required more repeat doses and twice the amount of antivenom to treat coagulopathy. Of greater concern, the antivenom C mortality rate was 12.1%, a marked rise from the 1.8% rate in the earlier FAV-Afrique antivenom group. In this study, antivenom C was ineffective as treatment for West African E. ocellatus snake venom. This illustrates the absolute need for regional pilot tests to assess the effectiveness of a new antivenom against local snake venoms before its sole and general distribution in a region is initiated.

Smokers are often advised to quit in a discussion of future health risks. The authors tested whether adding information about personal effects of smoking would motivate hospital outpatients to stop smoking more than advice about potential hazards would. Ninety smokers in a general screening clinic were randomized to receive education alone or education plus an additional motivational intervention that contained immediate feedback about the smoker's exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) values, spirometry results, and pulmonary symptoms. A self-report of smoking status was obtained one, four, and 12 months after the intervention. In addition, at 12 months, exhaled CO measurements were made. Smokers who received the additional motivational intervention were more than twice as likely to report quitting some time during the 12-month follow-up (40% vs. 16%, p = 0.015). At 12 months, 33% of the intervention group and 10% of the control group smokers tested had achieved CO-validated cessation (p = 0.03). Counting all patients not contacted as continuing to smoke, the percentages were 20% vs. 7% (p = 0.06). These practical feedback methods to motivate cessation deserve testing in other settings.

A study was conducted in Mathias Hospital, Yeji, an area of Ghana, where snake bite cases are an important cause of morbidity and mortality, with a case fatality rate of 11% (8/72). Case management difficulties included uncertainty about the assessment of the severity of envenoming, the dosage of antivenom, and the response to treatment. An intervention with several components was introduced: development of a treatment protocol, staff training, monitoring of compliance and patient education. During a 33-month post-intervention period there was excellent protocol compliance, fewer snake bite complications, and a fall in mortality rate to 1.3% (3/238) compared with a 15-month baseline review. There was a 50% increase in snake bite admissions and fewer delays. To improve snake bite outcomes in comparable settings, particularly if inexperienced staff are involved in care, we recommend a similar quality assurance project, involving case review and use of a treatment protocol with monitoring of compliance to sustain an improved approach.

Hypertension and related complications appear, from clinical impression, to be increasing problems in urban Ghanaians. In early 1973 we conducted a blood pressure survey in 20 rural Ghanaian villages to determine the prevalence of hypertension, in comparison with studies done in Accra residents and black Americans. Rural Ghanaians had mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures which were lower at all ages than the urban groups. 2-5% of the subjects aged 16 to 54 years had diastolic blood pressures of 95 or higher mm Hg. These findings are discussed in view of the proposed hypertension control programme in Accra. We conclude that hypertension is not a significant health problem in rural Ghanaians and that large-scale hypertension case-finding and intervention programmes should be confined to urban populations.

Policy makers, researchers, clinicians, and the public are frustrated that research in the health sciences has not resulted in a greater improvement in patient outcomes. Our experience as clinicians and researchers suggests that this frustration could be reduced if health sciences research were directed by 5 broad principles:(1) the needs of patients and populations determine the research agenda; (2) the research agenda addresses contextual and implementation issues, including the development of delivery and accountability systems; (3) the research agenda determines the research methods rather than methods determines the research agenda; (4) researchers and clinicians collaborate to defi ne the research agenda, allocate resources, and implement fi ndings; and (5) the level of funding for implementation research is commensurate with and proportional to the magnitude of the task. To keep the research agenda focused on the task of improving health and to acknowledge that the effort must be seen as more comprehensive than translating or transferring research into practice (TRIP), we suggest that the task be reframed, using the term optimizing practice through research. Ann Fam Med 2008;6:459-462. DOI: 10.1370/afm.862. INTRODUCTIONP olicy leaders are frustrated that recent discoveries in the health sciences have not been incorporated rapidly and completely into clinical or community practice.1 This frustration has led to the creation of the NIH Roadmap 2 and Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs).3 Although the task of improving quality through innovation in the delivery of health services is frequently described as "translating research into practice," or TRIP, 4 our experience as researchers and clinicians leads us to believe that conceptualizing the task in this way fails to describe the process that must be set in motion if research is to improve the health status of patients and populations. It also places undue emphasis on only one component of the mission of research in the health sciences, "pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems."5 To retain the focus of health sciences research on its ultimate mission, "to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability," 5 we suggest that the task be reframed, using the term optimizing practice through research, and we suggest that the task of improving health outcomes through research be based on 5 broad principles. IMPROVING HEALTH OUTCOMES THROUGH RESEARCH Principle 1. Needs of Patients and Populations Determine the Research AgendaBefore the development of highly sophisticated basic sciences, the health sciences research agenda was defi ned by the problems that clinicians faced OP T IMIZING PR AC T ICE T HROUGH R ESE A RCHin their daily practices. Today, there are indications that the research agenda is defi ned with little apparent regard for clinical or population epidemiology.6 Claude Lenfant, the former director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, expressed his concern ab...