Candida albicans-A systematic review to inform the World Health Organization Fungal Priority Pathogens List.

Candida albicans is a common fungal pathogen and amongst the leading causes of invasive candidiasis globally. This systematic review examines the characteristics and global impact of invasive infections caused by C. albicans. We searched on PubMed and Web of Science for studies reporting on criteria such as mortality, morbidity, drug resistance, preventability, yearly incidence, and distribution/emergence during the period from 2016 to 2021. Our findings indicate that C. albicans is the most common Candida species causing invasive disease and that standard infection control measures are the primary means of prevention. However, we found high rates of mortality associated with infections caused by C. albicans. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on complications and sequelae. Resistance to commonly used antifungals remains rare. Although, whilst generally susceptible to azoles, we found some evidence of increasing resistance, particularly in middle-income settings-notably, data from low-income settings were limited. Candida albicans remains susceptible to echinocandins, amphotericin B, and flucytosine. We observed evidence of a decreasing proportion of infections caused by C. albicans relative to other Candida species, although detailed epidemiological studies are needed to confirm this trend. More robust data on attributable mortality, complications, and sequelae are needed to understand the full extent of the impact of invasive C. albicans infections.

From Local Action to Global Policy: A Comparative Policy Content Analysis of National Policies to Address Musculoskeletal Health to Inform Global Policy Development.

BACKGROUND: Global policy to guide action on musculoskeletal (MSK) health is in a nascent phase. Lagging behind other non-communicable diseases (NCDs) there is currently little global policy to assist governments to develop national approaches to MSK health. Considering the importance of comparison and learning for global policy development, we aimed to perform a comparative analysis of national MSK policies to identify areas of innovation and draw common themes and principles that could guide MSK health policy. METHODS: Multi-modal search strategy incorporating a systematic online search targeted at the 30 most populated nations; a call to networked experts; a specified question in a related eDelphi questionnaire; and snowballing methods. Extracted data were organised using an a priori framework adapted from the World Health Organization (WHO) Building Blocks and further inductive coding. Subsequently, texts were open coded and thematically analysed to derive specific sub-themes and principles underlying texts within each theme, serving as abstracted, transferable concepts for future global policy. RESULTS: The search yielded 165 documents with 41 retained after removal of duplicates and exclusions. Only three documents were comprehensive national strategies addressing MSK health. The most common conditions addressed in the documents were pain (non-cancer), low back pain, occupational health, inflammatory conditions, and osteoarthritis. Across eight categories, we derived 47 sub-themes with transferable principles that could guide global policy for: service delivery; workforce; medicines and technologies; financing; data and information systems; leadership and governance; citizens, consumers and communities; and research and innovation. CONCLUSION: There are few examples of national strategic policy to address MSK health; however, many countries are moving towards this by documenting the burden of disease and developing policies for MSK services. This review found a breadth of principles that can add to this existing work and may be adopted to develop comprehensive system-wide MSK health approaches at national and global levels.

What guides back pain care? A content analysis of low back pain directives in the Australian context.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major cause of disease burden around the world. There is known clinical variation in how LBP is treated and addressed; with one cited reason the lack of availability, or use of, evidence-based guidance for clinicians, consumers, and administrators. Despite this a considerable number of policy directives such as clinical practice guidelines, models of care and clinical tools with the aim of improving quality of LBP care do exist. Here we report on the development of a repository of LBP directives developed in the Australian health system and a content analysis of those directives aimed at deepening our understanding of the guidance landscape. Specifically, we sought to determine: (1) What is the type, scale, and scope of LBP directives available? (2) Who are the key stakeholders that drive low back pain care through directives? (3) What content do they cover? (4) What are their gaps and deficiencies? METHODS: We used online web search and snowballing methods to collate a repository of LBP policy documents collectively called 'directives' including Models of Care (MOC), information sheets, clinical tools, guidelines, surveys, and reports, from the last 20 years. The texts of the directives were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis adopting methods from descriptive policy content analysis to categorise and analyse content to determine origins, actors, and themes. RESULTS: Eighty-four directives were included in our analysis. Of those, 55 were information sheets aimed at either healthcare providers or patients, nine were clinical tools, three were reports, four were guidelines, four were MOC, two were questionnaires and five were referral forms/criteria. The three main categories of content found in the directives were 1. Low back pain features 2. Standards for clinical encounters and 3. Management of LBP, each of which gave rise to different themes and subthemes. Universities, not-for-profit organizations, government organisations, hospitals/Local Health Districts, professional organisations, consumers, and health care insurers were all involved in the production of policy directives. However, there were no clear patterns of roles, responsibilities or authority between these stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: Directives have the potential to inform practice and to contribute to reducing evidence-policy-practice discordance. Documents in our repository demonstrate that while a range of directives exist across Australia, but the evidence base for many was not apparent. Qualitative content analysis of the directives showed that while there has been increasing attention given to models of care, this is not yet reflected in directives, which generally focus on more specific elements of LBP care at the individual patient and practitioner level. The sheer number and variety of directives, from a wide range of sources and various locations within the Australian health system suggests a fragmented policy landscape without clear authoritative sources. There is a need for clearer, easily accessible trustworthy policy directives that are regularly reviewed and that meet the needs of care providers, and information websites need to be evaluated regularly for their evidence-based nature and quality.

What's the low back pain problem represented to be? An analysis of discourse of the Australian policy directives.

PURPOSE: Low back pain (LBP) directives provide information about how LBP should be managed, communicated and navigated in complex health systems, making them an important form of policy. This study aimed to examine how LBP is problematised (represented) in Australian directives. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We employed an analysis of discourse of LBP directives drawing on Bacchi's "What's the problem represented to be?" policy problematisation approach. RESULTS: Our analysis suggests that LBP is problematised as a symptom that tends to improve when individuals take responsibility for themselves, but may require care at times. The way in which LBP is represented in the directives excludes important aspects, such as the uncertainties of scientific knowledge, paradigms other than (post)positivist, multimorbidity, social and structural determinants of health. CONCLUSION: LBP directives may benefit from problematisations of LBP that consider the ongoing nature of LBP and broader contextual factors that impact on both LBP outcomes and care, beyond individual responsibility. Consideration of a wider range of paradigms and expanded evidence base may also be beneficial, as these are likely to enable individuals, clinicians and the Australian healthcare system to address LBP while dealing with its complexities, enabling real-world changes to lessen the LBP burden.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONHealthcare professionals who work with people who experience low back pain (LBP) may benefit from critically reflecting about discourses embedded in policy directives.Healthcare professionals may consider engaging in policy changes processes to expand the discourses on which LBP policy directives rely.Healthcare professionals' ability to enact policy recommendations may be enhanced by consideration of the fluctuating nature of LBP, uncertainties, multimorbidity and determinants of health.

Implementation Initiatives to Improve Low Back Pain Care in Australia: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to comprehensively review strategies for implementation of low back pain (LBP) guidelines, policies, and models of care in the Australian health care system. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and Web of Science to identify studies that aimed to implement or integrate evidence-based interventions or practices to improve LBP care within Australian settings. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies targeted primary care settings (n = 13). Other settings included tertiary care (n = 4), community (n = 4), and pharmacies (n = 3). One study targeted both primary and tertiary care settings (n = 1). Only 40% of the included studies reported an underpinning framework, model, or theory. The implementation strategies most frequently used were evaluative and iterative strategies (n = 14, 56%) and train and educate stakeholders (n = 13, 52%), followed by engage consumers (n = 6, 24%), develop stakeholder relationships (n = 4, 16%), change in infrastructure (n = 4, 16%), and support clinicians (n = 3, 12%). The most common implementation outcomes considered were acceptability (n = 11, 44%) and adoption (n = 10, 40%), followed by appropriateness (n = 7, 28%), cost (n = 3, 12%), feasibility (n = 1, 4%), and fidelity (n = 1, 4%). Barriers included time constraints, funding, and teamwork availability. Facilitators included funding and collaboration between stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation research targeting LBP appears to be a young field, mostly focusing on training and educating stakeholders in primary care. Outcomes on sustainability and penetration of evidence-based interventions are lacking. There is a need for implementation research guided by established frameworks that consider interrelationships between organizational and system contexts beyond the clinician-patient dyad.

Health systems strengthening to arrest the global disability burden: empirical development of prioritised components for a global strategy for improving musculoskeletal health.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the profound burden of disease, a strategic global response to optimise musculoskeletal (MSK) health and guide national-level health systems strengthening priorities remains absent. Auspiced by the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health (G-MUSC), we aimed to empirically derive requisite priorities and components of a strategic response to guide global and national-level action on MSK health. METHODS: Design: mixed-methods, three-phase design.Phase 1: qualitative study with international key informants (KIs), including patient representatives and people with lived experience. KIs characterised the contemporary landscape for MSK health and priorities for a global strategic response.Phase 2: scoping review of national health policies to identify contemporary MSK policy trends and foci.Phase 3: informed by phases 1-2, was a global eDelphi where multisectoral panellists rated and iterated a framework of priorities and detailed components/actions. RESULTS: Phase 1: 31 KIs representing 25 organisations were sampled from 20 countries (40% low and middle income (LMIC)). Inductively derived themes were used to construct a logic model to underpin latter phases, consisting of five guiding principles, eight strategic priority areas and seven accelerators for action.Phase 2: of the 165 documents identified, 41 (24.8%) from 22 countries (88% high-income countries) and 2 regions met the inclusion criteria. Eight overarching policy themes, supported by 47 subthemes, were derived, aligning closely with the logic model.Phase 3: 674 panellists from 72 countries (46% LMICs) participated in round 1 and 439 (65%) in round 2 of the eDelphi. Fifty-nine components were retained with 10 (17%) identified as essential for health systems. 97.6% and 94.8% agreed or strongly agreed the framework was valuable and credible, respectively, for health systems strengthening. CONCLUSION: An empirically derived framework, co-designed and strongly supported by multisectoral stakeholders, can now be used as a blueprint for global and country-level responses to improve MSK health and prioritise system strengthening initiatives.