Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Examining fall-related mortality in registries and surveillance systems in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
  1. Alissa Renz1,
  2. Samuel Mayeden1,
  3. Silvia Runge-Ranzinger1,
  4. Valerie R Louis1,
  5. Andreas Deckert1,
  6. Peter Dambach1,
  7. Volker Winkler1,
  8. Olaf Horstick1,
  9. Michael Lowery Wilson1,2
  1. 1Research to Practice Group, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg, Germany
  2. 2Injury Epidemiology and Prevention (IEP) Research Group, Turku Brain Injury Centre, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
  1. Correspondence to Alissa Renz; alissa.renz{at}uni-heidelberg.de

Abstract

Objective Fall-related injuries are a global public health concern, and trauma registries aid in collecting data to develop measures to reduce their burden on individuals and communities. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the reporting of fall-related mortality in trauma registries and surveillance systems in sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched eight electronic databases, and studies set in countries of sub-Saharan Africa were included if the reported data originated from a trauma registry or surveillance system and contained a measurement of fall-related mortality. Results were synthesised in a descriptive manner.

Results Of the 3574 records found, we included 21 studies in the analysis. Different definitions were inconsistently used in reporting fall-related mortality: studies reported either a percentage of fall deaths by total falls or of fall deaths by total deaths. Deaths due to falls by total falls ranged from 0.01% to 2.4% in studies with paediatric patient populations, and from 0.03% to 60% among studies not restricted to a specific age group. Reporting on other variables in relation to injury and trauma care was also inconsistent.

Conclusions The findings of this review were heterogeneous, and variables were collected irregularly among trauma registries. This led to a broad range of results and made comparisons and deductions difficult. A more standardised data collection across registries would heighten the intercomparability of results from different studies and, therefore, facilitate usage in data-based efforts for implementing prevention and optimising care.

  • Fall
  • Registry
  • Systematic Review
  • Mortality

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. An internal review protocol is available on request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. An internal review protocol is available on request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @samuel.mayeden

  • Contributors AR, SR-R, VRL, AD, PD, VW, OH and MLW conceived the idea. AR and SM performed all screening, extraction, quality assessment and consensus. All authors contributed to manuscript development and approved submission. AR was responsible for the overall content and acts as the guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Map disclaimer The inclusion of any map (including the depiction of any boundaries therein), or of any geographic or locational reference, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. Any such expression remains solely that of the relevant source and is not endorsed by BMJ. Maps are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.