Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: In designing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to understand what has already worked well. We aimed to identify countries with emerging success stories from whom policymakers might draw important lessons.  Methods: We developed a process to first include countries with large enough populations that results were unlikely to be due to chance, that had sufficient cases for response mechanisms to be tested, and that shared the necessary publicly available data. Within these countries, we looked at indicators suggesting success in terms of detecting disease, containing the outbreak, and treating those who were unwell. To support comparability, we measured indicators per capita (per million) and across time. We then used the indicators to identify three countries with emerging success stories to include some diversity in global region, population demographics and form of government. Results: We identified 66 countries that met our inclusion criteria on 18 th May 2020. Several of these countries had indicators of success against the set indicators at different times in the outbreak. Vietnam had high levels of testing and successful containment with no deaths reported. South Korea had high levels of testing early in the outbreak, supporting containment. Germany had high levels of sustained testing and slower increases in cases and deaths than seen in other comparable settings. Conclusions: At the time of our assessment, Vietnam and South Korea were able to contain the outbreak of COVID-19 and avoid the exponential growth in cases seen elsewhere. Germany had more cases and deaths, but was nevertheless able to contain and mitigate the outbreak. Despite the many limitations to the data currently available, looking at comparative data can help identify countries from whom we can draw lessons, so that countries can inform and adapt their strategies for success in response to COVID-19.

Background: In designing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to understand what has already worked well. We aimed to identify countries with emerging success stories from whom policymakers might draw important lessons.  Methods: We developed a process to first include countries with large enough populations that results were unlikely to be due to chance, that had sufficient cases for response mechanisms to be tested, and that shared the necessary publicly available data. Within these countries, we looked at indicators suggesting success in terms of detecting disease, containing the outbreak, and treating those who were unwell. To support comparability, we measured indicators per capita (per million) and across time. We then used the indicators to identify three countries with emerging success stories to include some diversity in global region, population demographics and form of government. Results: We identified 66 countries that met our inclusion criteria on 18 th May 2020. Several of these countries had indicators of success against the set indicators at different times in the outbreak. Vietnam had high levels of testing and successful containment with no deaths reported. South Korea had high levels of testing early in the outbreak, supporting containment. Germany had high levels of sustained testing and slower increases in cases and deaths than seen in other comparable settings. Conclusions: At the time of our assessment, Vietnam and South Korea were able to contain the outbreak of COVID-19 and avoid the exponential growth in cases seen elsewhere. Germany had more cases and deaths, but was nevertheless able to contain and mitigate the outbreak. Despite the many limitations to the data currently available, looking at comparative data can help identify countries from whom we can draw lessons, so that countries can inform and adapt their strategies for success in response to COVID-19.

Background It is not clear what the most effective implementation strategies are for supporting the enactment and sustainment of depression care services in primary care settings. This type-II Hybrid Implementation-Effectiveness study will compare the effectiveness of three system-level strategies for implementing depression care programs at 36 community health stations (CHSs) across 2 provinces in Vietnam. Methods In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, CHSs will be randomly assigned to one of three implementation conditions: (1) Usual Implementation (UI), which consists of training workshops and toolkits; (2) Enhanced Supervision (ES), which includes UI combined with bi-weekly/monthly supervision; and (3) Community-Engaged Learning Collaborative (CELC), which includes all components of ES, combined with bi-monthly province-wide learning collaborative meetings, during which cross-site learning and continuous quality improvement (QI) strategies are implemented to achieve better implementation outcomes. The primary outcome will be measured based on the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation quality, and Maintenance) using indicators on implementation, provider, and client factors. The secondary outcome examines factors associated with barriers and facilitators of quality implementation, while the tertiary outcome evaluates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of services provided in the ES and CELC conditions, relative to UI condition for depression care. A total of 1,296 clients receiving depression care at CHSs will be surveyed at baseline and 6-month follow-up to assess mental health and psychosocial outcomes (e.g., depression and anxiety severity, health function, quality of life). Additionally, 180 CHS staff and 180 non-CHS staff will complete pre- and post-training evaluation and surveys at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. Discussion We hypothesize that the additional implementation supports will make mental health service implementation superior in the ES and CELC arms compared to the UI arm. The findings of this project could identify effective implementation models and assess the added value of specific QI strategies for implementing depression care in primary care settings in Vietnam, with implications and recommendations for other low- and middle-income settings. More importantly, this study will provide evidence for key stakeholders and policymakers to consider policies that disseminate, scale up, and advance quality mental health care in Vietnam. Trial registration NCT04491045 on Clinicaltrials.gov. Registered July 29, 2020.

Background Addressing mental health disparities following COVID-19 requires adaptive, multi-sectoral, equity-focused, and community-based approaches. Mental health task-sharing in gateway settings has been found to address mental health care gaps in low- and middle-income countries, but is not a common practice in the U.S., especially in non-medical settings, such as low-income housing developments (LIH). This research study will evaluate the effectiveness of a multisectoral community-engaged collaborative for task-sharing mental health care on consumer, provider, and implementation outcomes, as well as identify barriers and facilitators for implementation. Methods In this stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with technology supplementation, LIH and primary care sites will be randomly assigned to one of five sequences of three implementation strategies: (1) Education and Resources (E&R), which involves online training and resources on basic mental health task-sharing skills, (2) Multisectoral Community Collaborative Care (MCC), which consists of all E&R resources plus additional community responsive implementation supports and participation in a multisectoral coalition and (3) MCC + Technology, which combines the MCC condition resources with a community crowdsourced technology solution to support implementation. The primary outcome is the effectiveness in meeting consumers’ needs through direct service (e.g., adequately addressing depression and anxiety symptoms), and through implementation to increase access to mental health care ( reach ). The secondary outcome examines additional consumer outcomes including health functioning and social risks, as well as implementation outcomes including provider skills, program adoption, and factors related to barriers and facilitators of quality implementation. A total of 700 consumers receiving mental health care at 20 sites will be surveyed at baseline, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Additionally, 100 providers will be evaluated at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups before training and after randomization. Discussion We hypothesize that MCC and MCC + Technology conditions will demonstrate significantly higher efficacy in changing primary outcomes compared to E&R, and the MCC + Technology supplement will show significantly higher levels of reach of mental health tasks compared to the MCC condition alone. These findings will demonstrate the feasibility of mental health integration into accessible, non-medical community settings such as LIH. Moreover, it will help establish a multilevel system solution based on community engagement and planning with a multisectoral collaboration that can be sustained community-wide. Trial registration NCT05833555 on Clinicaltrials.gov. Registered April 26, 2023

Limb‐girdle muscular dystrophy‐type 2C (LGMD2C) is caused by mutations in the SGCG gene. Here, we report a case of a 26‐year‐old male who had inactive walking due to proximal muscle weakness. Targeted next‐generation sequencing found a novel variant c.412C > T (Q138*) in the SGCG gene.

An integral transform involving a Fox's H-function is introduced. This integral transform is closely related to a multi-index analogue of the classical Mittag-Leffler function. Along with the basic operational and mapping properties of this transform, the new results presented here include complex and real inversion formulas and a convolution theorem.