Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib

Dr. Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 October 2020 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RLRafael Lozano
Rafael Lozano
NFNancy Fullman
Nancy Fullman
JMJohn Everett Mumford
John Everett Mumford
MKMegan Knight
Megan Knight
CBCeline M Barthelemy
Celine M Barthelemy
CMChristopher J L Murray
Christopher J L Murray
Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) involves all people receiving the health services they need, of high quality, without experiencing financial hardship. Making progress towards UHC is a policy priority for both countries and global institutions, as highlighted by the agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and WHO's Thirteenth General Programme of Work (GPW13). Measuring effective coverage at the health-system level is important for understanding whether health services are aligned with countries' health profiles and are of sufficient quality to produce health gains for populations of all ages. Based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we assessed UHC effective coverage for 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2019. Drawing from a measurement framework developed through WHO's GPW13 consultation, we mapped 23 effective coverage indicators to a matrix representing health service types (eg, promotion, prevention, and treatment) and five population-age groups spanning from reproductive and newborn to older adults (≥65 years). Effective coverage indicators were based on intervention coverage or outcome-based measures such as mortality-to-incidence ratios to approximate access to quality care; outcome-based measures were transformed to values on a scale of 0-100 based on the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile of location-year values. We constructed the UHC effective coverage index by weighting each effective coverage indicator relative to its associated potential health gains, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years for each location-year and population-age group. For three tests of validity (content, known-groups, and convergent), UHC effective coverage index performance was generally better than that of other UHC service coverage indices from WHO (ie, the current metric for SDG indicator 3.8.1 on UHC service coverage), the World Bank, and GBD 2017. We quantified frontiers of UHC effective coverage performance on the basis of pooled health spending per capita, representing UHC effective coverage index levels achieved in 2019 relative to country-level government health spending, prepaid private expenditures, and development assistance for health. To assess current trajectories towards the GPW13 UHC billion target-1 billion more people benefiting from UHC by 2023-we estimated additional population equivalents with UHC effective coverage from 2018 to 2023. Globally, performance on the UHC effective coverage index improved from 45·8 (95% uncertainty interval 44·2-47·5) in 1990 to 60·3 (58·7-61·9) in 2019, yet country-level UHC effective coverage in 2019 still spanned from 95 or higher in Japan and Iceland to lower than 25 in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Since 2010, sub-Saharan Africa showed accelerated gains on the UHC effective coverage index (at an average increase of 2·6% [1·9-3·3] per year up to 2019); by contrast, most other GBD super-regions had slowed rates of progress in 2010-2019 relative to 1990-2010. Many countries showed lagging performance on effective coverage indicators for non-communicable diseases relative to those for communicable diseases and maternal and child health, despite non-communicable diseases accounting for a greater proportion of potential health gains in 2019, suggesting that many health systems are not keeping pace with the rising non-communicable disease burden and associated population health needs. In 2019, the UHC effective coverage index was associated with pooled health spending per capita (r=0·79), although countries across the development spectrum had much lower UHC effective coverage than is potentially achievable relative to their health spending. Under maximum efficiency of translating health spending into UHC effective coverage performance, countries would need to reach $1398 pooled health spending per capita (US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity) in order to achieve 80 on the UHC effective coverage index. From 2018 to 2023, an estimated 388·9 million (358·6-421·3) more population equivalents would have UHC effective coverage, falling well short of the GPW13 target of 1 billion more people benefiting from UHC during this time. Current projections point to an estimated 3·1 billion (3·0-3·2) population equivalents still lacking UHC effective coverage in 2023, with nearly a third (968·1 million [903·5-1040·3]) residing in south Asia. The present study demonstrates the utility of measuring effective coverage and its role in supporting improved health outcomes for all people-the ultimate goal of UHC and its achievement. Global ambitions to accelerate progress on UHC service coverage are increasingly unlikely unless concerted action on non-communicable diseases occurs and countries can better translate health spending into improved performance. Focusing on effective coverage and accounting for the world's evolving health needs lays the groundwork for better understanding how close-or how far-all populations are in benefiting from UHC. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

8 October 2022 in Cureus
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
VNVaishnavi S. Nakshine
Vaishnavi S. Nakshine
PTPreeti Thute
Preeti Thute
MKMahalaqua Nazli Khatib
Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib
BSBratati Sarkar
Bratati Sarkar
Dependency on digital devices resulting in an ever-increasing daily screen time has subsequently also been the cause of several adverse effects on physical and mental or psychological health. Constant exposure to devices like smartphones, personal computers, and television can severely affect mental health- increase stress and anxiety, for example, and cause various sleep issues in both children as well as adults. Risk factors for obesity and cardiovascular disorders, including hypertension, poor regulation of stress, low HDL cholesterol, and insulin resistance are among the physical health repercussions we see. The psychological health effects comprise suicidal tendencies and symptoms of depression which are associated with digital device dependency, screen-time-induced poor sleep quality, and content-influenced negativity. Oftentimes it can cause the induction of a state of hyper-arousal, increase stress hormones, desynchronize the body clock or the circadian cycle, alter brain chemistry and create a drag on mental energy and development. With a focus on brain development in children and detrimental effects in both adults and children, this research article goes on to explore the various aspects of screen addiction and excessive screen exposure.

25 October 2022 in Nature Communications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GCGbd 2019 Snakebite Envenomation Collaborators
Gbd 2019 Snakebite Envenomation Collaborators
NRNicholas L. S. Roberts
Nicholas L. S. Roberts
EJEmily K. Johnson
Emily K. Johnson
SZScott M. Zeng
Scott M. Zeng
EHErin B. Hamilton
Erin B. Hamilton
KOKanyin Liane Ong
Kanyin Liane Ong
Snakebite envenoming is an important cause of preventable death. The World Health Organization (WHO) set a goal to halve snakebite mortality by 2030. We used verbal autopsy and vital registration data to model the proportion of venomous animal deaths due to snakes by location, age, year, and sex, and applied these proportions to venomous animal contact mortality estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study. In 2019, 63,400 people (95% uncertainty interval 38,900–78,600) died globally from snakebites, which was equal to an age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) of 0.8 deaths (0.5–1.0) per 100,000 and represents a 36% (2–49) decrease in ASMR since 1990. India had the greatest number of deaths in 2019, equal to an ASMR of 4.0 per 100,000 (2.3—5.0). We forecast mortality will continue to decline, but not sufficiently to meet WHO’s goals. Improved data collection should be prioritized to help target interventions, improve burden estimation, and monitor progress.

4 September 2017 in BMJ Paediatrics Open
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
APArchana Patel
Archana Patel
MKMahalaqua Nazli Khatib
Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib
KKKunal Kurhe
Kunal Kurhe
SBSavita Bhargava
Savita Bhargava
ABAkash Bang
Akash Bang
Background Training of birth attendants in neonatal resuscitation is likely to reduce birth asphyxia and neonatal mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of neonatal resuscitation training (NRT) programme in reducing stillbirths, neonatal mortality, and perinatal mortality Methods We considered studies where any NRT was provided to healthcare personnel involved in delivery process and handling of newborns. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ERIC and other electronic databases. We also searched ongoing trials and bibliographies of the retrieved articles, and contacted experts for unpublished work. We undertook screening of studies and assessment of risk of bias in duplicates. We performed review according to Cochrane Handbook. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included 20 trials with 1 653 805 births in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of NRT versus control shows that NRT decreases the risk of all stillbirths by 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.41), 7-day neonatal mortality by 47% (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73), 28-day neonatal mortality by 50% (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.68) and perinatal mortality by 37% (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94). The meta-analysis of pre-NRT versus post-NRT showed that post-NRT decreased the risk of all stillbirths by 12% (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94), fresh stillbirths by 26% (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90), 1-day neonatal mortality by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.82), 7-day neonatal mortality by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93), 28-day neonatal mortality by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13) and perinatal mortality by 18% (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91). Conclusions Findings of this review show that implementation of NRT improves neonatal and perinatal mortality. Further good quality randomised controlled trials addressing the role of NRT for improving neonatal and perinatal outcomes may be warranted. Trial registration number PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016043668

5 February 2021 in Future Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MYMonal Yuwanati
Monal Yuwanati
SGShailesh Gondivkar
Shailesh Gondivkar
SSSachin Sarode
Sachin Sarode
AGAmol Ramchandra Gadbail
Amol Ramchandra Gadbail
ADAmi Desai
Ami Desai
MKMahalaqua Nazli Khatib
Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib
Aim: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of oral health on quality of life in oral cancer patients (OCPs). Methods: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searche... Lay abstract Oral cancer treatment affects daily oral functions and causes facial deformity, leading to poor oral health. Doctors and patients are interested in knowing the effects of treatment on ...

30 April 2024 in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TRTahani Al Rahbeni
Tahani Al Rahbeni
PSPrakasini Satapathy
Prakasini Satapathy
Ramaiah ItumallaRamaiah Itumalla
Ramaiah Itumalla
ROY MARZOROY MARZO
ROY MARZO
KAKhalid AL-Mugheed
Khalid AL-Mugheed
Arkadiusz DziedzicArkadiusz Dziedzic
Arkadiusz Dziedzic
Background: The unprecedented emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the development and global distribution of vaccines, making the understanding of global vaccine acceptance and hesitancy crucial to overcoming barriers to vaccination and achieving widespread immunization. Objective: This umbrella review synthesizes findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide insights into global perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy across diverse populations and regions. Methods: We conducted a literature search across major databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis that reported COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. The AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria were used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17 with a random effect model. The data synthesis is presented in a table format and via a narrative. Results: Our inclusion criteria were met by 78 meta-analyses published between 2021 and 2023. Our analysis revealed a moderate vaccine acceptance rate of 63% (95% CI 0.60%-0.67%) in the general population, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 97.59%). Higher acceptance rates were observed among health care workers and individuals with chronic diseases, at 64% (95% CI 0.57%-0.71%) and 69% (95% CI 0.61%-0.76%), respectively. However, lower acceptance was noted among pregnant women, at 48% (95% CI 0.42%-0.53%), and parents consenting for their children, at 61.29% (95% CI 0.56%-0.67%). The pooled vaccine hesitancy rate was 32% (95% CI 0.25%-0.39%) in the general population. The quality assessment revealed 19 high-quality, 38 moderate-quality, 15 low-quality, and 6 critically low-quality meta-analyses. Conclusions: This review revealed the presence of vaccine hesitancy globally, emphasizing the necessity for population-specific, culturally sensitive interventions and clear, credible information dissemination to foster vaccine acceptance. The observed disparities accentuate the need for continuous research to understand evolving vaccine perceptions and to address the unique concerns and needs of diverse populations, thereby aiding in the formulation of effective and inclusive vaccination strategies. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023468363; https://tinyurl.com/2p9kv9cr