Childhood overweight and obesity have emerged as a public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted a systematic review with the aim to examine the association between socio-economic status (SES) and overweight or obesity among school-age children in sub-Saharan Africa. In March 2014 we searched five electronic databases for reports which presented cross-sectional data on prevalence levels of overweight or obesity stratified by SES groups among school-age children in sub-Saharan Africa. We used a random-effect model to pool the relative indexes of inequality of the association from the individual studies. In total, 20 reports satisfied the inclusion criteria providing results of 21 datasets. The risk of overweight or obesity in children from highest SES households was 5.28 times as high as that of children from lowest SES households (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62 to 10.66). On subgroup analysis, this association was statistically significant for household income and composite SES measures but not for parental educational attainment and occupation type. Similarly, the risk of overweight or obesity in children attending affluent (private) schools was 15.94 times as high as that of children going to either urban or rural public schools (95% CI 5.82 to 43.68). The magnitude of the association tended to be stronger for area or school-type compared with composite measures. In summary, children from higher SES households and those attending private schools tended to be overweight and obese.

The aim of this study was to identify and assess all existing randomized studies on treatment interventions for hand fractures and joint injuries, to inform practice and plan future research. PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched. We identified 78 randomized controlled trials published over 35 years, covering seven anatomical areas of the hand. We report on sources of bias, sample size, follow-up length and retention, outcome measures and reporting. In terms of interventions studied, the trials were extremely heterogeneous, so it is difficult to draw conclusions on individual treatments. The published randomized controlled clinical trial evidence for hand fractures and joint injuries is narrow in scope and of generally low methodological quality. Mapping provides a useful resource and stepping-stone for planning further research. There is a need for high-quality, collaborative research to guide management of a wider range of common hand injuries.

This study identifies the treatment outcome domains used in recently published studies on the treatment of hand fractures and joint injuries with the aim to inform development of a core outcome set. Seven databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2019 for randomized and quasi-randomized studies and large prospective observational studies. We identified 1777 verbatim outcomes in 160 eligible studies. From the verbatim outcomes we distinguished 639 unique outcomes, which we categorized into 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. The primary outcome was appropriately identified in only 65% (72/110) of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Of the 72 studies with a primary outcome identified, 74% (53/72) had an appropriate power calculation. The vast heterogeneity in outcome selection across studies highlights the need for a core outcome set of what outcomes to measure in future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries.

Physicians often encounter diagnostic problems with ambiguous and conflicting features. What are they likely to do in such situations? We presented a diagnostic scenario to 84 family physicians and traced their information gathering, diagnoses and management. The scenario contained an ambiguous feature, while the other features supported either a cardiac or a musculoskeletal diagnosis. Due to the risk of death, the cardiac diagnosis should be considered and managed appropriately. Forty-seven participants (56%) gave only a musculoskeletal diagnosis and 45 of them managed the patient inappropriately (sent him home with painkillers). They elicited less information and spent less time on the scenario than those who diagnosed a cardiac cause. No feedback was provided to participants. Stimulated recall with 52 of the physicians revealed differences in the way that the same information was interpreted as a function of the final diagnosis. The musculoskeletal group denigrated important cues, making them coherent with their representation of a pulled muscle, whilst the cardiac group saw them as evidence for a cardiac problem. Most physicians indicated that they were fairly or very certain about their diagnosis. The observed behaviours can be described as coherence-based reasoning, whereby an emerging judgment influences the evaluation of incoming information, so that confident judgments can be achieved even with ambiguous, uncertain and conflicting information. The role of coherence-based reasoning in medical diagnosis and diagnostic error needs to be systematically examined.

ObjectivesTo (1) generate detailed, person-centred data about the experience of finger injury and treatment and (2) understand the patients’ perspectives of research involvement with a view to informing better designed future studies in hand injury.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and framework analysis.Participants19 participants who were part of the Cohort study of Patients’ Outcomes for Finger Fractures and Joint Injuries study in a single secondary care centre in the UK.ResultsThe results of this study showed that although finger injuries are frequently seen as minor by patients and healthcare professionals, their effects on peoples’ lives are possibly greater than first anticipated. The relative importance of hand functioning means that the experience of treatment and recovery varies and is shaped by an individual’s age, job, lifestyle and hobbies. These factors will also inform an individual’s perspective on and willingness to participate in, hand research. Interviewees showed reluctance to accept randomisation in surgical trials. Interviewees would be more likely to participate in a study testing two variants of the same treatment modality (eg, surgery vs surgery), rather than two different modalities, (eg, surgery vs splint). The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure questionnaires that were used in this study were seen as less relevant by these patients. Pain, hand function and cosmetic appearance were considered important, meaningful outcomes.ConclusionsPatients with finger injuries need more support from healthcare professionals as they may experience more problems than first anticipated. Good communication by clinicians and empathy can help patients engage with the treatment pathway. Perceptions of an ‘insignificant’ injury and/or need for quick functional recovery will influence recruitment to future hand research (both positively and negatively). Accessible information about the functional and clinical consequences of a hand injury will be important in enabling participants to make fully informed decisions about participation.