Background: Maternal and perinatal mortality are major problems for which progress in subSaharan Africa has been inadequate, even though childbirth services are available, even in the poorest countries. Reducing them is the aim of two of the main Millennium Development Goals. Many initiatives have been undertaken to remedy this situation, such as the Advances in Labour and Risk Management (ALARM) International Program, whose purpose is to improve the quality of obstetric services in low-income countries. However, few interventions have been evaluated, in this context, using rigorous methods for analyzing effectiveness in terms of health outcomes. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the ALARM International Program (AIP) in reducing maternal mortality in referral hospitals in Senegal and Mali. Secondary goals include evaluation of the relationships between effectiveness and resource availability, service organization, medical practices, and satisfaction among health personnel.

BackgroundDuring the 2013–2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak, supportive care was the only non-experimental treatment option for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). However, providing care that would otherwise be routine for most clinical settings in the context of a highly contagious and lethal pathogen is much more challenging. The objective of this study was to document and deepen understanding of barriers to provision of supportive care in Ebola treatment units (ETUs) as perceived by those involved in care delivery during the outbreak.MethodsThis qualitative study consisted of 29 in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (decision-makers, physicians, nurses) involved in patient care delivery during the outbreak. Analysis consisted of interview debriefing and team-based transcript coding in NVivo10 software using thematic analysis.FindingsParticipants emphasized three interconnected barriers to providing high-quality supportive care during the outbreak: 1) lack of material and human resources in ETUs; 2) ETU organizational structure limiting the provision of supportive clinical care; and 3) delayed and poorly coordinated policies limiting the effectiveness of global and national responses. Participants also noted the ethical complexities of defining and enacting best clinical practices in low-income countries. They noted tension between, on one hand, scaling up minimal care and investing in clinical care preparedness to a level sustainable in West Africa and, on the other, providing a higher level of supportive care, which in low-resource health systems would require important investments.ConclusionOur findings identified potentially modifiable barriers to the delivery of supportive care to patients with EVD in West Africa. Addressing these in the inter-outbreak period will be useful to improve patient care and outcomes during inevitable future outbreaks. Promoting community trust and engagement through long-term capacity building of the healthcare workforce and infrastructure would increase both health system resilience and ability to handle other outbreaks of emerging diseases.

No abstract

Background and Objectives: There is a limited evidentiary base on the development of family medicine in different contexts and countries. The lack of evidence impedes our ability to compare and characterize family medicine models and identify areas of success that have led to the effective provision of care. This paper offers a comparative compilation and analysis of the development of family medicine training programs in seven countries: Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, and Mali. Methods: Using qualitative case studies, this paper examines the process of developing family medicine programs, including enabling strategies and barriers, and shared lessons. An appreciative inquiry framework and complex adaptive systems thinking inform our qualitative study. Results: Committed partnerships, the contribution of champions, health policy, and adaptability were identified as key enablers in all seven case studies. The case studies further reveal that some enablers were more salient in certain contexts as compared to others, and that it is the interaction of enablers that is crucial for understanding how and why initiatives succeeded. The barriers that emerged across the seven case studies include: (1) resistance from other medical specialties, (2) lack of resources and capabilities, (3) difficulty in sustaining support of champions, and (4) challenges in brokering effective partnerships. Conclusions: A key insight from this study is that the implementation of family medicine is nonlinear, dynamic, and complex. The findings of this comparative analysis offer insights and strategies that can inform the design and development of family medicine programs elsewhere.

During the Ebola outbreak, mortality reduction was attributed to multiple improvements in supportive care delivered in Ebola treatment units (ETUs). We aimed to identify high-priority supportive care measures, as well as perceived barriers and facilitators to their implementation, for patients with Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). We conducted a cross-sectional survey of key stakeholders involved in the response to the 2014–2016 West African EVD outbreak. Out of 57 email invitations, 44 responses were received, and 29 respondents completed the survey. The respondents listed insufficient numbers of health workers (23/29, 79%), improper tools for the documentation of clinical data (n = 22/28, 79%), insufficient material resources (n = 22/29, 76%), and unadapted personal protective equipment (n = 20/28, 71%) as the main barriers to the provision of supportive care in ETUs. Facilitators to the provision of supportive care included team camaraderie (n in agreement = 25/28, 89%), ability to speak the local language (22/28, 79%), and having treatment protocols in place (22/28, 79%). This survey highlights a consensus across various stakeholders involved in the response to the 2014–2016 EVD outbreak on a limited number of high-priority supportive care interventions for clinical practice guidelines. Identified barriers and facilitators further inform the application of guidelines.