"Africans, we know how to adapt indeed": Adaptations to family planning and reproductive health services in humanitarian settings in Nigeria during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 30, 2020, the Government of Nigeria implemented its first COVID-19 related lockdown. We worked with two humanitarian projects in Nigeria, the Integrated Humanitarian Assistance to Northeast Nigeria (IHANN II) in Borno State and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees South-South Health and Nutrition Intervention (UNHCR-SS-HNIR) for Cameroon Refugees and vulnerable populations in Cross River State, to document the programmatic adaptations to Family Planning/Reproductive Health (FP/RH) services in response to COVID-19 and identify successes and challenges of those adaptations. A mixed methods approach including quantitative analysis of data from routine programmatic activities, qualitative data from in-depth interviews (IDIs) with project staff and process documentation of programmatic activities and modifications was used to 1) identify modifications in FP/RH services due to COVID-19, 2) understand staff perception of their utility and impact, and 3) gauge trends in key FP/RH in-service delivery indicators to assess changes prior to and after the March 2020 lockdown. Monitoring data shows notable declines in service utilization after lockdowns in antenatal care, postnatal care, and outreach campaigns, followed by a return to pre-lockdown levels by July 2020. Results show projects introduced numerous COVID-19 precaution strategies including: community sensitization; triage stations and modification of service flow in facilities; and appointment scheduling for essential services. Findings from IDIs speak to a well-coordinated and implemented COVID-19 response with project staff noting improvements in their time management and interpersonal communication skills. Lessons learned included the need to better sensitize and educate communities, maintain FP commodities and increase support provided to health workers. Deliberate adaptations in IHANN II and UNHCR-SS-HNIR projects turned challenges to opportunities, ensuring continuity of services to the most vulnerable populations.

WITHDRAWN: Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health. OBJECTIVES: Primary • To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Secondary • To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease are commonly occurring, preventable chronic conditions. Even though much is known about how to treat oral disease, currently we do not know which community-based population-level interventions are most effective and equitable in preventing poor oral health. OBJECTIVES: Primary • To determine the effectiveness of community-based population-level oral health promotion interventions in preventing dental caries and gingival and periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Secondary • To determine the most effective types of interventions (environmental, social, community and multi-component) and guiding theoretical frameworks.• To identify interventions that reduce inequality in oral health outcomes.• To examine the influence of context in the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from January 1996 to April 2014: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), ScienceDirect, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies were individual- and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental and interrupted time series. To be included, interventions had to target the primary outcomes: dental caries (measured as decayed, missing and filled deciduous teeth/surfaces, dmft/s; Decayed, Missing and Filled permanent teeth/surfaces, DMFT/S) and gingival or periodontal disease among children from birth to 18 years of age. Studies had to report on one or more of the primary outcomes at baseline and post intervention, or had to provide change scores for both intervention and control groups. Interventions were excluded if they were solely of a chemical nature (e.g. chlorhexidine, fluoride varnish), were delivered primarily in a dental clinical setting or comprised solely fluoridation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies (a team of six review authors - four review authors and two research assistants - assessed all studies). We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous data. When data permitted, we undertook meta-analysis of primary outcome measures using a fixed-effect model to summarise results across studies. We used the I2 statistic as a measure of statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes findings from 38 studies (total n = 119,789 children, including one national study of 99,071 children, which contributed 80% of total participants) on community-based oral health promotion interventions delivered in a variety of settings and incorporating a range of health promotion strategies (e.g. policy, educational activities, professional oral health care, supervised toothbrushing programmes, motivational interviewing). We categorised interventions as dietary interventions (n = 3), oral health education (OHE) alone (n = 17), OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste (n = 8) and OHE in combination with a variety of other interventions (including professional preventive oral health care, n = 10). Interventions generally were implemented for less than one year (n = 26), and only 11 studies were RCTs. We graded the evidence as having moderate to very low quality.We conducted meta-analyses examining impact on dental caries of each intervention type, although not all studies provided sufficient data to allow pooling of effects across similar interventions. Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence). Data were inadequate for meta-analyses on gingival health, although positive impact was reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact. We found no clear indication of when is the most effective time to intervene during childhood. Cost-effectiveness, long-term sustainability and equity of impacts and adverse outcomes were not widely reported by study authors, limiting our ability to make inferences on these aspects. More rigorous measurement and reporting of study results would improve the quality of the evidence.

Antipyretic measures for treating fever in malaria.

BACKGROUND: Fever is common in malaria, and drugs and sponging are widely used for symptomatic relief. Some researchers have suggested that fever reduction may prolong malaria illness. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether treatments to reduce fever in malaria influence the course of the illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Trial Register (June 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 6, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2012); EMBASE (1980 to June 2012) and LILACS (June 2012). We contacted researchers and organisations working in the field to enable us identify other unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of fever reduction measures in adults or children with confirmed malaria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria were independently applied by two authors. We extracted data from trials that met our pre-specified criteria using a standard data extraction form. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous data. GRADE was used to evaluate and summarize the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials with 990 participants including both adults and children met our inclusion criteria. All were small scale trials with methodological limitations and were conducted in a variety of patients. Some trials detected an impact of antipyretic drugs on fever clearance time, while others did not. Regarding parasite clearance,no clear influence of anti-pyresis was demonstrated (six trials, 423 participants, very low quality of evidence). No difference in the number or severity of adverse events between antipyretic drugs and control was detected. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know whether antipyretics alter parasite clearance time. Whether further trials are worthwhile to investigate this or not would require a judgement of whether this was an important question to resolve using interventional trials.

Priority setting for systematic review of health care interventions in Nigeria.

OBJECTIVES: In an era of evidence based medicine and systematic review, this study seeks to identify priority systematic review topics that address common health problems in Nigeria. METHODS: Firstly, a primary list of health problems was compiled from the National Health Management Information Systems and information from key informants (health professionals, researchers and NGOs) drawn from the six geo-political zones in Nigeria. Key steps included compilation and ranking of a comprehensive list of health problems into 4 categories: adult communicable, non-communicable, maternal and child health; searching the Cochrane Library and electronic databases for systematic reviews on identified priority problems, analysis of search outputs to identify gaps; listing and ranking of new priority systematic review topics using pre-determined criteria. RESULTS: Eighteen questions made the final list of priorities systematic reviews and 9 of them were related to malaria. There were 7 additional issues that the panelists identified as crucial cross-cutting issues that need to be addressed in systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Identification and prioritization of systematic reviews relevant to health care in Nigeria will improve the opportunity to deliver evidence-based and equitable health care to the people. These topics are likely to be also important for health care decision in other resource-poor settings.