Colonisation and its aftermath: reimagining global surgery.

Coloniality in global health manifests as systemic inequalities, not based on merit, that benefit one group at the expense of another. Global surgery seeks to advance equity by inserting surgery into the global health agenda; however, it inherits the biases in global health. As a diverse group of global surgery practitioners, we aimed to examine inequities in global surgery. Using a structured, iterative, group Delphi consensus-building process drawing on the literature and our lived experiences, we identified five categories of non-merit inequalities in global surgery. These include Western epistemology, geographies of inequity, unequal participation, resource extraction, and asymmetric power and control. We observed that global surgery is dominated by Western biomedicine, characterised by the lack of interprofessional and interspecialty collaboration, incorporation of Indigenous medical systems, and social, cultural, and environmental contexts. Global surgery is Western-centric and exclusive, with a unidirectional flow of personnel from the Global North to the Global South. There is unequal participation by location (Global South), gender (female), specialty (obstetrics and anaesthesia) and profession ('non-specialists', non-clinicians, patients and communities). Benefits, such as funding, authorship and education, mostly flow towards the Global North. Institutions in the Global North have disproportionate control over priority setting, knowledge production, funding and standards creation. This naturalises inequities and masks upstream resource extraction. Guided by these five categories, we concluded that shifting global surgery towards equity entails building inclusive, pluralist, polycentric models of surgical care by providers who represent the community, with resource controlled and governance driven by communities in each setting.

Improving access to safe, quality surgical care for gynecologic cancers through capacity-building interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Following the launch of the World Health Organization's Strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer, diagnosis is expected to increase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A well-integrated surgical system is critical to treat cervical cancer. Two major approaches have been employed to build human capacity: task-sharing and training of gynecologic oncologists (GynOncs). OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to explore existing literature on capacity-building for surgical management of early-stage gynecologic cancers. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy was registered on Open Science Framework (doi 10.17605/OSF.IO/GTRCB) and conducted on OVID Medline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and Web of Science. Search results were exported and screened in COVIDENCE. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies published in English, Spanish, French, and/or Portuguese conducted in LMIC settings evaluating capacity building, task-sharing, or outcomes following operation by subspecialists compared to specialists were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Results were synthesized using narrative synthesis approach with emergence of key themes by frequency. MAIN RESULTS: The scoping review identified 18 studies spanning our themes of interest: capacity building, subspecialized versus non-subspecialized care, and task-shifting/-sharing. CONCLUSIONS: A multilayered approach is critical to achieve the WHO Strategy to Eliminate Cervical Cancer. Capacity-building and task-sharing programs demonstrate encouraging results to meet this need; nevertheless, a standardized methodology is needed to evaluate these programs, their outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

Training in Ultrasound to Determine Gestational Age in Low- and Middle- Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Establishing an accurate gestational age is essential for the optimum management of pregnancy, delivery and neonatal care, with improved estimates of gestational age considered a public health priority by the World Health Organization (WHO). Although ultrasound is considered the most precise method to achieve this, it is unavailable to many women in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), where the lack of trained practitioners is considered a major barrier. This systematic review explores what initiatives have previously been undertaken to train staff to date pregnancies using ultrasound, which were successful and what barriers and facilitators influenced training. Methods: The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the protocol registered (PROSPERO CRD42019154619). Searches were last performed in July 2021. Studies were screened independently by two assessors, with data extracted by one and verified by the other. Both reviewers graded the methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Results were collated within prespecified domains, generating a narrative synthesis. Results: 25/1,262 studies were eligible for inclusion, all of which were programme evaluations. Eighteen were undertaken in Africa, three in South-East Asia, one in South America, and three across multiple sites, including those in Africa, Asia, and South America. Five programs specified criteria to pass, and within these 96% of trainees did so. Trainee follow up was undertaken in 18 studies. Ten met recommendations for training outlined by the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) but only 1 met the current standards set by the WHO. Discussion: This systematic review is the first to evaluate this topic and has uncovered major inconsistencies in the delivery and reporting of basic obstetric ultrasound training in LMICs, with the majority of programs not meeting minimum recommendations. By identifying these issues, we have highlighted key areas for improvement and made recommendations for reporting according to the RE-AIM framework. With an increasing focus on the importance of improving estimates of gestational age in LMICs, we believe these findings will be of significance to those seeking to develop and expand the provision of sustainable obstetric ultrasound in LMICs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019154619, PROSPERO CRD42019154619.