Search

Background: Optimal breastfeeding (BF) practices are essential for child survival and proper growth and development. The purpose of this overview is to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions for promoting and optimizing breastfeeding., Methods: We included systematic reviews (SRs) [including trials from Low-Income (LICs) and Low Middle-Income countries (LMICs)] that have evaluated the effect of various interventions for promoting and optimizing breastfeeding and excluded non-systematic reviews, and SRs based on observational studies. We searched various electronic databases. We followed the standard methodology as suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two sets of reviewers undertook screening followed by data extraction and assessment of the methodological quality of included SRs., Result: We identified and screened 1,002 Cochrane SRs and included six SRs in this overview. Included SRs reported only two of the primary outcomes, early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) and/or exclusive breastfeeding (EBF). None of the included SR reported continued BF up to 2 years of age. The results were evaluated using two major comparisons groups: BF intervention against routine care and one type of BF intervention vs. other types of BF intervention. Overall results from included SRs showed that there were improvements in the rates of EIBF and EBF among women who received BF intervention such as BF education sessions and support compared to those women who received only standard care. However, BF intervention via mobile devices showed no improvements. In Target Client Communication (TCC) via mobile devices intervention group, no significant improvements were reported in BF practices, and also the reported evidence was of very low certainty., Conclusion: Community Based Intervention Packages (CBIP) delivered to pregnant and reproductive-age women during their Antenatal care (ANC) and/or Postnatal care (PNC) periods by Ancillary Nurse-Midwives reported the highest improvement in EIBF compared to women who received standard care. However, insufficient evidence was reported to suggest that BF intervention showed improvements in EBF in both the comparison groups. This overview highlighted the gaps in primary research regarding the uncertainty about the settings such as LICs or LMICs, lack of evidence from LMICs, and also identified gaps in the availability of reliable up-to-date SRs on the effects of several BF interventions to promote and optimize practices., Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020174998, PROSPERO [CRD42020174998]., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Khatib, Gaidhane, Upadhyay, Telrandhe, Saxena, Simkhada, Sawleshwarkar and Quazi.)

Background: Preventive public health has been suggested as methods for reducing the transmission of COVID-19. Safety and efficacy of one such public health measure: WASH intervention for COVID-19 has not been systematically reviewed. We undertook a rapid review to assess the effect of WASH intervention in reducing the incidence of COVID-19., Methods: We conducted searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We undertook screening of studies in two stages and extracted data and assessed the quality of evidence for the primary outcome using GRADE recommendations., Main Results: We included a total of 13 studies with three studies on COVID-19 and 10 on SARS. The study found that hand washing, sterilization of hands, gargling, cleaning/shower after attending patients of COVID-19, or SARS was protective. Evidence also found that frequent washes can prevent SARS transmission among HCWs. However; one study reported that due to enhanced infection-prevention measures, front-line HCWs are more prone to hand-skin damage. The certainty of the evidence for our primary outcome as per GRADE was very low. We did not find any studies that assessed the effect of WASH on hospitalizations, and mortality due to COVID-19. Also; we did not find any study that compared WASH interventions with any other public health measures., Conclusions: Current evidence of WASH interventions for COVID-19 is limited as it is largely based on indirect evidence from SARS. Findings from the included studies consistently show that WASH is important in reducing the number of cases during a pandemic. Timely implementation of WASH along with other public health interventions can be vital to ensure the desired success. Further good-quality studies providing direct evidence of the efficacy of WASH on COVID-19 are needed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Khatib, Sinha, Mishra, Quazi, Gaidhane, Saxena, Gaidhane, Bhardwaj, Sawleshwarkar and Zahiruddin.)

Global health discipline is of increasing interest for educators and students in public health across the world. Public health education is recently gaining momentum in India, but global health is still at an embryonic stage. Value of students as stakeholders in curriculum development is increasingly recognized but literature about perspectives of public health students regarding global health education is limited. This study aimed to explore Indian public health students' perspectives about global health education and to provide platform for the development of global health education framework for future public health professionals. This study involved a series of focus groups with students and sought to understand perceptions about global health and global health education framework. We recruited public health students at three institutes across India for focus group discussions. Focus groups questions covered current understanding of global health, opinions regarding global health education for public health curriculum and the relevance of global health competency domains for future employment. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and the transcripts were read along with field notes and then analyzed thematically. A total of 36 students participated in four focus groups. There was a general recognition that global health is transnational and that a global outlook is now essential. But there were concerns regarding local and global priorities in public health. Global health was regarded as being wider than public health by some, but others viewed public health being the umbrella term with global health as a specialization. Global health competencies were viewed as a "step up" from the public health competencies but core public health competencies were considered essential. International experiences and use of technology were key themes for delivery of global health education. Employability and career progression for global health graduates were of concern for many participants. This study provides insight into the student perspectives regarding global health education for public health programs in India. Clear direction in terms of curriculum and its utility for career growth and employability as a global health professional needs to be established for global health education in India and other similar settings., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Sawleshwarkar, Zodpey and Negin.)

During the last decade, the literature about global health has grown exponentially. Academic institutions are also exploring the scope of their public health educational programs to meet the demand for a global health professional. This has become more relevant in the context of the sustainable development goals. There have been attempts to describe global health competencies for specific professional groups. The focus of these competencies has been variable with a variety of different themes being described ranging from globalization and health care, analysis and program management, as well as equity and capacity strengthening. This review aims to describe global health competencies and attempts to distill common competency domains to assist in curriculum development and integration in postgraduate public health education programs. A literature search was conducted using relevant keywords with a focus on public health education. This resulted in identification of 13 articles that described global health competencies. All these articles were published between 2005 and 2015 with six from the USA, two each from Canada and Australia, and one each from UK, Europe, and Americas. A range of methods used to describe competency domains included literature review, interviews with experts and employers, surveys of staff and students, and description or review of an academic program. Eleven competency domains were distilled from the selected articles. These competency domains primarily referred to three main aspects, one that focuses on burden of disease and the determinants of health. A second set focuses on core public health skills including policy development, analysis, and program management. Another set of competency domains could be classified as "soft skills" and includes collaboration, partnering, communication, professionalism, capacity building, and political awareness. This review presents the landscape of defined global health competencies for postgraduate public health education. The discussion about use of "global health," "international health," and "global public health" will continue, and academic institutions need to explore ways to integrate these competencies in postgraduate public health programs. This is critical in the post-MDG era that we prepare global public health workforce for the challenges of improving health of the "global" population in the context of sustainable development goals.