Nuss, Sarah

ImportanceUnderstanding the global barriers to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) care is crucial in addressing disparities in access to care, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).ObjectiveTo characterize barriers to comprehensive otolaryngology care across World Bank income groups.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing an online cross-sectional survey that was administered by the Global OHNS Initiative via international and national professional societies, personal contacts, and social media, this study captured the perceptions of otolaryngologists regarding barriers to OHNS care at the levels of the country, health sector, clinician, and patient. Participants included otolaryngologists from the 194 World Health Organization member states and Taiwan. Eligibility criteria included a medical degree and specialized training in managing conditions of the ear, nose, and throat. The nonresponse rate was not recorded. The data collection period spanned from October 2022 to June 2023.ExposuresExposures included World Bank income group classification.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcomes were Likert scale responses regarding frequency of barriers to OHNS care. The a priori hypothesis was that LMICs would report more frequent barriers to OHNS care.ResultsThe study involved 146 otolaryngologists (47 female individuals [32%]), with 69 (47%) from high-income countries and 77 (53%) from LMICs. Male individuals represented 45 high-income country respondents (65%) and 54 LMIC respondents (70%). Barriers were reported across income groups at all levels of the health system, with a higher frequency in LMICs. Several barriers were reported to be more substantial in LMICs, such as the national volume and distribution of otolaryngologists, financial compensation for clinicians, and patient stigma, and others were common across income settings, such as the availability of operating rooms and inflexible working hours. Common concerns included national and health sector barriers: OHNS workforce, referral networks, government support; clinician barriers: excessive clinician workloads, understaffing, poor administration support; patient barriers: distance to health care facilities, financial burdens such as medical costs and foregone wages, stigma, and health literacy.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that there are barriers to otolaryngology care globally that affected all levels of the health care system. This work may inform prioritization of otolaryngology within research and policy, and it emphasizes the need for effective strategies to expand access to otolaryngology care, particularly in lower-income settings.

ABSTRACTImportanceHighlighting the global disparities in otolaryngology training and, ultimately, service delivery, emphasizing the need for equitable access to training resources and programs.ObjectiveTo describe the relationship between the quality, content, and location of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery training and education and the resulting impact on the delivery of otolaryngology care globally.DesignAn online cross‐sectional survey to otolaryngologists, gathering information on their training and education experiences, and factors influencing their choice of training location and practice.SettingThe online survey was available in multiple languages, distributed via national and international professional otolaryngology societies, snowballing and social media.ParticipantsThe respondents were practicing otolaryngologists representing all seven World Health Organization regions.ExposuresWorld Bank income groups classification.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOur expected outcome was that subspecialty training and access to educational resources were significantly readily available to respondents from high‐income countries, leading to more confidence in performing complex procedures post training.ResultsA total of 91 participants were included in the analysis, with 47 (52%) practicing in high‐income countries and 44 (48%) in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Sixty‐one participants (67%) were male. Subspecialty training and access to educational resources were significantly less available in low‐ and middle‐income countries, leading to lower confidence among low‐ and middle‐income countries physicians in performing complex procedures. High‐income country respondents reported better access to diverse training resources and felt more prepared for a broader range of procedures.Conclusion and RelevanceSignificant disparities exist in OHNS training resources and subspecialty training opportunities between high‐ and low‐middle‐income countries. There is a critical need to integrate complementary training and educational modalities into local systems. Addressing the shortage of educational resources and promoting open‐access initiatives in low‐middle‐income countries are essential steps toward enhancing surgical education and improving global otolaryngology healthcare outcomes.

ABSTRACT Objective Availability of surgical equipment and access to essential clinical services remains an important barrier to surgical care delivery, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). This study aims to characterize the relative availability of essential equipment for otolaryngology‐head and neck surgery (OHNS) care across World Bank income groups. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional survey on otolaryngologists' perceptions on the availability of surgical equipment and ancillary services in their respective practice settings per a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from never to always available. The study was disseminated online via professional societies, personal contacts, and social media. Eligible participants included otolaryngologists from 194 WHO‐recognized countries, which were grouped by World Bank income group classification and WHO region. Results The study involved 146 otolaryngologists, 69 (47%) from high‐income countries (HICs), and 77 (53%) from LMICs. LMIC respondents were predominantly from the African and South‐East Asian regions, which comprised 48% and 7.8% of all LMIC respondents, respectively. Results revealed significant differences in the availability of otologic, rhinologic, and endoscopic airway equipment between HICs and LMICs. Differences existed among commonly used equipment such as tympanomastoidectomy equipment and rigid bronchoscopy, to subspecialized equipment such as functional endoscopic sinus surgery equipment and cochlear implants ( p < 0.05 each). Conclusions The study highlighted key disparities in the availability of essential equipment for baseline OHNS care, especially for pediatric airway and otologic conditions. These results can be used to guide investment and advocacy efforts to improve specialty‐specific surgical infrastructure relative to the global burden of OHNS diseases in low‐resource settings. Level of Evidence 3

AbstractObjectiveThis scoping review aims to contribute a descriptive analysis of the craniomaxillofacial trauma (CMF trauma) literature in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) to identify knowledge gaps, direct future research, and inform policy.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Review, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from January 1, 2012 to December 10, 2023.Review MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guided reporting, and the PRISMA flowchart documented database searches. Specific, predefined search terms and inclusion criteria were used for screening, and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used for quality assessment. The search yielded 54 articles, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. Key findings were summarized and divided into 7 categories.ResultsThere were 10,420 patients (7739 [74.3%] male, 2681 [25.7%] female) with a male‐to‐female ratio of 2.9:1. The mean peak age of incidence of CMF trauma was 30.8 years, ranging from 20 to 40 years. Road traffic accidents were the leading cause (60.4%), followed by assault (27.2%) and falls (12.2%). The most common injuries were soft tissue injury (31.7%), isolated mandibular fracture (22.8%), and isolated middle‐third of mandible fracture (18.1%). The most common treatments were closed reduction and immobilization (29.5%), conservative management (27.6%), and open reduction and internal fixation (19.6%). Most patients (77.8%) experienced a treatment delay due to a lack of fixation materials (54.8%) or surgeon unavailability (35.7%).ConclusionCMF trauma remains a significant cause of global morbidity, yet there remains a lack of high‐quality, CMF trauma‐specific data in LMICs. Country‐specific investigations are required to enhance knowledge and inform novel interventions. Implementing policy change must be community‐specific and account for unique cultural barriers, attitudes, and behaviors to maximize patient care outcomes.

Purpose of review Identify patient-perceived barriers to head and neck cancer care and compare differences in barriers by country income status. Recent Findings Of the 37 articles, 51% (n = 19) were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), while 49% (n = 18) were from high-income countries. Of the papers from high-income countries, unspecified head and neck cancer (HNC) subtype (67%, n = 12) were the most common cancer type, while upper aerodigestive tract mucosal malignancies (58%, n = 11) were more common in LMICs (P = 0.02). Based on World Health Organization barriers, level of education (P = < 0.01) and alternative medicine use (P = 0.04) were greater barriers in LMICs compared to high-income countries. At least 50% of articles listed barriers at all three ‘Three Delays’ timepoints. There were no significant differences by country income status for the ‘Three Delays’ timepoints of deciding to seek care (P = 0.23), reaching the healthcare facility (P = 0.75), or receiving care (P = 1.00). Summary Patients face barriers to care for head and neck cancer regardless of country income status. There is overlap in several barriers and a need for systemic improvement in access. The differences in education and alternative medicine may guide region-specific interventions to improve the provision of head and neck services.

Introduction: Most studies evaluating gender disparities in surgical specialties as a career choice are limited to high-income countries and have largely evaluated surgical subspecialties in aggregate. Objective: This study aimed to describe gender-based differences in otolaryngology specialty selection amongst medical students, trainees, and attendings/consultants across both low- and middle-income (LMICs) and high-income countries. Materials and methods: An online cross-sectional survey with 2 arms was administered. The first arm asked medical students about gender-related factors that impact interest in otolaryngology. The second arm asked otolaryngology residents and attendings about gender-related factors that impacted otolaryngology specialty selection and career satisfaction. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics and survey responses. Responses were compared by gender using χ2 and Fisher Exact tests. Subgroup analyses between gender and country income status were also conducted. Results: There were 67 medical student respondents (45% male, 54% female, 1.5% nonbinary) and 38 attending/consultant or resident respondents (47% male, 53% female, 0% nonbinary). Thirty-six (36%) of medical students were from LMICs, while 45% of attending/residents were from LMICs. Overall, the results demonstrated gender discrimination and gender-based barriers against female medical students considering otolaryngology and otolaryngologists worldwide that may not be recognized by their male colleagues. Conclusion: The results of these surveys highlight the need for continued education and anti-discrimination policy and advocacy in otolaryngology globally. This information can be leveraged to inform regionally specific research on gender disparities in the otolaryngology workforce and provide a foundation for initiatives to address gender disparities in otolaryngology programs.

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop an international expert consensus on priority pediatric otolaryngology‐head and neck surgery (OHNS) conditions and procedures for which all national health systems globally should be capable of managing.Study DesignThe Delphi method is a multiround online questionnaire and was administered internationally to otolaryngologists with a focus on pediatric populations. This study was administered in parallel to a Delphi survey focusing on adult OHNS conditions amongst adult otolaryngology experts.SettingInternational online survey.MethodsIn round 1, participants listed the top 15 pediatric otolaryngological conditions and top 15 pediatric otolaryngology procedures for their World Bank region. In round 2, participants ranked round 1 responses in order of global importance on a 5‐point Likert scale. In round 3, participants reranked conditions and procedures that did not achieve consensus, defined as at least 70% of the round 2 Likert responses being ranked as either “important” or “very important.” Descriptive statistics were calculated for each round.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 35 experts globally, with a 40% (n = 14) response rate. Fifty percent (n = 7) of participants were from low‐ and middle‐income countries, with at least 1 participant from each World Bank region. A list of 28 consensus surgical procedures and 11 consensus conditions were identified.ConclusionThis Delphi survey method of world experts in pediatric otolaryngology identified a core list of medical conditions and surgical procedures that should be a part of every national health system's clinical goals of treatment, research, and capacity building.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop an international expert consensus on priority otolaryngology–head and neck surgery conditions and procedures globally for which national health systems should be capable of caring.Study DesignThe Delphi method was employed via a multiround online survey administered to attending otolaryngologists in an international research collaborative of >180 otolaryngologists in >40 countries.SettingInternational online survey.MethodsIn round 1, participants listed the top 15 otolaryngologic conditions and top 15 otolaryngology procedures for their World Bank regions. In round 2, participants ranked round 1 responses in order of global importance on a 5‐point Likert scale. In round 3, participants reranked conditions and procedures that did not achieve consensus, defined as 50% of the round 2 Likert responses being ranked as “important” or “very important.” Descriptive statistics were calculated for each round.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 53 experts globally, with a response rate of 38% (n = 20). Fifty percent (n = 10) of participants were from low‐ and middle‐income countries, with at least 1 participant from each World Bank region. Ten consensus surgical procedures and 10 consensus conditions were identified.ConclusionThis study identified a list of priority otolaryngology–head and neck surgery conditions and surgical procedures for which all national health systems around the world should be capable of managing. Acute and infectious conditions with preventative and emergent procedures were highlighted. These findings can direct future research and guide international collaborations.