Hospital care of children in four countries

Background. While perceptions of parents and staff about care of hospitalized children have been explored in developed countries, little research has examined these in developing countries. Assumptions about family-centred care are often based on Western values, with little evidence of how cultural constructs affect care delivery in developing nations. Aim. This paper reports a study to provide evidence from which culturally-appropriate hospital care for children can be delivered. Methods. Using a rigorously devised and trialed questionnaire, attitudes of staff and parents about the way children are cared for in children's hospitals in four countries were examined and subjected to a four way analysis: parents and staff within and between developed and developing countries. Results. There were no questions where all parents and staff in both developed and developing country groups were in complete agreement. However, there was some indication that, while culture plays a major role in paediatric care delivery, basic concepts of family-centred care are similar. Conclusions. The findings are limited by the sampling strategy. Nevertheless, while differences were found between parents' and staff's expectations of the delivery of care to children in hospitals, similarities existed and the influence of culture cannot be ignored. Education programmes for staff and parents should reflect these influences to ensure the optimum delivery of family-centred care, regardless of where the hospital is situated.

The evolution of the Global Burden of Disease framework for disease, injury and risk factor quantification: Developing the evidence base for national, regional and global public health action

Reliable, comparable information about the main causes of disease and injury in populations, and how these are changing, is a critical input for debates about priorities in the health sector. Traditional sources of information about the descriptive epidemiology of diseases, injuries and risk factors are generally incomplete, fragmented and of uncertain reliability and comparability. Lack of a standardized measurement framework to permit comparisons across diseases and injuries, as well as risk factors, and failure to systematically evaluate data quality have impeded comparative analyses of the true public health importance of various conditions and risk factors. As a consequence the impact of major conditions and hazards on population health has been poorly appreciated, often leading to a lack of public health investment. Global disease and risk factor quantification improved dramatically in the early 1990s with the completion of the first Global Burden of Disease Study. For the first time, the comparative importance of over 100 diseases and injuries, and ten major risk factors, for global and regional health status could be assessed using a common metric (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) which simultaneously accounted for both premature mortality and the prevalence, duration and severity of the non-fatal consequences of disease and injury. As a consequence, mental health conditions and injuries, for which non-fatal outcomes are of particular significance, were identified as being among the leading causes of disease/injury burden worldwide, with clear implications for policy, particularly prevention. A major achievement of the Study was the complete global descriptive epidemiology, including incidence, prevalence and mortality, by age, sex and Region, of over 100 diseases and injuries. National applications, further methodological research and an increase in data availability have led to improved national, regional and global estimates for 2000, but substantial uncertainty around the disease burden caused by major conditions, including, HIV, remains. The rapid implementation of cost-effective data collection systems in developing countries is a key priority if global public policy to promote health is to be more effectively informed.