改善马拉维开放性胫骨骨折的管理。

IF 8.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Bulletin of the World Health Organization Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.2471/BLT.23.290755
Alexander Thomas Schade, Maureen Sabawo, Zahra Jaffry, Nohakhelha Nyamulani, Chikumbutso Clara Mpanga, Leonard Banza Ngoie, Andrew John Metcalfe, David Graham Lalloo, William James Harrison, Andrew Leather, Peter MacPherson
{"title":"改善马拉维开放性胫骨骨折的管理。","authors":"Alexander Thomas Schade, Maureen Sabawo, Zahra Jaffry, Nohakhelha Nyamulani, Chikumbutso Clara Mpanga, Leonard Banza Ngoie, Andrew John Metcalfe, David Graham Lalloo, William James Harrison, Andrew Leather, Peter MacPherson","doi":"10.2471/BLT.23.290755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle on clinical management and patient outcomes of adults in Malawi with open tibia fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a before-and-after implementation study in Malawi in 2021 and 2022 to assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle, including a national education course for clinical officers and management guidelines for open fractures. We recruited 287 patients with open tibia fractures. The primary outcome was a before-and-after comparison of the self-reported short musculoskeletal function assessment score, a measure of patient function. Secondary outcomes included clinical management; and clinician knowledge and implementation evaluation outcomes of 57 health-care providers attending the course. We also constructed multilevel regression models to investigate associations between clinical knowledge, patient function, and implementation evaluation before and after the intervention.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The median patient function score at 1 year was 6.8 (interquartile range, IQR: 1.5 to 14.5) before intervention and 8.4 (IQR: 3.8 to 23.2) after intervention. Compared with baseline scores, we found clinicians' open fracture knowledge scores improved 1 year after the intervention was implemented (mean posterior difference: 1.6, 95% highest density interval: 0.9 to 2.4). However, we found no difference in most aspects of clinicians' open fracture management practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite possible improvement in clinician knowledge and positive evaluation of the intervention implementation, our study showed that there was no overall improvement in clinical management, and weak evidence of worsening patient function 1 year after injury, after implementation of the open fracture intervention bundle.</p>","PeriodicalId":9465,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the World Health Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the management of open tibia fractures, Malawi.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Thomas Schade, Maureen Sabawo, Zahra Jaffry, Nohakhelha Nyamulani, Chikumbutso Clara Mpanga, Leonard Banza Ngoie, Andrew John Metcalfe, David Graham Lalloo, William James Harrison, Andrew Leather, Peter MacPherson\",\"doi\":\"10.2471/BLT.23.290755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle on clinical management and patient outcomes of adults in Malawi with open tibia fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a before-and-after implementation study in Malawi in 2021 and 2022 to assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle, including a national education course for clinical officers and management guidelines for open fractures. We recruited 287 patients with open tibia fractures. The primary outcome was a before-and-after comparison of the self-reported short musculoskeletal function assessment score, a measure of patient function. Secondary outcomes included clinical management; and clinician knowledge and implementation evaluation outcomes of 57 health-care providers attending the course. We also constructed multilevel regression models to investigate associations between clinical knowledge, patient function, and implementation evaluation before and after the intervention.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The median patient function score at 1 year was 6.8 (interquartile range, IQR: 1.5 to 14.5) before intervention and 8.4 (IQR: 3.8 to 23.2) after intervention. Compared with baseline scores, we found clinicians' open fracture knowledge scores improved 1 year after the intervention was implemented (mean posterior difference: 1.6, 95% highest density interval: 0.9 to 2.4). However, we found no difference in most aspects of clinicians' open fracture management practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite possible improvement in clinician knowledge and positive evaluation of the intervention implementation, our study showed that there was no overall improvement in clinical management, and weak evidence of worsening patient function 1 year after injury, after implementation of the open fracture intervention bundle.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the World Health Organization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976873/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the World Health Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.23.290755\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the World Health Organization","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.23.290755","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估开放性骨折干预包对马拉维成人开放性胫骨骨折临床管理和患者预后的影响:我们于2021年和2022年在马拉维开展了一项实施前后对比研究,以评估开放性骨折干预捆绑计划(包括针对临床官员的国家教育课程和开放性骨折管理指南)的影响。我们招募了 287 名开放性胫骨骨折患者。主要结果是自我报告的简短肌肉骨骼功能评估得分(衡量患者功能的指标)的前后比较。次要结果包括临床管理;以及参加课程的 57 名医护人员的临床知识和实施评估结果。我们还构建了多层次回归模型,以研究干预前后临床知识、患者功能和实施评估之间的关联:干预前,1 年后患者功能得分的中位数为 6.8(四分位数间距,IQR:1.5 至 14.5),干预后为 8.4(IQR:3.8 至 23.2)。与基线得分相比,我们发现临床医生的开放性骨折知识得分在干预实施 1 年后有所提高(平均后差异:1.6,95% 最高密度区间:0.9 至 2.4)。然而,我们发现临床医生在开放性骨折管理实践的大多数方面并无差异:结论:尽管临床医生的知识水平可能有所提高,对干预措施的实施也给予了积极评价,但我们的研究表明,实施开放性骨折干预捆绑包后,临床管理水平总体上没有改善,而且有微弱证据表明,受伤 1 年后患者的功能有所恶化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving the management of open tibia fractures, Malawi.

Objective: To assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle on clinical management and patient outcomes of adults in Malawi with open tibia fractures.

Methods: We conducted a before-and-after implementation study in Malawi in 2021 and 2022 to assess the impact of an open fracture intervention bundle, including a national education course for clinical officers and management guidelines for open fractures. We recruited 287 patients with open tibia fractures. The primary outcome was a before-and-after comparison of the self-reported short musculoskeletal function assessment score, a measure of patient function. Secondary outcomes included clinical management; and clinician knowledge and implementation evaluation outcomes of 57 health-care providers attending the course. We also constructed multilevel regression models to investigate associations between clinical knowledge, patient function, and implementation evaluation before and after the intervention.

Findings: The median patient function score at 1 year was 6.8 (interquartile range, IQR: 1.5 to 14.5) before intervention and 8.4 (IQR: 3.8 to 23.2) after intervention. Compared with baseline scores, we found clinicians' open fracture knowledge scores improved 1 year after the intervention was implemented (mean posterior difference: 1.6, 95% highest density interval: 0.9 to 2.4). However, we found no difference in most aspects of clinicians' open fracture management practice.

Conclusion: Despite possible improvement in clinician knowledge and positive evaluation of the intervention implementation, our study showed that there was no overall improvement in clinical management, and weak evidence of worsening patient function 1 year after injury, after implementation of the open fracture intervention bundle.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Bulletin of the World Health Organization 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
0.90%
发文量
317
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Bulletin of the World Health Organization Journal Overview: Leading public health journal Peer-reviewed monthly journal Special focus on developing countries Global scope and authority Top public and environmental health journal Impact factor of 6.818 (2018), according to Web of Science ranking Audience: Essential reading for public health decision-makers and researchers Provides blend of research, well-informed opinion, and news
期刊最新文献
Alka Dwivedi: developing a cancer therapy for all. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in fragile and conflict-affected settings, Somalia. District-level monitoring of universal health coverage, India. Health worker protests and the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis. Helping people to die.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1