Understanding cultural and logistical contexts for urologists in low‐income countries

Abstract

The provision of effective urological management in low-and middle-income countries requires the delivery of appropriate and effective care adapted to the needs, capability and resources of the host country. However, a deeper cognisance of the culture, the religious practices and the logistics of healthcare in that environment determines the ability to effectively to 'twin', that is, to provide a long-term healthcare partnership. Patient beliefs can have profound effects on the understanding of the aetiology of illness, its relevance to their long-term health and the stigmatization of their family's social status. Consequently, individuals may have a greater willingness to seek help from practitioners of traditional medicine due to its availability as well as the lower costs of such medicine by comparison to those of medicine from highincome countries (HICs). This can influence the treatment of many urological conditions and lead to late-presenting states such as malignant ureteric obstruction. Social mores, such as cultural paternalism, can also influence many practices that are assumed by HICs to be part of normal healthcare provision, including the delivery of patient information and provision of informed consent to treatment. Doctor's status and dress have greater importance in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA) than in the UK and the modes of greeting and addressing colleagues and patients can affect the fluency and effectiveness of clinical interactions. A local cultural and religious knowledge is essential, therefore, to optimize the assimilation of external help. Logistics are perhaps the most important factor that needs to be grasped to provide a sustainable healthcare environment. Limitations in resource allocation are a major factor in planning effective urological treatment in many countries in sSA, whether this is the provision of trained personnel, basic infrastructure, a tenable workspace, equipment or drugs. This paper explores all of these factors, and looks at how their recognition assists urologists in providing a twinning process.

The feasibility of endourological surgery in low‐resource settings

“…The prime purpose of this article is to look at how urological endoscopic surgery has been taught to date, whether this has become a sustainable part of a LMIC surgeon’s repertoire and how it can be utilised beneficially without having deleterious effects on the healthcare economy of resource‐poor healthcare environments. It is written by a panel of urologists who have experience of working in countries varying from Sri Lanka, which is a middle‐income country with a free public health service, to a number of countries across SSA where surgery is often prohibitively expensive to the individual, where no healthcare system exists or is rudimentary [10], or where it is inaccessible for various cultural, religious, or logistic reasons [11].…”