OBJECTIVE: An in-depth evaluation of rural immunization services in Papua New Guinea was conducted to determine the reasons for poor immunization coverage, as well as to document the impact of recent efforts to strengthen the national immunization program. METHOD: A qualitative process was used to complement quantitative monitoring data. An interview process, based on open-ended questions, active listening and observation, was designed whereby a team of program supervisors collected information from rural health staff. The teams interviewed health staff in 30 health centres that were selected to provide examples of contrasting field situations. RESULTS: This qualitative review provided valuable detail about why immunization services were failing, encompassing locally specific weaknesses, such as logistic reasons for not conducting outreach, and generic systemic problems such as lack of access to funding. In addition, the information gathered provided details on local solutions developed by better-performing facilities. Both these aspects added significant value to quantitative measures of program performance (derived from national health information system data and analysis of supervision checklists). The review also captured a number of behavioural reasons that will need to be overcome before an improvement in the services can be expected. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This in-depth evaluation provided valuable information about problems in peripheral immunization clinics and identified local solutions. The high level of detail collected will be important for planning future strengthening of the health system. The study modelled a supportive form of supervision with the potential to improve outcomes from future supervisory visits. Some of the major barriers to improved immunization were locally specific organizational issues, as well as complex human problems. While some issues can be remedied through further strengthening of immunization systems, others lack easy, rapid solutions.
Immunization ; Evaluation ; Health ; Papua New Guinea ; Review [Publication Type]

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused 1.4 million deaths globally and is associated with a 3-4 times increase in 30-day mortality after a fragility hip fracture with concurrent COVID-19 infection. Typically, death from COVID-19 infection occurs between 15 and 22 days after the onset of symptoms, but this period can extend up to 8 weeks. This study aimed to assess the impact of concurrent COVID-19 infection on 120-day mortality after a fragility hip fracture. METHODS: A multi-centre prospective study across 10 hospitals treating 8% of the annual burden of hip fractures in England between 1st March and 30th April, 2020 was performed. Patients whose surgical treatment was payable through the National Health Service Best Practice Tariff mechanism for "fragility hip fractures" were included in the study. Patients' 120-day mortality was assessed relative to their peri-operative COVID-19 status. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27. RESULTS: A total of 746 patients were included in this study, of which 87 (11.7%) were COVID-19 positive. Mortality rates at 30- and 120-day were significantly higher for COVID-19 positive patients relative to COVID-19 negative patients (p < 0.001). However, mortality rates between 31 and 120-day were not significantly different (p = 0.107), 16.1% and 9.4% respectively for COVID-19 positive and negative patients, odds ratio 1.855 (95% CI 0.865-3.978). CONCLUSION Hip fracture patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection, provided that they are alive at day-31 after injury, have no significant difference in 120-day mortality. Despite the growing awareness and concern of "long-COVID" and its widespread prevalence, this does not appear to increase medium-term mortality rates after a hip fracture.
COVID-19 ; Hip Fractures/surgery* ; Humans ; Pandemics ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies ; State Medicine ; United Kingdom/epidemiology*