- Paul Garner, professor (pgarner@liv.ac.uk)1,
- Martin Meremikwu, senior lecturer2,
- Jimmy Volmink, professor3,
- Qian Xu, professor4,
- Helen Smith, research associate1
- 1 International Health Research Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA
- 2 Institute of Tropical Diseases Research and Prevention, University of Calabar, Calabar, PMB 1115, Cross River State, Nigeria
- 3 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory 7925 Cape Town, South Africa
- 4 Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Medical Center of Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
- Correspondence to: P Garner
Introduction
Imagine a new drug that reduces the absolute risk of treatment failure by three quarters—a rare situation in the West but a reality in countries where malaria is endemic, and where adding artesunate to existing drugs has this effect on cure.1 In middle and low income countries, life threatening infectious diseases are everywhere: new drugs can therefore have large effects on outcomes, and even modest benefits from new interventions can have a dramatic impact on health overall. In addition, wasting resources on ineffective interventions results in technical inefficiencies and substantial opportunity costs in countries least able to afford them; the Global Fund's purchase of ineffective drugs is a recent example.2
Since 1990 there has been a massive collective effort, largely fuelled by the Cochrane Collaboration, for people from middle and low income countries to “get it together”—to work collectively to bring research evidence into systematic reviews and to consider ways to ensure the findings are used in clinical practice. We all want to put research into practice, but in the past the emphasis was implementing results from single studies. Now it is widely accepted that we need to “globalise the evidence, and localise the decision”—that is, set the results from a single study in the context of other relevant research.3 4 However, these syntheses of the evidence must then be actively managed to ensure change: they require dissemination, policies and systems that enable change, and influential people motivated to stimulate change. This article highlights some of our experiences and personal observations of preparing reviews and implementing change.
Shifting global bench marks
The World Health Organization has …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Should UK membership exams be held overseas? Yes
Published 9 February 2012
Why not use ultrasound for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer for both the exclusion criteria for recruitment and for diagnosis as outcome variable
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Can the severity of menopausal symptoms be predicted?
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Does the BMJ have a particular ideology to pursue in assisted dying?
Published 9 February 2012
Re: Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published 9 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Wakefield sues BMJ over MMR articles (5 responses)
Published 10 Jan 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012