Management and outcomes of intracranial fungal infections in children and adults in Africa: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The protocol presents the methodology of a scoping review that aims to synthesise contemporary evidence on the management and outcomes of intracranial fungal infections in Africa.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley's framework. The research question, inclusion and exclusion criteria and search strategy were developed based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. A search will be conducted in electronic bibliographic databases (Medline (OVID), Embase, African Journals Online, Cochrane Library and African Index Medicus). No restrictions on language or date of publication will be made. Quantitative and qualitative data extracted from included articles will be presented through descriptive statistics and a narrative description.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol does not require ethical approval. Findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed medical journal and presented at local, regional, national and international conferences.

Neurosurgical Equipment Donations: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

Neurosurgical equipment donation from high-income countries (HICs) to low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) exists. However, there is currently no published literature on whether there is a need for neurosurgical equipment donations or how to design equipment donation programmes that meet the needs of LMIC neurosurgeons. The primary aims of this study were to explore: (1) the need for the donation of neurosurgical equipment from the UK and Ireland to LMICs within the African continent, and (2) the ways through which neurosurgical equipment donations could meet the needs of LMIC neurosurgeons.

Methods

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured, one-on-one, audio-recorded interviews. Purposive sampling was used to recruit and interview consultants or attending neurosurgeons from Ireland, the UK and LMICs in Africa in a continuous process until data saturation. Interviews were conducted by members of the Association of Future African Neurosurgeons during March 2021. Qualitative analysis used a thematic approach using open and axial coding.

Results

Five HIC and 3 LMIC neurosurgeons were interviewed. Five overarching themes were identified: (1) inequality of access to neurosurgical equipment, (2) identifying specific neurosurgical equipment needs, (3) importance of organisations, (4) partnerships between LMIC and HIC centres, and (5) donations are insufficient in isolation.

Conclusion

There is a need for greater access to neurosurgical equipment in LMICs. It is unclear if neurosurgical equipment donations are the optimal solution to this issue. Other solutions that are not linked to dependency need to be explored and executed. Collaborative relationships between LMICs and HICs better ensures that neurosurgical equipment donations meet the needs of the recipients. These relationships may be best created within an organisation framework that has the logistical capabilities of coordinating international equipment donation and providing a quality control measure.

Survey Fatigue During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Neurosurgery Survey Response Rates

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in research activity while restricting data collection methods, leading to a rise in survey-based studies. Anecdotal evidence suggests this increase in neurosurgical survey dissemination has led to a phenomenon of survey fatigue, characterized by decreased response rates and reducing the quality of data. This paper aims to analyze the effect of COVID-19 on neurosurgery surveys and their response rates, and suggest strategies for improving survey data collection.

Methods: A search was conducted on March 20, 2021, on Medline and EMBASE. This included the terms “neurosurgery,” “cranial surgery,” “spine surgery,” and “survey” and identified surveys written in English, on a neurosurgical topic, distributed to neurosurgeons, trainees, and medical students. Results were screened by two authors according to these inclusion criteria, and included articles were used for data extraction, univariable, and bivariable analysis with Fisher's exact-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Spearman's correlation.

Results: We included 255 articles in our analysis, 32.3% of which were published during the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys had an average of 25.6 (95% CI = 22.5–28.8) questions and were mostly multiple choice (78.8%). They were disseminated primarily by email (75.3%, 95% CI = 70.0–80.6%) and there was a significant increase in dissemination via social media during the pandemic (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 1.30–12.0). COVID-19 surveys were distributed to more geographical regions than pre-pandemic surveys (2.1 vs. 1.5, P = 0.01) and had higher total responses (247.0 vs. 206.4, P = 0.01), but lower response rates (34.5 vs. 51.0%, P < 0.001) than pre-COVID-19 surveys.

Conclusion: The rise in neurosurgical survey distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to survey fatigue, reduced response rates, and data collection quality. We advocate for population targeting to avoid over-researching, collaboration between research teams to minimize duplicate surveys, and communication with respondents to convey study importance, and we suggest further strategies to improve response rates in neurosurgery survey data collection.