Background & objectives:There has been more than 100 per cent increase in incidence of stroke in low- and middle-income countries including India from 1970-1979 to 2000-2008. Lack of reliable reporting mechanisms, heterogeneity in methodology, study population, and small sample size in existing epidemiological studies, make an accurate estimation of stroke burden in India challenging. We conducted a systematic review of epidemiologic studies on stroke conducted in India to document the magnitude of stroke.Methods:All population-based, cross-sectional studies and cohort studies from India which reported the stroke incidence rate or cumulative stroke incidence and/or the prevalence of stroke in participants from any age group were included. Electronic databases (Ovid, PubMed, Medline, Embase and IndMED) were searched and studies published during 1960 to 2015 were included. A total of 3079 independent titles were identified for screening, of which 10 population-based cross-sectional studies were considered eligible for inclusion. Given the heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not carried out.Results:The cumulative incidence of stroke ranged from 105 to 152/100,000 persons per year, and the crude prevalence of stroke ranged from 44.29 to 559/100,000 persons in different parts of the country during the past decade. These values were higher than those of high-income countries.Interpretation & conclusions:A paucity of good-quality epidemiological studies on stroke in India emphasizes the need for a coordinated effort at both the State and national level to study the burden of stroke in India. Future investment in the population-based epidemiological studies on stroke would lead to better preventive measures against stroke and better rehabilitation measures for stroke-related disabilities in the country.

Background Diabetic retinopathy (DR) can lead to visual impairment and blindness if not detected and treated in time. Knowing the barriers/enablers in advance in contrasting different country income settings may accelerate development of a successful DR screening (DRS) program. This would be especially applicable in the low-income settings with the rising prevalence of DR. Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to identify and contrast the barriers/enablers to DRS for different contexts using both consumers i.e., people with diabetes (PwDM) and provider perspectives and system level factors in different country income settings. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library from the databases start date to December 2018. We included the studies reported on barriers and enablers to access DRS services based at health care facilities. We categorised and synthesized themes related to the consumers (individuals), providers and the health systems (environment) as main dimensions according to the constructs of social cognitive theory, supported by the quantitative measures i.e., odds ratios as reported by each of the study authors. Main results We included 77 studies primarily describing the barriers and enablers. Most of the studies were from high income settings (72.7%, 56/77) and cross sectional in design (76.6%, 59/77). From the perspectives of consumers, lack of knowledge, attitude, awareness and motivation were identified as major barriers. The enablers were fear of blindness, proximity of screening facility, experiences of vision loss and being concerned of eye complications. In providers’ perspectives, lack of skilled human resources, training programs, infrastructure of retinal imaging and cost of services were the main barriers. Higher odds of uptake of DRS services was observed when PwDM were provided health education (odds ratio (OR) 4.3) and having knowledge on DR (OR range 1.3–19.7). Conclusion Knowing the barriers to access DRS is a pre-requisite in development of a successful screening program. The awareness, knowledge and attitude of the consumers, availability of skilled human resources and infrastructure emerged as the major barriers to access to DRS in any income setting.

People with disabilities may be disproportionally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We synthesize the literature on broader health and social impacts on people with disabilities arising from lockdown-related measures. Methods: Scoping review with thematic analysis. Up to mid-September 2020, seven scientific databases and three pre-print servers were searched to identify empirical or perspective papers addressing lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities. Snowballing searches and experts’ consultation also occurred. Two independent reviewers took eligibility decisions and performed data extractions. Results: Out of 1026 unique references, 85 addressed lockdown-related disparities experienced by people with disabilities. Ten primary and two central themes were identified: (1) Disrupted access to healthcare (other than for COVID-19); (2) Reduced physical activity leading to health and functional decline; (3) From physical distance and inactivity to social isolation and loneliness; (4) Disruption of personal assistance and community support networks; (5) Children with disabilities disproportionally affected by school closures; (6) Psychological consequences of disrupted routines, activities, and support; (7) Family and informal caregiver burden and stress; (8) Risks of maltreatment, violence, and self-harm; (9) Reduced employment and/or income exacerbating disparities; and (10) Digital divide in access to health, education, and support services. Lack of disability-inclusive response and emergency preparedness and structural, pre-pandemic disparities were the central themes. Conclusions: Lockdown-related measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic can disproportionally affect people with disabilities with broader impact on their health and social grounds. Lack of disability-inclusive response and emergency preparedness and pre-pandemic disparities created structural disadvantages, exacerbated during the pandemic. Both structural disparities and their pandemic ramifications require the development and implementation of disability-inclusive public health and policy measures.

BackgroundData shows that people with disability are more disadvantaged in accessing health, education and employment opportunities compared to people without a disability. There is a lack of credible documented evidence on health care access and barriers to access from India. The South India Disability Evidence (SIDE) Study was undertaken to understand the health needs of people with disabilities, and barriers to accessing health services.MethodsThe study was conducted in one district each in two States (Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka) in 2012. Appropriate age and sex-matched people without a disability were recruited to compare with people with disability who were identified through a population-based survey and available government disability records by trained key informants. These people were then examined by a medical team to confirm the diagnosis. Investigators administered questionnaire schedules to people with and without a disability to harness information on employment and health service access, utilization and barriers.ResultsA total of 839 people with disabilities and 1153 age and sex matched people without a disability, aged 18 years or more were included. People with disability had significantly lower employment rates. On univariate analysis, people with disability (18.4%) needed to visit a hospital significantly more often in the preceding year compared to people without a disability (8.8%) (X2- 40.0562; P < =0.001). However adjusted odds ratios did not show a statistically significant difference. Significant differences were also observed with respect to past hospitalization. People with disabilities had 4.6 times higher risk of suffering from diabetes and 5.8 times higher risk of suffering from depression compared to people without a disability and the risk was significantly higher in males compared to females with disability. People with disability faced significantly more barriers to accessing health services compared to people without a disability. Barriers included ignorance regarding availability of services, costs of services and transportation.ConclusionsThis study highlights the challenges that people with disability face in accessing health-care and employment opportunities. The study findings have public health implications and should be used for planning need-based appropriate strategies to improve health care access for people with disabilities.

Objectives To develop a protocol for a scoping review mapping as well as thematically analyzing the literature on the effect of, and responses to, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, focused on people with disabilities with other layers of individual vulnerability or social disadvantage. Methods We will search scientific databases (Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, AgeLine, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC) and preprint servers (MedRxiv, SocArXiv, PsyArXiv). Google searches, snowballing, and key-informant strategies were also used, including a focus on the gray literature (eg, official reports). Peer-reviewed and preprint publications will be covered in 6 languages, and the gray literature in English. Publications will be included if they address individuals with disabilities; the COVID-19 pandemic or subsequent socioeconomic or occupational effects; and individual or social vulnerabilities, including any form of discrimination, marginalization, or social disadvantage. Two independent reviewers will perform eligibility decisions and key data extractions. Beyond mapping the literature, the results will thematically analyze any disproportionate risks people with disabilities and other forms of vulnerability experience in terms of being infected by COVID-19, having severe health consequences, and facing negative socioeconomic effects. Actions taken or recommended to reduce identified inequalities will also be synthesized. Our entire research team, with diverse backgrounds, will be involved in the synthesis. Conclusions This review, which we plan to expedite, aims to inform policy makers, health authorities, disability advocates, and other stakeholders regarding the needs and ways to promote equity and disability-inclusive responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant socioeconomic shockwaves.

ObjectiveTo assess the rehabilitation needs of stroke survivors in Chennai, India, after discharge from the hospital.DesignMixed-methods research design.SettingHome-based.ParticipantsStroke survivors (n=50; mean age ± SD, 58.9±10.5y) and primary caregivers of these stroke survivors (n=50; mean age ± SD, 43.1±11.8y) took part in the quantitative survey. A subsample of stroke survivors (n=12), primary caregivers (n=10), and health care professionals (n=8) took part in the qualitative in-depth interviews.InterventionsNot applicable.Main Outcome MeasureRehabilitation needs after hospital discharge.ResultsAbout 82% of the needs expressed by stroke survivors and 92% of the needs expressed by caregivers indicated that they had a substantial need for information. The proportion of financial needs reported by the stroke survivors and the caregivers was 70% and 75%, respectively. The qualitative data revealed major gaps in access to stroke rehabilitation services. Service providers identified availability and affordability of services as key problems. Stroke survivors and their caregivers identified lack of information about stroke as major barriers to accessibility of stroke rehabilitation services. Caregivers expressed a tremendous need for support to manage family dynamics.ConclusionsThe study highlights a considerable unmet need for poststroke rehabilitation services. Given the lack of rehabilitation resources in India, developing an accessible, innovative, patient-centered, culturally sensitive rehabilitation intervention is of public health importance. It is crucial for low- and middle-income countries like India to develop technology-driven stroke rehabilitation strategies to meet the growing rehabilitation needs of stroke survivors.

BackgroundVisual impairment from diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an increasing global public health concern, which is preventable with screening and early treatment. Digital retinal imaging has become a preferred choice as it enables higher coverage of screening. The aim of this review is to evaluate how different characteristics of the DR screening (DRS) test impact on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and its relevance to a low-income setting.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search to identify clinic-based studies on DRS using digital retinal imaging of people with DM (PwDM). Summary estimates of different sub-groups were calculated using DTA values weighted according to the sample size. The DTA of each screening method was derived after exclusion of ungradable images and considering the eye as the unit of analysis. The meta-analysis included studies which measured DTA of detecting any level of DR. We also examined the effect on detection from using different combinations of retinal fields, pupil status, index test graders and setting.ResultsSix thousand six hundred forty-six titles and abstracts were retrieved, and data were extracted from 122 potentially eligible full reports. Twenty-six studies were included in the review, and 21 studies, mostly from high-income settings (18/21, 85.7%), were included in the meta-analysis. The highest sensitivity was observed in the mydriatic greater than two field strategy (92%, 95% CI 90–94%). The highest specificity was observed in greater than two field methods (94%, 95% CI 93–96%) where mydriasis did not affect specificity. Overall, there was no difference in sensitivity between non-mydriatic and mydriatic methods (86%, 95% CI 85–87) after exclusion of ungradable images. The highest DTA (sensitivity 90%, 95% CI 88–91%; specificity 95%, 95% CI 94–96%) was observed when screening was delivered at secondary/tertiary level clinics.ConclusionsNon-mydriatic two-field strategy could be a more pragmatic approach in starting DRS programmes for facility-based PwDM in low-income settings, with dilatation of the pupils of those who have ungradable images. There was insufficient evidence in primary studies to draw firm conclusions on how graders’ background influences DTA. Conducting more context-specific DRS validation studies in low-income and non-ophthalmic settings can be recommended.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0846-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This study aims to synthesize the literature on any disproportionate health risks or consequences of a COVID-19 infection for people with disabilities. Scoping review with a descriptive thematic analysis was carried out. Up to mid-September 2020, seven scientific databases and three preprint servers were searched to identify empirical or perspective papers. Snowballing searches and expert’ consultations also took place. Two independent reviewers were used for the screenings and data extractions. Of 1027 references, 58 were included, 15 of which were empirical articles. The thematic analysis showed that: (1) People with disabilities living in residential or long-term care facilities were more likely to have greater infection rates; (2) Intersecting mediators of greater infection risks were multiple (e.g., lack of accessible information); (3) People with disabilities often face greater health problems when infected; and (4) Unethical disadvantages in the rationing of lifesaving and critical care can be experienced by people with disabilities. Conclusions: Beyond any health-related vulnerabilities (e.g., comorbidity rates), multiple yet modifiable environmental factors can provide disproportionate health risks and consequences of a COVID-19 infection for people with disabilities. Public health and policy measures must prevent or reduce modifiable environmental risks.