Hello everyone
We are pleased to send you this February 2022 bulletin from Evidence Aid, containing four recent summaries relevant to resilient health systems, malnutrition and COVID-19, and a reminder about our Fundraising Appeal 2022. Please forward this bulletin to anyone who might be interested. If they would like to receive these directly, they should contact Claire Allen (callen@evidenceaid.org) and anyone with questions about our work should also contact Claire. We will send our regular Evidence Aid newsletter in a couple of weeks・・ｻﾂ€・・ｻ time. If you would like to stop receiving our bulletins or newsletters, please contact Claire.
2022 Fundraising Appeal
We are reaching out for much needed funds to continue our work through 2022 and beyond. We・・ｻﾂ€・・ｻre passionate about our work and championing evidence-based humanitarian action before, during and after disasters. Our focus is on producing plain language summaries of systematic reviews to show what the evidence says and we strive to ensure that our resources are easy to understand, available in multiple languages and free at the point of use. Our work is impactful as the evidence collections have been used by tens of thousands of people around the world, often in low- and middle-income countries.
We are entirely reliant on donations, sponsorship and project-specific funding to support our activities. If you might be able to help with a one-off or regular personal donation, corporate sponsorship or funding of a specific project, please get in touch.
You can donate here https://evidenceaid.org/donate/or contact callen@evidenceaid.org to find out more about working with us.
Health impacts of parental migration on left-behind children and adolescents in low- and middle-income countries https://evidenceaid.org/resource/health-impacts-of-parental-migration-on... (from our Resilient Health Systems Collection https://evidenceaid.org/evidence/resilient-health-systems/). Citation: Fellmeth G, Rose-Clarke K, Zhao C, et al Health impacts of parental migration on left-behind children and adolescents: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/ a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;392(10164):2567-82.
Parental migration impacts health systems and their ability to respond and adapt to population needs and patterns. Children who are left behind after parental migration may be exposed to health issues. In this systematic review, the authors searched for studies of the effects on nutrition, mental health, unintentional injuries, infectious disease, substance use, unprotected sex, early pregnancy and abuse in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) who are left behind when a parent migrates for 6 or more months. They did the search in September 2018 and included 111 studies, which were from Asia, Africa, Caribbean, China, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
What was found: Parental migration is detrimental to the health of left-behind children and adolescents in LMICs. They have worse outcomes than children of non-migrant parents, especially with regard to mental health and nutrition. Children left behind in LMICs had an increased risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, wasting and stunting.
Implications: The authors of the review concluded that the health risks experienced by children that are left behind after parental migration should be highlighted to policy makers and healthcare professionals in order to improve the health of this population. They also stated that further studies in a wider range of LMICs with high rates of migration are needed to better understand risk and resilience factors within this population.
Primary-level worker interventions for people living with mental health disorders or distress in low- and middle-income countries https://evidenceaid.org/resource/primary-level-worker-interventions-for-... (from our Resilient Health Systems Collection https://evidenceaid.org/evidence/resilient-health-systems/). Citation: Van Ginneken N, Chin W, Lim Y, et al Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009149.pub3/... Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021;(8):CD009149.
Community based health care delivered by primary-level workers is becoming a preferred approach to increase access to public health services, especially for people with mental health disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This may help with the development of resilient health systems. In this Cochrane review, the authors searched for randomised trials of mental health treatments delivered by trained primary-level workers to people with mental distress or mental health disorders in LMICs. They did the search in August 2020 and included 67 individual randomised trials and 28 cluster randomised trials.
What works: Interventions from lay healthcare workers may increase recovery, decrease the number of people with depression or anxiety, improve day-to-day functioning, improve quality of life and reduce the risk of suicidal thoughts. In women with depression related to pregnancy and childbirth, treatments from lay healthcare workers may increase recovery, possibly reduce symptoms of depression and slightly improve day-to-day functioning. In adults with dementia, interventions led by primary-level workers may reduce carers・・ｻﾂ€・・ｻ mental distress. Interventions led by lay healthcare workers may help recuperation from harmful/hazardous alcohol use and substance abuse in adults.
What・・ｻﾂ€・・ｻs uncertain: The effects of interventions led by lay healthcare workers on service use, adverse events, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults and quality of life in adults with dementia are uncertain.
Implications: The authors of the review concluded that primary・・ｻﾂ€・・ｻlevel workers delivering interventions for the care of individuals with mental health disorders and distress may have some impact on patient outcomes, although most of the evidence is of low certainty. They stated that there is a need for a comprehensive typology for primary-level workers and the interventions they provide, which would help policy makers and future researchers to develop more standardised and comparable interventions and situations.
Managing acute malnutrition in children under five years of age in low-income and middle-income countries https://evidenceaid.org/resource/managing-acute-malnutrition-in-children... (from our Malnutrition Collection https://evidenceaid.org/evidence/prevention-and-treatment-of-acute-malnu...). Citation: Das JK, Salam RA, Saeed M, et al. Effectiveness of Interventions for Managing Acute Malnutrition in Children under Five Years of Age in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/1/116: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients 2020;12:116.
There is uncertainty around the most effective methods to treat acute or chronic malnutrition in young children. In this systematic review, the authors searched for studies of the effects of various strategies targeting the management of children (<5 years) with severe (SAM) or moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). They did the search in February 2019 and included 33 randomised trials, 6 quasi-experimental studies and 3 cost-effectiveness studies.
What was found: Limited data suggest benefit of integrated community-based and outpatient management on improving recovery when compared to standard care and inpatient management. Cost data suggest that community or outpatient management of children with uncomplicated SAM is the most cost-effective strategy. Facility-based management of SAM with ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) has similar effects to F100 (therapeutic milk Formula 100) on weight gain and mortality. RUTF is comparable with other foods for recovery and mortality for SAM; but may improve weight gain when compared to non-milk/peanut butter based RUTF and F100. Ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) may improve recovery and weight gain when compared with Corn-Soy blend (CSB) for MAM. Local food and whey RUSF have comparable effects to standard RUSF on recovery rate and weight gain in MAM, while standard RUSF has additional benefits to CSB. Prophylactic antibiotics improve recovery and probably weight gain and reduce mortality in children with uncomplicated SAM.
Factors associated with uptake of vaccination: evidence from pandemic influenza https://evidenceaid.org/resource/factors-associated-with-uptake-of-vacci... (from our COVID-19 Collection https://evidenceaid.org/evidence/coronavirus-covid-19/ ). Citation: Bish A, Yardley L, Nicoll A, et al. Factors associated with uptake of vaccination against pandemic influenza ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11010012: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2011;29(38):6472-84.
In 2009, H1N1 influenza was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Vaccines were produced but there was a low vaccine uptake. Evidence about this might help policy makers making decisions about other vaccination programmes, such as that for COVID-19. In this systematic review, the authors searched for studies of psychological and demographic factors that affected the uptake of the influenza vaccine during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. They did the search in January 2011 and included 37 studies.
What was found: People who were older, male gender, from an ethnic minority or were doctors were more likely to get vaccinated. Good vaccine uptake was associated with high perceived efficacy of the vaccine against H1N1 influenza and previous receipt of seasonal flu vaccine. Poor vaccine uptake was associated with perception of low individual risk of H1N1 influenza, the view that it was a mild disease and anxiety about the safety of the vaccine. Individuals who were advised by health professionals or respected colleagues to get the vaccine were more likely to get vaccinated, as were individuals who consulted official health sources, such as a government website.
Claire Allen, Operations Manager
Evidence Aid: Championing evidence-based humanitarian action.
Please note that my regular working days are Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. Please do not expect a response outside of those days.
Support our activities by donating here.
Email: callen@evidenceaid.org | Skype: claireallencochrane | Website: www.evidenceaid.org | Twitter: @EvidenceAid | Facebook/Instagram: EvidenceAid
Our evidence collections can be found here: https://evidenceaid.org/evidence/
Jane Copsey, Administrator
Evidence Aid: Championing evidence-based humanitarian action.
Support our activities by donating here.
Email: jcopsey@evidenceaid.org | Website: www.evidenceaid.org | Twitter: @EvidenceAid
For the Evidence Aid resources on COVID-19 (Coronavirus), visit https://www.evidenceaid.org/coronavirus-covid-19-evidence-collection/
