It is now accepted that in developing countries community-based rehabilitation (CBR) is the most effective way to meet the needs of the disabled. The proportion of the population of Papua New Guinea (PNG) having access to CBR is not known. The purpose of this project was to clarify the extent of rehabilitation services in PNG. It was hoped that by establishing the extent of services, communication and cooperation between them would increase, leading to more efficient and effective use of the limited resources (human and otherwise) available for rehabilitation in PNG. A questionnaire was sent to all known existing rehabilitation services, all provincial health departments, provincial hospitals and church health services. A 47% response rate was achieved. Results showed that most provinces have some form of rehabilitation available but rehabilitation is not spread equally throughout PNG. Most of the services are based in the urban centres and the rural population is badly served except in the Highlands Region and the Sepik provinces, which appear to be more comprehensively served by CBR. The services that do exist are hampered by lack of human and material resources and difficulty accessing clients due to transport difficulties. There needs to be a greater movement of rehabilitation into the community with government backing. The greatest effort is being made by Callan Services for Disabled Persons based in Wewak with its group of Special Education Resource Centres that also carry out CBR. CBR would appear to be an appropriate way to address the needs of the disabled PNG population, but in order to be successful it requires greater backing and more trained personnel.
Rehabilitation aspects ; Papua New Guinea ; Disabled Persons ; Rehabilitation service ; seconds

Methods: Patients presenting with a spine fracture were diagnosed with AS or DISH at a single tertiary care center between 2010 and 2019. We excluded those who lacked cross-sectional imaging or fractures occurring at spinal segments affected by ankylosis, as well as polytraumatized patients. Patient demographics, injury mechanism, fracture level, neurologic status, treatment, and 1-year mortality were recorded. Computed tomography imaging was reviewed by two independent readers and graded according to the indicated AO Spine Injury Classification System. Differences in fracture severity, treatment method, and mortality were examined using Student t -tests, chi-square tests, and two-proportion Z-tests with significance set to p <0.05. Results: We identified 167 patients with spine fracture diagnosed with AS or DISH. Patients with AS had more severe fractures and more commonly had surgery than patients with DISH (p <0.001). Despite these differences, 1-year mortality did not significantly differ between AS and DISH patients (p =0.14). Conclusions Although patients with AS suffered more severe fractures compared to DISH and more frequently underwent surgery for these injuries, outcomes and 1-year mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups. For patients with ASDs and fractures, outcomes appear similar regardless of treatment modality. Consequently, there may be an opportunity for critical reappraisal of operative indications in ASD and a larger role for nonoperative management in these challenging patients.