Browsing by Author "Wiysonge, Charles S."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The acceptability of three vaccine injections given to infants during a single clinic visit in South Africa
    (BioMed Central, 2016) Tabana, Hanani; Dudley, Lilian D.; Knight, Stephen; Cameron, Neil; Mahomed, Hassan; Goliath, Charlyn; Eggers, Rudolf; Wiysonge, Charles S.
    BACKGROUND: The Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) has increased the number of antigens and injections administered at one visit. There are concerns that more injections at a single immunisation visit could decrease vaccination coverage. We assessed the acceptability and acceptance of three vaccine injections at a single immunisation visit by caregivers and vaccinators in South Africa. METHODS: A mixed methods exploratory study of caregivers and vaccinators at clinics in two provinces of South Africa was conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using questionnaires as well as observations of the administration of three-injection vaccination sessions. RESULTS: The sample comprised 229 caregivers and 98 vaccinators. Caregivers were satisfied with the vaccinators’ care (97 %) and their infants receiving immunisation injections (93 %). However, many caregivers, (86 %) also felt that three or more injections were excessive at one visit. Caregivers had limited knowledge of actual vaccines provided, and reasons for three injections. Although vaccinators recognised the importance of informing caregivers about vaccination, they only did this sometimes. Overall, acceptance of three injections was high, with 97 % of caregivers expressing willingness to bring their infant for three injections again in future visits despite concerns about the pain and discomfort that the infant experienced. Many (55 %) vaccinators expressed concern about giving three injections in one immunisation visit. However, in 122 (95 %) observed three-injection vaccination sessions, the vaccinators administered all required vaccinations for that visit. The remaining seven vaccinations were not completed because of vaccine stock-outs. CONCLUSIONS: We found high acceptance by caregivers and vaccinators of three injections. Caregivers’ poor understanding of reasons for three injections resulted from limited information sharing by vaccinators for caregivers. Acceptability of three injections may be improved through enhanced vaccinator-caregiver communication, and improved management of infants’ pain. Vaccinator training should include evidence-informed ways of communicating with caregivers and reducing injection pain. Strategies to improve acceptance and acceptability of three injections should be rigorously evaluated as part of EPI’s expansion in resource-limited countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane corner: beta-blockers for hypertension
    (BMJ, 2018) Wiysonge, Charles S.; Bradley, Hazel A.; Volmink, Jimmy; Mayosi, Bongani M.
    Beta-blockers refer to an assorted group of medications that block the action of endogenous catecholamines on beta-adrenergic receptors.1 The β1 and β2 receptors are the primary beta-adrenergic receptors in the human cardiovascular system. Beta-blockers differ in their β1/β2-receptor selectivity and vasodilatory properties. Based on this diversity, beta-blockers have been categorised into first, second and third generation. First-generation beta-blockers, also referred to as non-selective blockers, possess equal affinity for β1 and β2 receptors. Second-generation (or selective) beta-blockers exercise more affinity for β1 than β2 receptors. Neither of these traditional beta-blockers has vasodilatory properties, which is an intrinsic characteristic of third-generation beta-blockers.2 Beta-blockers have been known to play a role in blood pressure control since 1949.3 We summarise the findings of a Cochrane Review we published in 2017 on the comparative effects of beta-blockers as initial treatment for hypertension.4 This is an update of a review we first published 10 years ago.5–7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cochrane corner: beta-blockers for hypertension
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2017) Wiysonge, Charles S.; Bradley, Hazel A.; Volmink, Jimmy; Mayosi, Bongani M.
    Beta-blockers refer to an assorted group of medications that block the action of endogenous catecholamines on beta-adrenergic receptors.1 The ß1 and ß2 receptorsare the primary beta-adrenergic receptors in the human cardiovascular system. Beta- blockers differ in their ß1/ ß2-receptor selectivity and vasodilatory properties. Based on this diversity, beta-blockers have been categorised into first, second and third generation. First-generation beta-blockers, also referred to as non-selective blockers, possess equal affinity for ß1 and ß2 receptors. Second-generation (or selective) beta-blockers exercise more affinity for ß1 than ß2 receptors. Neither of these traditional beta-blockers has vasodilatory properties, which is an intrinsic characteristic of third-generation beta-blockers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence
    (BioMed Central, 2018) Johansen, Marit; Rada, Gabriel; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Motaze, Nkengafac Villyen; Opiyo, Newton; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Ding, Yunpeng; Mukinda, Fidele K.; Oxman, Andrew D.
    BACKGROUND: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’ search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. METHODS: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and highincome countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. RESULTS: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. CONCLUSIONS: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people.