Helen Elsey

Bio: Helen Elsey is an academic researcher from University of York. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Public health. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 88 publications receiving 1141 citations. Previous affiliations of Helen Elsey include University of Leeds & Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

Barriers to, and facilitators of, parenting programmes for childhood behaviour problems: a qualitative synthesis of studies of parents’ and professionals’ perceptions

Abstract: Disruptive behaviour problems (DBPs) during childhood exert a high burden on individuals, families and the community as a whole. Reducing this impact is a major public health priority. Early parenting interventions are recommended as valuable ways to target DBPs; however, low take-up of, and high drop-out rates from, these programmes seriously reduce their effectiveness. We present a review of published qualitative evidence relating to factors that block or facilitate access and engagement of parents with such programmes using a thematic synthesis approach. 12 papers presenting views of both parents and professionals met our inclusion and quality criteria. A large number of barriers were identified highlighting the array of challenges parents can face when considering accessing and engaging with treatment for their child with behavioural problems. Facilitating factors in this area were also identified. A series of recommendations were made with regard to raising awareness of programmes and recruiting parents, providing flexible and individually tailored support, delivering programmes through highly skilled, trained and knowledgeable therapists, and highlighting factors to consider when delivering group-based programmes. Clinical guidelines should address barriers and facilitators of engagement as well as basic efficacy of treatment approaches.

Engendering the bureaucracy? Challenges and opportunities for mainstreaming gender in Ministries of Health under sector-wide approaches

Abstract: The increasing ascendancy of 'gender mainstreaming' as the central approach to improving gender equity has largely determined strategies to integrate a gender focus in sector-wide approaches (SWAps). This paper explores the impetus for and process of gender mainstreaming in SWAps in the Ministries of Health in Uganda, Ghana, Malawi and Mozambique, and outlines some achievements and challenges. The shifting and contested relationships between the Ministry of Health, donors and other government ministries (such as Ministries of Finance and Ministries of Women's Affairs/Gender) are important in shaping the opportunities and constraints faced in gender mainstreaming. The refocusing of resource allocation to different sectors has led to changes in the balance of power between the various actors at the national level, with diverse implications for promoting gender equity in health. Some of the achievements to date and ongoing challenges are explored through concrete examples from different countries. These include: the development of structures for mainstreaming, including the dilemmas of the 'focal points' approach and the role of national gender mainstreaming machinery; the need for training and building capacity to identify and address gender issues, which involves engaging with new languages and concepts, and developing new skills; building alliances, consensus and momentum; integrating gender concerns into policy and planning documents; and promoting gender equity in human resources in the health sector. Cross-cutting themes underlying these challenges are the need for gender-specific information and ways to finance mainstreaming strategies. Implications are drawn for ways forward, without losing sight of the challenge of translating discourses of gender mainstreaming, and its central ideal of social transformation, into pragmatic strategies in the bureaucratic environment.

Need for an Integrated Deprived Area “Slum” Mapping System (IDEAMAPS) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

Abstract: Ninety percent of the people added to the planet over the next 30 years will live in African and Asian cities, and a large portion of these populations will reside in deprived neighborhoods defined by slum conditions, informal settlement, or inadequate housing. The four current approaches to neighborhood deprivation mapping are largely siloed, and each fall short of producing accurate, timely, and comparable maps that reflect local contexts. The first approach, classifying “slum households” in census and survey data, reflects household-level rather than neighborhood-level deprivation. The second approach, field-based mapping, can produce the most accurate and context-relevant maps for a given neighborhood, however it requires substantial resources, preventing up-scaling. The third and fourth approaches, human (visual) interpretation and machine classification of air or spaceborne imagery, both overemphasize informal settlements, and fail to represent key social characteristics of deprived areas such as lack of tenure, exposure to pollution, and lack of public services. We summarize common areas of understanding, and present a set of requirements and a framework to produce routine, accurate maps of deprived urban areas that can be used by local-to-international stakeholders for advocacy, planning, and decision-making across Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). We suggest that machine learning models be extended to incorporate social area-level covariates and regular contributions of up-to-date and context-relevant field-based classification of deprived urban areas.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.