PurposeMultidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are universally recommended, but recent literature has challenged their efficiency.MethodsThe American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conducted a survey of a randomly selected cohort of international ASCO members. The survey was built on SurveyMonkey and was sent via e-mail to a sample of 5,357 members.ResultsIn all, 501 ASCO members practicing outside the United States responded, and 86% of them participated in MDTBs at their own institutions. Those who attended represented a variety of disciplines in 70% to 86% of all MDTBs. The majority of MDTBs held weekly specialty and/or general meetings. Eighty-nine percent of 409 respondents attended for advice on treatment decisions. Survey respondents reported changes of 1% to 25% in treatment plans for 44% to 49% of patients with breast cancer and in 47% to 50% of patients with colorectal cancer. They reported 25% to 50% changes in surgery type and/or treatment plans for 14% to 21% of patients with breast cancer and 12% to 18% of patients with colorectal cancer. Of the 430 respondents 96% said overall benefit to patients was worth the time and effort spent at MDTBs, and 96% said that MDTBs have teaching value. Mini tumor boards held with whatever types of specialists were available were considered valid. In all, 94.8% (425 of 448) said that MDTBs should be required in institutions in which patients with cancer are treated.ConclusionMDTBs are commonplace worldwide. A majority of respondents attend them to obtain recommendations, and they report changes in patient management. Change occurred more frequently with nonmedical oncologists and with physicians who had less than 15 years in practice. MDTBs helped practitioners make management decisions. Mini tumor boards may improve time efficiency and are favored when the full team is not available. Suggestions for improving MDTBs included making them more efficient, better selection and preparation of cases, choosing an effective team leader, and improving how time is used, but more research is needed on ways to improve the efficiency of MDTBs.

ObjectivesTo describe the prevalence and correlates of depression and anxiety among adult Ebola virus disease (EVD) survivors in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.DesignCross-sectional.SettingOne-on-one surveys were conducted in EVD-affected communities in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea in early 2018.Participants1495 adult EVD survivors (726 male, 769 female).Primary and secondary outcome measuresPatient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression scores and Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scores.ResultsPrevalence and severity of depression and anxiety varied across the three countries. Sierra Leone had the highest prevalence of depression, with 22.0% of participants meeting the criteria for a tentative diagnosis of depression, compared with 20.2% in Liberia and 13.0% in Guinea. Sierra Leone also showed the highest prevalence of anxiety, with 10.7% of participants meeting criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-7 score ≥10), compared with 9.9% in Liberia and 4.2% in Guinea. Between one-third and one-half of respondents reported little interest or pleasure in doing things in the previous 2 weeks (range: 47.0% in Liberia to 37.6% in Sierra Leone), and more than 1 in 10 respondents reported ideation of self-harm or suicide (range: 19.4% in Sierra Leone to 10.4% in Guinea). Higher depression and anxiety scores were statistically significantly associated with each other and with experiences of health facility-based stigma in all three countries. Other associations between mental health scores and respondent characteristics varied across countries.ConclusionsOur results indicate that both depression and anxiety are common among EVD survivors in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, but that there is country-level heterogeneity in prevalence, severity and correlates of these conditions. All three countries should work to make mental health services available for survivors, and governments and organisations should consider the intersection between EVD-related stigma and mental health when designing programmes and training healthcare providers.

BackgroundThe Lives Saved Tool (LiST) is a computer-based model that estimates the impact of scaling up key interventions to improve maternal, newborn and child health. Initially developed to inform the Lancet Child Survival Series of 2003, the functionality and scope of LiST have been expanded greatly over the past 10 years. This study sought to “take stock” of how LiST is now being used and for what purposes.MethodsWe conducted a quantitative survey of LiST users, qualitative interviews with a smaller sample of LiST users and members of the LiST team at Johns Hopkins University, and a literature review of studies involving LiST analyses.ResultsLiST is being used by donors, international organizations, governments, NGOs and academic institutions to assist program evaluation, inform strategic planning and evidenced-based decision-making, and advocate for high-impact interventions. Some organizations have integrated LiST into internal workflows and built in-house capacity for using LiST, while other organizations rely on the LiST team for support and to outsource analyses. In addition to being a popular stand-alone software, LiST is used as a calculation engine for other applications.ConclusionsThe Lives Saved Tool has been reported to be a useful model in maternal, newborn, and child health. With continued commitment, LiST should remain as a part of the international health toolkit used to assess maternal, newborn and child health programs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4750-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The influence of social norms on child feeding is recognized, but guidance is lacking on how to address norms and related perceptions that hinder or support positive nutrition practices. We reviewed recent peer-reviewed and grey literature to summarize social norms relevant to complementary feeding (CF), intervention approaches that address norms, and their impacts on social norms and CF outcomes. Many reports described various norms, customs, and perceptions related to appropriate foods for young children, parenting practices, gender and family roles, but rarely explored how they motivated behavior. Community engagement and media interventions addressed norms through facilitated discussions, challenging negative norms, portraying positive norms, engaging emotions, and correcting misperceptions. Evaluations of norms-focused interventions reported improved CF practices, but few assessed impacts on social norms. Although multiple contextual factors influence CF practices, evidence suggests the feasibility and effectiveness of addressing social norms as one component of programs to improve CF practices.