Multisectoral interventions for urban health in Africa: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Increasing evidence suggests that urban health objectives are best achieved through a multisectoral approach. This approach requires multiple sectors to consider health and well-being as a central aspect of their policy development and implementation, recognising that numerous determinants of health lie outside (or beyond the confines of) the health sector. However, collaboration across sectors remains scarce and multisectoral interventions to support health are lacking in Africa. To address this gap in research, we conducted a mixed-method systematic review of multisectoral interventions aimed at enhancing health, with a particular focus on non-communicable diseases in urban African settings. Africa is the world's fastest urbanising region, making it a critical context in which to examine the impact of multisectoral approaches to improve health. This systematic review provides a valuable overview of current knowledge on multisectoral urban health interventions and enables the identification of existing knowledge gaps, and consequently, avenues for future research. We searched four academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health) for evidence dated 1989-2019 and identified grey literature from expert input. We identified 53 articles (17 quantitative, 20 qualitative, 12 mixed methods) involving collaborations across 22 sectors and 16 African countries. The principle guiding the majority of the multisectoral interventions was community health equity (39.6%), followed by healthy cities and healthy urban governance principles (32.1%). Targeted health outcomes were diverse, spanning behaviour, environmental and active participation from communities. With only 2% of all studies focusing on health equity as an outcome and with 47% of studies published by first authors located outside Africa, this review underlines the need for future research to prioritise equity both in terms of research outcomes and processes. A synthesised framework of seven interconnected components showcases an ecosystem on multisectoral interventions for urban health that can be examined in the future research in African urban settings that can benefit the health of people and the planet.Paper ContextMain findings: Multisectoral interventions were identified in 27.8% of African countries in the African Union, targeted at major cities with five sectors present at all intervention stages: academia or research, agriculture, government, health, and non-governmental.Added knowledge: We propose a synthesised framework showcasing an ecosystem on multisectoral interventions for urban health that can guide future research in African urban settings.Global health impact for policy and action: This study reveals a crucial gap in evidence on evaluating the long-term impact of multisectoral interventions and calls for partnerships involving various sectors and robust community engagement to effectively deliver and sustain health-promoting policies and actions.

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care. AIM: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England. METHOD: Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools. CONCLUSION: There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

The Impact of Stopping Risk Assessment Checklists at a Specialist Personality Disorder Unit.

Aim This study was conducted in Springbank Ward, a specialist ward for patients with emotionally unstable personality disorder, based in Cambridge, United Kingdom. We aimed to assess any change in incident frequency following the introduction of a new protocol for leaving the ward, in which patients are offered an optional conversation with staff in place of a formal risk assessment checklist. We also aimed to assess patient and staff perceptions of the change. Methods We used data routinely collected by Springbank Ward to compare incident frequency in the year before and after the change in protocol. We conducted structured interviews with patients and staff to obtain qualitative data on the new protocol and used thematic analysis to interpret the interview data. Results There were 466 incidents during the period before the change in protocol and 408 incidents in the period after. Adjusted for occupancy rate, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of incidents. Patients and staff were generally satisfied with the new protocol, with an average satisfaction rating of 4.1 out of 5. Thematic analysis generated five main themes: 'taking ownership', 'autonomy versus restriction', 'staff-patient interaction', 'staff expertise' and 'protocol efficiency'. Conclusions Our study reveals high satisfaction with the new way risk is assessed and managed for patients leaving Springbank Ward, with an appreciation for its holistic and minimally restrictive approach. This was achieved without significantly increasing incident frequency.

Role of primary care physician factors on diagnostic testing and referral decisions for symptoms of possible cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Missed opportunities for diagnosing cancer cause patients harm and have been attributed to suboptimal use of tests and referral pathways in primary care. Primary care physician (PCP) factors have been suggested to affect decisions to investigate cancer, but their influence is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence evaluating the influence of PCP factors on decisions to investigate symptoms of possible cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 1990 and March 2021 for relevant citations. Studies examining the effect or perceptions and experiences of PCP factors on use of tests and referrals for symptomatic patients with any cancer were included. PCP factors comprised personal characteristics and attributes of physicians in clinical practice. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Critical appraisal and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors. Due to study heterogeneity, data could not be statistically pooled. We, therefore, performed a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 29 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in European countries. A total of 11 PCP factors were identified comprising modifiable and non-modifiable factors. Clinical judgement of symptoms as suspicious or 'alarm' prompted more investigations than non-alarm symptoms. 'Gut feeling' predicted a subsequent cancer diagnosis and was perceived to facilitate decisions to investigate non-specific symptoms as PCP experience increased. Female PCPs investigated cancer more than male PCPs. The effect of PCP age and years of experience on testing and referral decisions was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: PCP interpretation of symptoms as higher risk facilitated testing and referral decisions for possible cancer. However, in the absence of 'alarm' symptoms or 'gut feeling', PCPs may not investigate cancer. PCPs require strategies for identifying patients with non-alarm and non-specific symptoms who need testing or referral. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420191560515.