Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators: Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators : Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators. / Holmer, H.; Bekele, A.; Hagander, L.; Harrison, E. M.; Kamali, P.; Ng-kamstra, J. S.; Khan, M. A.; Knowlton, L.; Leather, A. J. M.; Marks, I. H.; Meara, J. G.; Shrime, M. G.; Smith, M.; Søreide, K.; Weiser, T. G.; Davies, J.

In: British Journal of Surgery, 20.12.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Holmer, H, Bekele, A, Hagander, L, Harrison, EM, Kamali, P, Ng-kamstra, JS, Khan, MA, Knowlton, L, Leather, AJM, Marks, IH, Meara, JG, Shrime, MG, Smith, M, Søreide, K, Weiser, TG & Davies, J 2018, 'Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators: Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators', British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11061

APA

Holmer, H., Bekele, A., Hagander, L., Harrison, E. M., Kamali, P., Ng-kamstra, J. S., Khan, M. A., Knowlton, L., Leather, A. J. M., Marks, I. H., Meara, J. G., Shrime, M. G., Smith, M., Søreide, K., Weiser, T. G., & Davies, J. (2018). Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators: Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11061

Vancouver

Author

Holmer, H. ; Bekele, A. ; Hagander, L. ; Harrison, E. M. ; Kamali, P. ; Ng-kamstra, J. S. ; Khan, M. A. ; Knowlton, L. ; Leather, A. J. M. ; Marks, I. H. ; Meara, J. G. ; Shrime, M. G. ; Smith, M. ; Søreide, K. ; Weiser, T. G. ; Davies, J. / Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators : Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators. In: British Journal of Surgery. 2018.

Bibtex

@article{a1428ff08d6d4ab28acda25f03e34ec1,
title = "Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators: Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators",
abstract = "BackgroundIn 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates.MethodsNationally representative data were compiled for all WHO member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates.ResultsOf all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed.ConclusionSurgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution.",
author = "H. Holmer and A. Bekele and L. Hagander and Harrison, {E. M.} and P. Kamali and Ng-kamstra, {J. S.} and Khan, {M. A.} and L. Knowlton and Leather, {A. J. M.} and Marks, {I. H.} and Meara, {J. G.} and Shrime, {M. G.} and M. Smith and K. S{\o}reide and Weiser, {T. G.} and J. Davies",
year = "2018",
month = dec,
day = "20",
doi = "10.1002/bjs.11061",
language = "English",
journal = "British Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0007-1323",
publisher = "Wiley",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators

T2 - Collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators

AU - Holmer, H.

AU - Bekele, A.

AU - Hagander, L.

AU - Harrison, E. M.

AU - Kamali, P.

AU - Ng-kamstra, J. S.

AU - Khan, M. A.

AU - Knowlton, L.

AU - Leather, A. J. M.

AU - Marks, I. H.

AU - Meara, J. G.

AU - Shrime, M. G.

AU - Smith, M.

AU - Søreide, K.

AU - Weiser, T. G.

AU - Davies, J.

PY - 2018/12/20

Y1 - 2018/12/20

N2 - BackgroundIn 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates.MethodsNationally representative data were compiled for all WHO member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates.ResultsOf all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed.ConclusionSurgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution.

AB - BackgroundIn 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates.MethodsNationally representative data were compiled for all WHO member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates.ResultsOf all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed.ConclusionSurgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution.

U2 - 10.1002/bjs.11061

DO - 10.1002/bjs.11061

M3 - Article

JO - British Journal of Surgery

JF - British Journal of Surgery

SN - 0007-1323

ER -