The value of case reports in democratising evidence from resource-limited settings: Results of an exploratory survey

1Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Following a knowledge management analysis, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) - a medical humanitarian non-governmental organisation (NGO) - identified significant loss of medical knowledge from the field, owing primarily to the absence of a platform on which to share clinical lessons learned in humanitarian and resource-limited settings (HRLS). Wishing to address these missed opportunities to retain important scientific and pragmatic knowledge, the NGO has begun to actively encourage its clinicians to publish case reports/series that bring new and/or practical insights of benefit to patients and population groups. In parallel, we wished to obtain a clearer understanding of how case reports (CRs)/series can best play their role as 'first-line evidence' from HRLS, especially in areas suffering from a significant lack of data. Methods: We developed a survey with closed and open questions on 'The value of CRs from HRLS' to explore primarily (1) the reasons why this form of evidence from HRLS is often lacking, (2) what makes a case report/series worth sharing with the wider global health community, and (3) how we can ensure that published case reports/series reach their target audience. Results: Over a 6-month period, 1115 health professionals responded to the survey. Participants included clinicians and public health specialists from all over the world, with a majority based in Africa. The main reason cited for the dearth of CRs from HRLS was that practitioners are simply not writing and/or submitting reports (as versus having their papers rejected) due mainly to (1) a lack of skills and (2) time constraints. A large majority of respondents felt the CRs are a valuable tool for HRLS given their ability to discuss how cases are managed with rudimentary means as well as to draw attention to emerging or underestimated public health problems and neglected populations. Conclusion: We conclude that the clinical knowledge gained in resource-challenged settings is being underutilised in the interest of patients and global health. Consequently, clinicians in HRLS need greater access to basic training in scientific investigation and writing in addition to awareness as to the potential value of sharing their clinical experience with a view to broadening evidence production from high-income to low-income settings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Balinska, M. A., & Watts, R. A. (2020). The value of case reports in democratising evidence from resource-limited settings: Results of an exploratory survey. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00592-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free