97
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An Opportunity for Diagonal Development in Global Surgery: Cleft Lip and Palate Care in Resource-Limited Settings

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Global cleft surgery missions have provided much-needed care to millions of poor patients worldwide. Still, surgical capacity in low- and middle-income countries is generally inadequate. Through surgical missions, global cleft care has largely ascribed to a vertical model of healthcare delivery, which is disease specific, and tends to deliver services parallel to, but not necessarily within, the local healthcare system. The vertical model has been used to address infectious diseases as well as humanitarian emergencies. By contrast, a horizontal model for healthcare delivery tends to focus on long-term investments in public health infrastructure and human capital and has less often been implemented by humanitarian groups for a variety of reasons. As surgical care is an integral component of basic healthcare, the plastic surgery community must challenge itself to address the burden of specific disease entities, such as cleft lip and palate, in a way that sustainably expands and enriches global surgical care as a whole. In this paper, we describe a diagonal care delivery model, whereby cleft missions can enrich surgical capacity through integration into sustainable, local care delivery systems. Furthermore, we examine the applications of diagonal development to cleft care specifically and global surgical care more broadly.

          Related collections

          Most cited references107

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The effects of global health initiatives on country health systems: a review of the evidence from HIV/AIDS control.

          This paper reviews country-level evidence about the impact of global health initiatives (GHIs), which have had profound effects on recipient country health systems in middle and low income countries. We have selected three initiatives that account for an estimated two-thirds of external funding earmarked for HIV/AIDS control in resource-poor countries: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the World Bank Multi-country AIDS Program (MAP) and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This paper draws on 31 original country-specific and cross-country articles and reports, based on country-level fieldwork conducted between 2002 and 2007. Positive effects have included a rapid scale-up in HIV/AIDS service delivery, greater stakeholder participation, and channelling of funds to non-governmental stakeholders, mainly NGOs and faith-based bodies. Negative effects include distortion of recipient countries' national policies, notably through distracting governments from coordinated efforts to strengthen health systems and re-verticalization of planning, management and monitoring and evaluation systems. Sub-national and district studies are needed to assess the degree to which GHIs are learning to align with and build the capacities of countries to respond to HIV/AIDS; whether marginalized populations access and benefit from GHI-funded programmes; and about the cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the HIV and AIDS programmes funded by the GHIs. Three multi-country sets of evaluations, which will be reporting in 2009, will answer some of these questions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Global operating theatre distribution and pulse oximetry supply: an estimation from reported data.

            Surgery is an essential part of health care, but resources to ensure the availability of surgical services are often inadequate. We estimated the global distribution of operating theatres and quantified the availability of pulse oximetry, which is an essential monitoring device during surgery and a potential measure of operating theatre resources. We calculated ratios of the number of operating theatres to hospital beds in seven geographical regions worldwide on the basis of profiles from 769 hospitals in 92 countries that participated in WHO's safe surgery saves lives initiative. We used hospital bed figures from 190 WHO member states to estimate the number of operating theatres per 100,000 people in 21 subregions throughout the world. To estimate availability of pulse oximetry, we sent surveys to anaesthesia providers in 72 countries selected to ensure a geographically and demographically diverse sample. A predictive regression model was used to estimate the pulse oximetry need for countries that did not provide data. The estimated number of operating theatres ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·9-1·2) per 100,000 people in west sub-Saharan Africa to 25·1 (20·9-30·1) per 100,000 in eastern Europe. High-income subregions all averaged more than 14 per 100,000 people, whereas all low-income subregions, representing 2·2 billion people, had fewer than two theatres per 100,000. Pulse oximetry data from 54 countries suggested that around 77,700 (63,195-95,533) theatres worldwide (19·2% [15·2-23·9]) were not equipped with pulse oximeters. Improvements in public-health strategies and monitoring are needed to reduce disparities for more than 2 billion people without adequate access to surgical care. WHO. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the evidence on integration of targeted health interventions into health systems.

              A longstanding debate on health systems organization relates to benefits of integrating health programmes that emphasize specific interventions into mainstream health systems to increase access and improve health outcomes. This debate has long been characterized by polarization of views and ideologies, with protagonists for and against integration arguing the relative merits of each approach. However, all too frequently these arguments have not been based on hard evidence. The presence of both integrated and non-integrated programmes in many countries suggests there may be benefits to either approach, but the relative merits of integration in various contexts and for different interventions have not been systematically analysed and documented. In this paper we present findings of a systematic review that explores a broad range of evidence on: (i) the extent and nature of the integration of targeted health programmes that emphasize specific interventions into critical health systems functions, (ii) how the integration or non-integration of health programmes into critical health systems functions in different contexts has influenced programme success, (iii) how contextual factors have affected the extent to which these programmes were integrated into critical health systems functions. Our analysis shows few instances where there is full integration of a health intervention or where an intervention is completely non-integrated. Instead, there exists a highly heterogeneous picture both for the nature and also for the extent of integration. Health systems combine both non-integrated and integrated interventions, but the balance of these interventions varies considerably.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Plast Surg Int
                Plast Surg Int
                PSI
                Plastic Surgery International
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2090-1461
                2090-147X
                2012
                20 December 2012
                : 2012
                : 892437
                Affiliations
                1Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
                2Department of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Enders 1, Boston, MA 02115, USA
                3Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94131, USA
                4Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030, USA
                5Department of Pediatric Surgery and International Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund SE-221 00, Sweden
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Renato Da Silva Freitas

                Article
                10.1155/2012/892437
                3539333
                23316355
                f47a6d20-3159-45ef-91b2-5a0404bd350d
                Copyright © 2012 Pratik B. Patel et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 August 2012
                : 20 November 2012
                Categories
                Review Article

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article