Global health: the importance of evidence-based medicine

BMC Medicine (Impact Factor: 7.25). 01/2013; 11(1):226.
Source: PubMed


Global health is a varied field that comprises research, evaluation and policy that, by its definition, also occurs in disparate locations across the world. This forum article is introduced by our guest editor of the Medicine for Global Health article collection, Gretchen Birbeck. Here, experts based across different settings describe their personal experiences of global health, discussing how evidence-based medicine in resource-limited settings can be translated into improved health outcomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Xiao-Nong Zhou, Oct 20, 2014
30 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Infectious Diseases of Poverty journal, launched a year ago, is a platform to engage outside the traditional disciplinary boundaries, and disseminate high quality science towards the improvement of health. This paper reviews the milestone achievements during its first year of operation. The journal has filled an important niche, addressing some of the main priorities in the Global Report for Research on Infectious Diseases of Poverty. Highlights include the publication of three thematic issues on health systems, surveillance and response systems, as well as co-infection and syndemics. The thematic issues have foregrounded the importance and innovation that can be achieved through transdisciplinary research. The journal has been indexed by PubMed since April 2013, with the publication of a total of 38 articles. Finally, the journal is delivering to wider range readers both in developing and developed countries with sustained efforts with a focus on relevant and strategic information towards elimination of infectious diseases of poverty.
    Infectious Diseases of Poverty 11/2013; 2(1):27. DOI:10.1186/2049-9957-2-27 · 4.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On 24 November 2003, BMC Medicine published its first article. Ten years and over 900 articles later we look back at some of the most notable milestones for the journal and discuss advances and innovations in medicine over the last decade. Our editorial board members, Leslie Biesecker, Thomas Powles, Chris Del Mar, Robert Snow and David Moher, also comment on the changes they expect to see in their fields over the coming years.
    BMC Medicine 01/2014; 12(1):4. DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-12-4 · 7.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Asthma self-management remains poorly implemented in clinical practice despite overwhelming evidence of improved healthcare outcomes, reflected in guideline recommendations over three decades. To inform delivery in routine care, we synthesised evidence from implementation studies of self-management support interventions. We systematically searched eight electronic databases (1980 to 2012) and research registers, and performed snowball and manual searches for studies evaluating implementation of asthma self-management in routine practice. We included, and adapted systematic review methodology to reflect, a broad range of implementation study designs. We extracted data on study characteristics, process measures (for example, action plan ownership), asthma control (for example, patient reported control questionnaires, days off school/work, symptom-free days) and use of health services (for example, admissions, emergency department attendances, unscheduled consultations). We assessed quality using the validated Downs and Black checklist, and conducted a narrative synthesis informed by Kennedy's whole systems theoretical approach (considering patient, practitioner and organisational components and the interaction between these). We included 18 studies (6 randomised trials, 2 quasi-experimental studies, 8 with historical controls and 3 with retrospective comparators) from primary, secondary, community and managed care settings serving a total estimated asthma population of 800,000 people in six countries. In these studies, targeting professionals (n = 2) improved process, but had no clinically significant effect on clinical outcomes. Targeting patients (n = 6) improved some process measures, but had an inconsistent impact on clinical outcomes. Targeting the organisation (n = 3) improved process measures, but had little/no effect on clinical outcomes. Interventions that explicitly addressed patient, professional and organisational factors (n = 7) showed the most consistent improvement in both process and clinical outcomes. Authors highlighted the importance of health system commitment, skills training for professionals, patient education programmes supported by regular reviews, and on-going evaluation of implementation effectiveness. Our methodology offers an exemplar of reviews synthesising the heterogeneous implementation literature. Effective interventions combined active engagement of patients, with training and motivation of professionals embedded within an organisation in which self-management is valued. Healthcare managers should consider how they can promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and remunerated aspect of the provision of care. PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42012002898 ) Accessed 24 May 2015.
    BMC Medicine 05/2015; 13(127). DOI:10.1186/s12916-015-0361-0 · 7.25 Impact Factor
Show more