Disparities in hepatitis B virus healthcare service access among marginalised poor populations: a mixed-method systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Marginalised poor populations, characterised by poverty and social exclusion, suffer disproportionately from hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections and encounter substantial disparities in access to healthcare. This has further exacerbated the global HBV burden and precluded progress towards HBV elimination. This mixed-method systematic review aimed to synthesise their utilisation and influencing factors in HBV healthcare services, including screening, vaccination, treatment, and linkage-to-care. METHODS: Eleven databases were searched from their inception to May 4, 2023. Quantitative and qualitative studies examining the factors influencing HBV healthcare access among marginalised poor populations were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesise the pooled rates of HBV healthcare utilisation. The factors influencing utilisation were integrated and visualised using a health disparity research framework. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included involving 13,171 marginalised poor individuals: sex workers, rural migrant workers, irregular immigrants, homeless adults, and underprivileged individuals. Their utilisation of HBV healthcare ranged from 1.5% to 27.5%. Meta-analysis showed that the pooled rate of at least one dose of the HBV vaccine barely reached 37% (95% confidence interval: 0.26‒0.49). Fifty-one influencing factors were identified, with sociocultural factors (n = 19) being the most frequently reported, followed by behavioural (n = 14) and healthcare system factors (n = 11). Socio-cultural barriers included immigration status, prison history, illegal work, and HBV discrimination. Behavioural domain factors, including previous testing for sexually transmitted diseases, residential drug treatment, and problem-solving coping, facilitated HBV healthcare access, whereas hostility coping exerted negative influences. Healthcare system facilitators comprised HBV health literacy, beliefs, and physician recommendations, whereas barriers included service inaccessibility and insurance inadequacies. The biological and physical/built environments were the least studied domains, highlighting that geographical mobility, shelter capacity, and access to humanitarian health centres affect HBV healthcare for marginalised poor populations. CONCLUSIONS: Marginalised poor populations encounter substantial disparities in accessing HBV healthcare, highlighting the need for a synergistic management approach, including deploying health education initiatives to debunk HBV misperceptions, developing integrated HBV management systems for continuous tracking, conducting tailored community outreach programmes, and establishing a human rights-based policy framework to guarantee the unfettered access of marginalised poor populations to essential HBV services.

Identifying the barriers and facilitators to implementation of ventilator bundle in the nepalese intensive care unit: A descriptive qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A ventilator bundle is an effective preventive strategy against the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). However, in clinical practice ventilator bundle implementation is poor. Understanding the barriers to ventilator bundle implementation in low- and middle-income countries can inform the development of effective implementation strategies to reduce the burden of VAP. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of ventilator bundle implementation perceived by healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in intensive care units (ICU) in Nepal. The secondary objective was to prioritise the barriers when developing implementation strategies. METHODS: This study used a pragmatic approach comprising a series of methods to identify the implementation strategies: (i) Barriers and facilitators were explored using a qualitative study design. Twenty-one HCPs selected using the maximum variation sampling technique from a large tertiary hospital, completed semistructured interviews. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed word-by-word, and uploaded into NVivo for analysis using the thematic analysis approach. (ii) After analysis, nine participants were selecteded to determine the priority order of the barriers using a barrier identification and mitigation tool. RESULTS: The data analysis revealed five main themes and 19 subthemes that affected ventilator bundle implementation. The main themes were provider-related factors, organisational and practice-related factors, performances of work, environmental conditions, and patient-related factors. The common barriers were job insecurity, poor knowledge, negative attitude, insufficient equipment, and severity of patient disease. Common facilitators were educational training, equipment functioning, adequate staff, strong leadership, and organisational support. Finally, eight main barriers were prioritised to target the change. CONCLUSION: The barriers to implementing ventilator bundles in ICUs were identified. Focussing on addressing the prioritised barriers may aid in improving patient care and safety in ICUs. Results may guide HCPs in the development of implementation strategies to reduce the burden of VAP.

Effects of ventilatory bundles on patient outcomes among ICU patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator bundles are suggested to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), but significant variations in the effects of the bundle on patient outcomes have been reported. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the evidence and evaluate the effects of the ventilator bundle on patient outcomes among critically ill adult patients. METHODS: A broad search was performed in seven databases for relevant articles published from January 2002 to November 2022. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies investigating the effects of implementing ventilator bundles in adult intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. All data for meta-analysis were pooled using the random-effects model. RESULTS: After screening, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence of low-to-moderate certainty showed that the ventilator bundle reduced the rate of VAP (risk ratio [RR] = 0.64; P = 0.003), length of ICU stay (mean difference [MD] = -2.57; P = 0.03), mechanical ventilation days (MD = -3.38; P < 0.001), and ICU mortality (RR = 0.76; P = 0.02). Ventilator bundle was associated with improved outcomes, except mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The ventilator bundle, especially the IHI ventilator bundle, was effective in decreasing the incidence of VAP and improving most of the VAP-related outcomes. However, given the low-to-moderate certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity, these results should be interpreted with caution. A future study that adopts hybrid implementation trials with high methodological quality is needed to confirm the effects of the ventilator bundle on patient outcomes.

Multifaceted interventions are likely to be more effective to increase adherence to the ventilator care bundle: A systematic review of strategies to improve care bundle compliance.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of ventilator care bundles has remained suboptimal. However, it is unclear whether improving adherence has a positive relationship with patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective implementation strategies to improve adherence to ventilator bundles and to investigate the relationship between adherence to ventilator bundles and patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search from the inception of ventilator care bundles 2001 to January 2021 of relevant databases, screening and data extraction according to Cochrane methodology. RESULTS: In total, 6035 records were screened, and 24 studies met the eligibility criteria. The implementation strategies were provider-level interventions (n = 15), included educational activities, checklist, and audit/feedback. Organizational-level interventions include (n = 8) included change of medical record system and multidisciplinary team. System-level intervention (n = 1) had motivation and reward. The most common strategies were education, checklists, audit feedback, which are probably effective in improving adherence. We could not perform a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of the strategies and types of adherence measurement. Most studies (n = 7) had a high risk of bias. There were some conflicting results in determining the associations between adherence and patient outcomes because of the poor quality of the studies. CONCLUSION: Multifaceted interventions are likely to be effective for consistent improvement in adherence. It remains uncertain whether improvements in adherence have positive outcomes on patients due to limited evidence of low to moderate uncertainty. We recommend the need for robust research methodology to assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies on improving adherence and patient outcomes.