Participatory approaches to programme design, planning and early implementation: experiences from a safe surgery project in Nigeria.

MOMENTUM Safe Surgery in Family Planning and Obstetrics is a global project that strengthens surgical ecosystems through partnership with country institutions. In Nigeria, the project implements in Bauchi, Ebonyi, Kebbi and Sokoto states and the Federal Capital Territory, focusing on surgical obstetrics, holistic fistula care and female genital mutilation/cutting prevention and care. The project utilized participatory approaches during its design, planning and early implementation phases. During the design phase, the project employed a co-creation process featuring a desk review, key informant interviews and stakeholder workshops at community, facility, and government levels to actively listen to, identify and incorporate local perspectives on surgical ecosystem gaps and priorities. Initial findings, shared at state- and national-level workshops, helped collectively identify and prioritize context-specific interventions. The resulting co-created workplan features interventions to strengthen surgical services based on the National Surgical, Obstetrics, Anaesthesia and Nursing Plan (NSOANP). Upon workplan approval, the planning phase involved meeting with each State Ministry of Health (MOH) to prioritize workplan interventions for implementation and to define the finer details needed to drive early implementation processes. Preliminary achievements during early implementation include state commitments to include a costed facility NSOANP in 2023 annual operational plans, mitigation of health facility staffing shortages and review of national fistula and surgical Health Management Information System indicator data flow and advocacy to the Federal MOH resulting in improved fistula data quality and availability. Well-established state and national systems, structures, policies and guidelines enable this programming approach. Since communication between institutional actors is often limited, these approaches necessitate building and maintaining relationships and knowledge-sharing, which requires a significant up-front time investment that must be balanced with donor/partner desires for rapid deliverables. Linking different actors within the health system together through co-creation/co-implementation represents a crucial step in building sustainable country ownership and oversight for surgical ecosystems strengthening interventions.

Down But Not Out: Vasectomy Is Faring Poorly Almost Everywhere-We Can Do Better To Make It A True Method Option.

INTRODUCTION: Demand for vasectomy-1 of 2 contraceptive methods for men-has been low, with deep-seated myths, misconceptions, and provider bias against it widespread. Programmatic attention and donor funding have been limited and sporadic. METHODS: We analyzed vasectomy use in 84 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) plus the 11 high-income countries with vasectomy prevalence above 1%. These 95 countries comprise 90% of the world's population. Data come from United Nations survey compilations, population estimates, and gender inequality rankings. We also reviewed recent articles on vasectomy and analyses of chronic challenges to vasectomy service provision. RESULTS: Vasectomy use is 61% lower now than 2 decades ago. Of 922 million women using contraception worldwide, 17 million rely on vasectomy-27 million fewer than in 2001. In contrast, 219 million women use tubectomy-8 million more than in 2001. Of 84 LMICs, 7 report vasectomy prevalence above 2%. In 56 LMICs, no more than 1 in 1,000 women relies on vasectomy. Female-to-male disparities in permanent method use widened globally, from 5:1 to 13:1, and are much higher in some regions and countries (e.g., 76:1 in India). Countries with the highest vasectomy prevalence are among those with the highest gender equality and vice versa. CONCLUSION: Vasectomy use is surprisingly low globally and declining. Use remains negligible in almost all LMICs, reflecting low demand and program priority. For vasectomy to become an accessible, rights-based option, program efforts need to be holistic, ensuring an enabling environment while coordinating demand- and service-focused efforts. Vasectomy champions at all levels should be supported on a sustained basis. On the demand side, harnessing mass and social media to increase accurate knowledge and normalize vasectomy as a method and service will be particularly valuable. Evidence from Bolivia suggests relatively few trained providers and procedures could result in a country's attaining 1% vasectomy prevalence.

Utilization of rapid response resources and outcomes in a comprehensive cancer center*.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences in characteristics and outcomes of cancer center patients with other subspecialty medical patients reviewed by rapid response teams. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of hospitalized general medicine patients, subspecialty medicine patients, and oncology patients requiring rapid response team activation over a 2-year period from September 2009 to August 2011. PATIENTS: Five hundred fifty-seven subspecialty medical patients required rapid response team intervention. SETTING: A single academic medical center in the southeastern United States (800+ bed) with a dedicated 50-bed inpatient comprehensive cancer care center. INTERVENTIONS: Data abstraction from computerized medical records and a hospital quality improvement rapid response database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 557 patients, 135 were cancer center patients. Cancer center patients had a significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Score (4.4 vs 2.9, < 0.001). Cancer center patients had a significantly longer hospitalization period prior to rapid response team activation (11.4 vs 6.1 d, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between proportions of patients requiring ICU transfer between the two groups (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.8). Cancer center patients had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with the other subspecialty medical patients (33% vs 18%; odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.50-3.5). If the rapid response team event required an ICU transfer, this finding was more pronounced (56% vs 23%; odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.0-7.8). The utilization of rapid response team resources during the 2-year period studied was also much higher for the oncology patients with 37.34 activations per 1,000 patient discharges compared with 20.86 per 1,000 patient discharges for the general medical patients. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology patients requiring rapid response team activation have a significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate, particularly if the rapid response team requires ICU transfer. Oncology patients also utilize rapid response team resources at a much higher rate.