Measurements of Impoverishing and Catastrophic Surgical Health Expenditures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and Reduction Interventions in the Last 30 Years: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 33 million people suffer catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) from surgery and/or anesthesia costs. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate catastrophic and impoverishing expenditure associated with surgery and anesthesia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all studies from 1990 to 2021 that reported CHE in LMICs for treatment of a condition requiring surgical intervention, including cesarean section, trauma care, and other surgery. RESULTS: 77 studies met inclusion criteria. Tertiary facilities (23.4%) were the most frequently studied facility type. Only 11.7% of studies were conducted in exclusively rural health-care settings. Almost 60% of studies were retrospective in nature. The cost of procedures ranged widely, from $26 USD for a cesarean section in Mauritania in 2020 to $74,420 for a pancreaticoduodenectomy in India in 2018. GDP per capita had a narrower range from $315 USD in Malawi in 2019 to $9955 USD in Malaysia in 2015 (Median = $1605.50, interquartile range = $1208.74). 35 studies discussed interventions to reduce cost and catastrophic expenditure. Four of those studies stated that their intervention was not successful, 18 had an unknown or equivocal effect on cost and CHE, and 13 concluded that their intervention did help reduce cost and CHE. CONCLUSIONS: CHE from surgery is a worldwide problem that most acutely affects vulnerable patients in LMICs. Existing efforts are insufficient to meet the true need for affordable surgical care unless assistance for ancillary costs is given to patients and families most at risk from CHE.

Challenging the "old boys club" in academia: Gender and geographic representation in editorial boards of journals publishing in environmental sciences and public health.

In light of global environmental crises and the need for sustainable development, the fields of public health and environmental sciences have become increasingly interrelated. Both fields require interdisciplinary thinking and global solutions, which is largely directed by scientific progress documented in peer-reviewed journals. Journal editors play a critical role in coordinating and shaping what is accepted as scientific knowledge. Previous research has demonstrated a lack of diversity in the gender and geographic representation of editors across scientific disciplines. This study aimed to explore the diversity of journal editorial boards publishing in environmental science and public health. The Clarivate Journal Citation Reports database was used to identify journals classified as Public, Environmental, and Occupational (PEO) Health, Environmental Studies, or Environmental Sciences. Current EB members were identified from each journal's publicly available website between 1 March and 31 May 2021. Individuals' names, editorial board roles, institutional affiliations, geographic locations (city, country), and inferred gender were collected. Binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the proportions of interest. Pearson correlations with false discovery rate adjustment were used to assess the correlation between journal-based indicators and editorial board characteristics. Linear regression and logistic regression models were fitted to further assess the relationship between gender presence, low- and middle-income country (LMIC) presence and several journal and editor-based indicators. After identifying 628 unique journals and excluding discontinued or unavailable journals, 615 journal editorial boards were included. In-depth analysis was conducted on 591 journals with complete gender and geographic data for their 27,772 editors. Overall, the majority of editors were men (65.9%), followed by women (32.9%) and non-binary/other gender minorities (0.05%). 75.5% journal editorial boards (n = 446) were composed of a majority of men (>55% men), whilst only 13.2% (n = 78) demonstrated gender parity (between 45-55% women/gender minorities). Journals categorized as PEO Health had the most gender diversity. Furthermore, 84% of editors (n = 23,280) were based in high-income countries and only 2.5% of journals (n = 15) demonstrated economic parity in their editorial boards (between 45-55% editors from LMICs). Geographically, the majority of editors' institutions were based in the United Nations (UN) Western Europe and Other region (76.9%), with 35.2% of editors (n = 9,761) coming solely from the United States and 8.6% (n = 2,373) solely from the United Kingdom. None of the editors-in-chief and only 27 editors in total were women based in low-income countries. Through the examination of journal editorial boards, this study exposes the glaring lack of diversity in editorial boards in environmental science and public health, explores the power dynamics affecting the creation and dissemination of knowledge, and proposes concrete actions to remedy these structural inequities in order to inform more equitable, just and impactful knowledge creation.

Medicine or martyrdom? A peek into the rising violence against doctors during times of COVID 19.

One would think, at a time where healthcare workers are the frontline warriors against the COVID 19 pandemic, the violence against them would subside; however, this is far from the truth. This commentary article addresses the underlying causes and implications of such acts of violence against health professionals, particularly those involved in primary healthcare, in India, and barriers to implementation of laws protecting these professionals from violence. Recommendations for administrative and on ground interventions, with a proposed collaboration with government and private medical establishments, have been discussed, as a probable solution to the problem of violence at hand.

Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery.

BACKGROUND: Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks. RESULTS: 1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs. CONCLUSION: Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.

Where Does Indian Medical Education Stand Amidst a Pandemic?

The recent outbreak of COVID-19, declared a pandemic, has affected medical education globally. The scenario is no different for medical students in India as they find themselves at a crossroads in their careers, with clinical and elective postings called off. Missing out on the opportunity to learn from "first-hand" clinical observation stands to threaten the quality of medical education and learning procured by Indian medical students which is extremely essential to deal with the vast patient load that awaits them in their impending future as healthcare professionals. Is the Indian medical education system being able to cope with the challenges imposed by the increasing burden of COVID-19? The authors propose few administrative and on-ground interventions that must seek to work collectively with all government and private medical institutions in order to help students/interns and residents in coping with stress, anxiety or academic losses incurred due to the pandemic.