Search

Abstract Background An understanding of how public health research output from India is changing in relation to the disease burden and public health priorities is required in order to inform relevant research development. We therefore studied the trends in the public health research output from India during 2001-2008 that was readily available in the public domain. Methods The scope and type of the published research from India in 2007 that was included in the PubMed database was assessed and compared with a previous similar assessment for 2002. Papers were classified based on the review of abstracts and original public health research papers were assessed in detail. Impact factors for the journals were used to compute quality-adjusted research output. The websites of governmental organizations, academic and research institutions and international organizations were searched in order to identify and review reports on original public health research produced in India from 2001 to 2008. The reports were classified based on the topics covered and quality and their trends over time were assessed. Results The number of original health research papers from India in PubMed doubled from 4494 in 2002 to 9066 in 2007. This included a 3.1-fold increase in public health research papers, but these comprised only 5% of the total papers in 2007. Within public health, the increase was lowest for the health system and policy category. Several major causes of disease burden in India continued to be underrepresented in the quality-adjusted public health research output in 2007. The number of papers evaluating population health interventions increased from 2002 to 2007, but there were none on the leading non-communicable causes of disease burden or on road traffic injuries. The number of identified original public health research reports increased by 64.7% from 204 in 2001-2004 to 336 in 2005-2008. The proportion of reports on reproductive and child health was very high but decreased slightly from 38.7% of the total in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008 (P = 0.09); those on the leading chronic non-communicable conditions and injuries increased from 6.4% to 13.4% (P = 0.01) but this was still much lower than their contribution to the disease burden. Health system/policy issues were the topic in 27.4% reports but health information issues were covered in a miniscule 0.6% reports. The proportion of reports that were evaluations increased slightly from 26% in 2001-2004 to 31.5% in 2005-2008, with this proportion being higher among the reports commissioned by international organizations (P < 0.001). The proportion of reports commissioned by Indian governmental organizations alone, or in collaboration with international organizations, doubled from 2001-2004 to 2005-2008 (P < 0.001). Only 25% of the total 540 reports had a quality score of adequate or better. The quality of reports produced by collaborations between Indian and international organizations was higher than those produced by Indian or international organizations alone (P < 0.001). Conclusion This is the first analysis from India that includes research reports in addition to published papers. It provides the most up-to-date understanding of public health research output from India. The increase in available public health research output and the increase in commissioning of this research by Indian governmental organizations are encouraging. However, the distribution of research topics and the quality of research reports continue to be unsatisfactory. It is necessary for health policy to address these continuing deficits in public health research in order to reduce the very large disease burden in India.

Introduction: Hypertension is emerging in rural populations of India. Barriers to diagnosis and treatment of hypertension may differ regionally according to economic development. Our main objectives are to estimate the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in 3 diverse regions of rural India; identify barriers to diagnosis and treatment in each setting and evaluate the feasibility of a community-based intervention to improve control of hypertension. Methods and analysis: This study includes 4 main activities: (1) assessment of risk factors, quality of life, socioeconomic position and barriers to changes in lifestyle behaviours in ~14 500 participants; (2) focus group discussions with individuals with hypertension and indepth interviews with healthcare providers, to identify barriers to control of hypertension; (3) use of a medicines-availability survey to determine the availability, affordability and accessibility of medicines and (4) trial of an intervention provided by Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), comprising groupbased education and support for individuals with hypertension to self-manage blood pressure. Wards/ villages/hamlets of a larger Mandal are identified as the primary sampling unit (PSU). PSUs are then randomly selected for inclusion in the cross-sectional survey, with further randomisation to intervention or control. Changes in knowledge of hypertension and risk factors, and clinical and anthropometric measures, are assessed. Evaluation of the intervention by participants provides insight into perceptions of education and support of self-management delivered by the ASHAs. Ethics and dissemination: Approval for the overall study was obtained from the Health Ministry's Screening Committee, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (India), institutional review boards at each site and Monash University. In addition to publication in peer-reviewed articles, results will be shared with federal, state and local government health officers, local healthcare providers and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Substance Use & Misuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: New methods are required to manage hypertension in resource-poor settings. We hypothesised that a community health worker (CHW)-led group-based education and monitoring intervention would improve control of blood pressure (BP).Methods and Findings: We conducted a baseline community-based survey followed by a cluster randomised controlled trial of people with hypertension in 3 rural regions of South India, each at differing stages of epidemiological transition. Participants with hypertension, defined as BP ≥ 140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medication, were advised to visit a doctor. In each region, villages were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (UC) in a 1:2 ratio. In intervention clusters, trained CHWs delivered a group-based intervention to people with hypertension. The program, conducted fortnightly for 3 months, included monitoring of BP, education about hypertension, and support for healthy lifestyle change. Outcomes were assessed approximately 2 months after completion of the intervention. The primary outcome was control of BP (BP < 140/90 mm Hg), analysed using mixed effects regression, clustered by village within region and adjusted for baseline control of hypertension (using intention-to-treat principles). Of 2,382 potentially eligible people, 637 from 5 intervention clusters and 1,097 from 10 UC clusters were recruited between November 2015 and April 2016, with follow-up occurring in 459 in the intervention group and 1,012 in UC. Mean age was 56.9 years (SD 13.7). Baseline BP was similar between groups. Control of BP improved from baseline to follow-up more in the intervention group (from 227 [49.5%] to 320 [69.7%] individuals) than in the UC group (from 528 [52.2%] to 624 [61.7%] individuals) (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1; P = 0.001). In secondary outcome analyses, there was a greater decline in systolic BP in the intervention than UC group (-5.0 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.1 to -3.0; P < 0.001) and a greater decline in diastolic BP (-2.1 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.6; P < 0.006), but no detectable difference in the use of BP-lowering medications between groups (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.9; P = 0.34). Similar results were found when using imputation analyses that included those lost to follow-up. Limitations include a relatively short follow-up period and use of outcome assessors who were not blinded to the group allocation.Conclusions: While the durability of the effect is uncertain, this trial provides evidence that a low-cost program using CHWs to deliver an education and monitoring intervention is effective in controlling BP and is potentially scalable in resource-poor settings globally.Trial Registration: The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2016/02/006678). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Myocarditis and/or pericarditis (also known as myopericarditis) are inflammatory diseases involving the myocardium (with non-ischemic myocyte necrosis) and/or the pericardial sac. Myocarditis/pericarditis (MPC) may present with variable clinical signs, symptoms, etiologies and outcomes, including acute heart failure, sudden death, and chronic dilated cardiomyopathy. Possible undiagnosed and/or subclinical acute myocarditis, with undefined potential for delayed manifestations, presents further challenges for diagnosing an acute disease and may go undetected in the setting of infection as well as adverse drug/vaccine reactions. The most common causes of MPC are viral, with non-infectious, drug/vaccine associated hypersensitivity and/or autoimmune causes being less well defined and with potentially different inflammatory mechanisms and treatment responses. Potential cardiac adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) encompass a larger scope of diagnoses such as triggering or exacerbating ischemic cardiac events, cardiomyopathy with potential heart failure, arrhythmias and sudden death. The current published experience does not support a potential causal association with vaccines based on epidemiologic evidence of relative risk increases compared with background unvaccinated incidence. The only evidence supporting a possible causal association of MPC with a vaccine comes from case reports. Hypersensitivity MPC as a drug/vaccine induced cardiac adverse event has long been a concern for post-licensure safety surveillance, as well as safety data submission for licensure. Other cardiac adverse events, such as dilated cardiomyopathy, were also defined in the CDC definitions for adverse events after smallpox vaccination in 2006. In addition, several groups have attempted to develop and improve the definition and adjudication of post-vaccination cardiovascular events. We developed the current case definitions for myocarditis and pericarditis as an AEFI building on experience and lessons learnt, as well as a comprehensive literature review. Considerations of other etiologies and causal relationships are outside the scope of this document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To improve the control of hypertension in low- and middle-income countries, we trialed a community-based group program co-designed with local policy makers to fit within the framework of India's health system. Trained accredited social health activists (ASHAs), delivered the program, in three economically and developmentally diverse settings in rural India. We evaluated the program's implementation and scalability. Methods: Our mixed methods process evaluation was guided by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council guidelines for complex interventions. Meeting attendance reports, as well as blood pressure and weight measures of attendees and adherence to meeting content and use of meeting tools were used to evaluate the implementation process. Thematic analysis of separate focus group discussions with participants and ASHAs as well as meeting reports and participant evaluation were used to investigate the mechanisms of impact. Results: Fifteen ASHAs led 32 community-based groups in three rural settings in the states of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, Southern India. Overall, the fidelity of intervention delivery was high. Six meetings were delivered over a 3-month period to each of the intervention groups. The mean number of meetings attended by participants at each site varied significantly, with participants in Rishi Valley attending fewer meetings [mean (SD) = 2.83 (1.68)] than participants in West Godavari (Tukeys test, p = 0.009) and Trivandrum (Tukeys test, p < 0.001) and participants in West Godavari [mean (SD) = 3.48 (1.72)] attending significantly fewer meetings than participants in Trivandrum [mean (SD) = 4.29 (1.76), Tukeys test, p < 0.001]. Culturally appropriate intervention resources and the training of ASHAs, and supportive supervision of them during the program were critical enablers to program implementation. Although highly motivated during the implementation of the program ASHA reported historical issues with timely remuneration and lack of supportive supervision. Conclusions: Culturally appropriate community-based group programs run by trained and supported ASHAs are a successful and potentially scalable model for improving the control of hypertension in rural India. However, consideration of issues related to unreliable/insufficient remuneration for ASHAs, supportive supervision and their formal role in the wider health workforce in India will be important to address in future program scale up. Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India [CTRI/2016/02/006678, Registered prospectively]., Competing Interests: RG is a shareholder in several global medical and bio-pharmaceutical companies as part of his investment portfolio. The remaining 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 Riddell, Mini, Joshi, Thrift, Guggilla, Evans, Thankappan, Chalmers, Chow, Mahal, Kalyanram, Kartik, Suresh, Thomas, Maulik, Srikanth, Arabshahi, Varma, D'Esposito and Oldenburg.)