Factors Influencing the Integration of Traditional Medicine and Mainstream Medicine in Mental Health Services in West Africa: A Systematic Review Using Narrative Synthesis.

This study explored the enablers and obstacles to the integration of traditional medicine and mainstream medicine in mental health services in West Africa. This study is a systematic review conducted in accordance with the relevant parts of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses. Keywords searches were done in databases, and other reference lists were also searched. The Rainbow model of integrated care and a thematic analysis framework were used to account for the factors influencing the integration of traditional medicine and mainstream medicine in mental health services in West Africa. A total of 12 studies met the eligibility criteria after the evaluation of 6413 articles from databases and reference lists. The themes of: policy and implementation; different conceptualisation of mental health/referrals; trust issues, and education and training, were enablers or obstacles of integration depending on how they worked to facilitate or hinder integration. There was an indication of little integration of TM and MM at the macro, meso and micro levels in mental health services in West Africa. Though the study does cover all the West African states evenly, it is recommended that policy-makers and stakeholders interested in integration should ensure integration activities, especially policies, cut across all the levels of the rainbow model of integrated care and are planned and aligned at the macro, meso and micro levels instead of using ad hoc measures, informal initiatives or placing TM services in MM mental health services, which do not amount to integration.

Factors Associated with the Implementation of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions for Reducing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review.

There has been much discussion recently about the importance of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to protect the public from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Different governments across the world have adopted NPIs (e.g., social distancing, quarantine, isolation, lockdowns, curfews, travel restrictions, closures of schools and colleges). Two fundamental strategies, namely a strict containment strategy-also called suppression strategy-and a mitigation strategy have been adopted in different countries, mainly to reduce the reproduction number (R0) to below one and hence to reduce case numbers to low levels or eliminate human-to-human transmission, as well as to use NPIs to interrupt transmission completely and to reduce the health impact of epidemics, respectively. However, the adoption of these NPI strategies is varied and the factors impacting NPI are inconsistent and unclear. This study, therefore, aimed to review the factors associated with the implementation of NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) for reducing COVID-19. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched for published and unpublished studies, undertaking a systematic search of: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, and Google Scholar. Thirty-three studies were included in the study. Seven descriptive themes emerged on enablers and barriers to NPIs: the positive impact of NPIs, effective public health interventions, positive change in people's behaviour and concerns about COVID-19, the role of mass media, physical and psychological impacts, and ethnicity/age associated with COVID-19. This study has highlighted that the effectiveness of NPIs in isolation is likely to be limited, therefore, a combination of multiple measures e.g., SD, isolation and quarantine, and workplace distancing appeared more effective in reducing COVID-19. Studies suggest that targeted approaches alongside social distancing might be the way forward, and more acceptable. Further research to promote country- and context-specific adoption of NPIs to deliver public health measures is needed. Studies comparing the effectiveness of interventions and strategies will help provide more evidence for future pandemics.

Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020207338.

A systematic review of the factors - enablers and barriers - affecting e-learning in health sciences education.

BACKGROUND: Recently, much attention has been given to e-learning in higher education as it provides better access to learning resources online, utilising technology - regardless of learners' geographical locations and timescale - to enhance learning. It has now become part of the mainstream in education in the health sciences, including medical, dental, public health, nursing, and other allied health professionals. Despite growing evidence claiming that e-learning is as effective as traditional means of learning, there is very limited evidence available about what works, and when and how e-learning enhances teaching and learning. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise the factors - enablers and barriers - affecting e-learning in health sciences education (el-HSE) that have been reported in the medical literature. METHODS: A systemic review of articles published on e-learning in health sciences education (el-HSE) was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Global Health, from 1980 through 2019, using 'Textword' and 'Thesaurus' search terms. All original articles fulfilling the following criteria were included: (1) e-learning was implemented in health sciences education, and (2) the investigation of the factors - enablers and barriers - about el-HSE related to learning performance or outcomes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, both relevant published and unpublished papers were searched. Data were extracted and quality appraised using QualSyst tools, and synthesised performing thematic analysis. RESULTS: Out of 985 records identified, a total of 162 citations were screened, of which 57 were found to be of relevance to this study. The primary evidence base comprises 24 papers, with two broad categories identified, enablers and barriers, under eight separate themes: facilitate learning; learning in practice; systematic approach to learning; integration of e-learning into curricula; poor motivation and expectation; resource-intensive; not suitable for all disciplines or contents, and lack of IT skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified the factors which impact on e-learning: interaction and collaboration between learners and facilitators; considering learners' motivation and expectations; utilising user-friendly technology; and putting learners at the centre of pedagogy. There is significant scope for better understanding of the issues related to enablers and facilitators associated with e-learning, and developing appropriate policies and initiatives to establish when, how and where they fit best, creating a broader framework for making e-learning effective.