Understanding the practice of neuroanaesthesia across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a cross-sectional survey - 30/06/26
, Hemanshu Prabhakar a, Indu Kapoor a, Ritesh Lamsal b, Abhijit V Lele c, Samuel Ern Hung Tsan d, Jorge Mejia e, Cristiane Tavares f, Delphine Delali Grant g, Konstantin Popugaev h, Mani Kalaivani i, Ananya Abate j, Miguel Llano k, Walter Theiller l, Faraz Shafiq m, Sandra Spijkerman n, Martha Gómez-Ramírez o, Claudia Nino p, Hugo Sanchez q, Nophanan Chaikittisilpa r, Ahmad Rashad Akbari s, Madelayne A.M. Flores t, Aidos Konkayev u, Chann Myei v, Ina Cua w, Alexander Kulikov x, Oguzhan Arun y, Ibrahim Bello Galadima z, Wanning Yang aa, Gisela Maribel Llorente Mariñez ab, Safaa Hilal ac, George Njogu ad, Ganbold Lundeg ae, Victor Manuel Aquino Millan af, Yessica Ivon Terrazas Serrano ag, Puvanendiran Shanmugam ah, Dhania Santosa ai, Jehad Bander Ibrahim Abualbalol aj, Debora Forden Madyedye ak, Peter Agaba al, Dung Le Van amAbstract |
Background |
Understanding the challenges in resource-limited settings is crucial for improving the quality of care, building capacity, and facilitating international collaboration in neurosurgical care. We conducted this survey with the aim of assessing and describing the current practices, challenges, training, and infrastructure associated with neuroanaesthesia across LMICs, to identify key gaps.
Methods |
This cross-sectional survey collected data on training, education, details about clinical practice, agents used, availability of equipment and resources, and challenges involved. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and comparisons were made across different geographical regions and economic strata [low-income countries (LICs), lower middle-income countries (LoMICs), and upper middle-income countries (UMICs)].
Results |
A total of 453 anaesthesiologists from 38 LMICs took the survey. About 54.9% (133/242) of respondents from UMICs reported the presence of an academic program for training in neuroanaesthesia, while 67.2% (45/67) of respondents from LICs do not have any facility for neuroanaesthesia training. Approximately 40.4% (183/453) of respondents have a recognized neuroanaesthesia course available at their institute. The availability of dedicated neuroanaesthetists was limited (69/453; 15.2%). Only 46.8% (212/453) of respondents were satisfied with the availability of critical neuroanaesthesia tools, and variation was observed across LMICs ( p < 0.001). The presence of a dedicated quality improvement program was reported by only 16.8% of the respondents.
Conclusion |
This survey provides useful insight about the unmet needs and the opportunities for strengthening neuroanaesthesia practice in the LMICs.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Low-income countries, Middle-income countries, Neuroanesthesia, Quality improvement, Research, Resource-limited
Plan
Vol 45 - N° 5
Article 101778- septembre 2026 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
