Suchergebnisse

AbstractGlobal initiatives aim to add 120 million new family planning (FP) users by 2020; however supply‐side interventions may be reaching the limits of their effectiveness in some settings. Our case study in Niger used demand analysis techniques from marketing science. We performed a representative survey (N = 2,004) on women's FP knowledge, attitudes, needs, and behaviors, then used latent class analysis to produce a segmentation of women based on their responses. We found that Nigerien women's demand for modern FP methods was low, with majorities aware of modern methods but much smaller proportions considering use, trying modern methods, or using one consistently. We identified five subgroups of women with distinct, internally coherent profiles regarding FP needs, attitudes, and usage patterns, who faced different barriers to adopting or using modern FP. Serving subgroups of women based on needs, values, and underlying beliefs may help more effectively drive a shift in FP behavior.

In February 2020, Nigeria faced a potentially catastrophic COVID-19 outbreak due to multiple introductions, high population density in urban slums, prevalence of other infectious diseases and poor health infrastructure. As in other countries, Nigerian policymakers had to make rapid and consequential decisions with limited understanding of transmission dynamics and the efficacy of available control measures. We present an account of the Nigerian COVID-19 response based on co-production of evidence between political decision-makers, health policymakers and academics from Nigerian and foreign institutions, an approach that allowed a multidisciplinary group to collaborate on issues arising in real time. Key aspects of the process were the central role of policymakers in determining priority areas and the coordination of multiple, sometime conflicting inputs from stakeholders to write briefing papers and inform effective national decision making. However, the co-production approach met with some challenges, including limited transparency, bureaucratic obstacles and an overly epidemiological focus on numbers of cases and deaths, arguably to the detriment of addressing social and economic effects of response measures. Larger systemic obstacles included a complex multitiered health system, fragmented decision-making structures and limited funding for implementation. Going forward, Nigeria should strengthen the integration of the national response within existing health decision bodies and implement strategies to mitigate the social and economic impact, particularly on the poorest Nigerians. The co-production of evidence examining the broader public health impact, with synthesis by multidisciplinary teams, is essential to meeting the social and public health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria and other countries.

SummaryMalaria is a major cause of under-five mortality in Mali and many other developing countries. Malaria control programmes rely on households to identify sick children and either care for them in the home or seek treatment at a health facility in the case of severe illness. This study examines the involvement of mothers and other household members in identifying and treating severely ill children through case studies of 25 rural Malian households. A wide range of intra-household responses to severe illness were observed among household members, both exemplifying and contravening stated social norms about household roles. Given their close contact with children, mothers were frequently the first to identify illness symptoms. However, decisions about care-seeking were often taken by fathers and senior members of the household. As stewards of the family resources, fathers usually paid for care and thus significantly determined when and where treatment was sought. Grandparents were frequently involved in diagnosing illnesses and directing care towards traditional healers or health facilities. Relationships between household members during the illness episode were found to vary from highly collaborative to highly conflictive, with critical effects on how quickly and from where treatment for sick children was sought. These findings have implications for the design and targeting of malaria and child survival programming in the greater West African region.

Recent years have seen increasing momentum towards task shifting of basic health services, including using community health workers (CHW) to diagnose and treat common childhood illnesses. Yet few studies have examined the role of traditional healers in meeting families' and communities' health needs and liaising with the formal health system. We examine these issues in Tshopo Province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country with high rates of child mortality (104 deaths per 1000 live births). We conducted 127 in-depth interviews and eight focus group discussions with a range of community members (mothers, fathers and grandmothers of children under 5 years of age) and health providers (CHWs, traditional healers, doctors and nurses) on topics related to care seeking and case management for childhood illness and malnutrition, and analysed them iteratively using thematic content analysis. We find significant divergence between biomedical descriptions of child illness and concepts held by community members, who distinguished between local illnesses and so-called 'white man's diseases.' Traditional healers were far less costly and more geographically accessible to families than were biomedical health providers, and usually served as families' first recourse after home care. Services provided by traditional healers were also more comprehensive than services provided by CHWs, as the traditional medicine sphere recognised and encompassed care for 'modern' diseases (but not vice versa). Meanwhile, CHWs did not receive adequate training, supervision or supplies to provide child health services. Considering their accessibility, acceptability, affordability and ability to recognise all domains of illness (biomedical and spiritual), traditional healers can be seen as the de facto CHWs in Tshopo Province. National and international health policymakers should account for and involve this cadre of health workers when planning child health services and seeking to implement policies and programmes that genuinely engage ...

Abstract
Background
Each year, an estimated 17 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and 33 million from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), with many of the most severe cases found in extremely food insecure contexts or conflict situations. Current global outpatient treatment protocols for uncomplicated SAM and MAM, adapted by most countries for use at national level, call for SAM and MAM to be managed separately, however global-level stakeholders have recently begun evaluating simplified and/or combined protocols managing acute malnutrition.

Methods
This study analyzes national policy discussions and decision-making around outpatient acute malnutrition treatment for uncomplicated cases in emergency situations in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection (March–July 2018) included semi-structured in-depth interviews with 50 respondents (N = 11–15 per country) from government, funding agencies, and implementing partners, as well as 11 global and regional stakeholders. We also conducted a document analysis (N = 10–15 per country and at global level) to situate debates and evaluate current policy. Data were analyzed iteratively using thematic content analysis.

Results
We find that while combined/simplified protocols for outpatient management of uncomplicated cases of acute malnutrition are being used in emergency situations in all four countries, there is widespread confusion about protocol terminology and content, stemming from a lack of coherence at the global level. As a result, national-level stakeholders express diverse, if overlapping, rationales for modifying current protocols, which vary given the intensity and scope of the emergency. Without specific global-level guidance, combined/simplified protocols are often used on an ad hoc basis, although the processes for triggering them were at least nominally controlled at the national level. Decisions about when and where to enact "exceptional" modifications to country protocols were often based on inconsistent determinations of what constitutes an "emergency." Respondents said more evidence is needed on both clinical and operational aspects of these protocols, and they awaited clear guidance from global norm-setting agencies.

Conclusions
Based on these findings, global-level stakeholders should urgently improve coordination and communication around existing protocols. Standardized guidance based on the available evidence is required to clarify best practices for combined management of SAM and MAM, particularly in emergency contexts (which should be defined) and in situations of limited resources. Given the complexity of governance arrangements in conflict situations, both guidance and updates on research must be disseminated in a rational, systematic, and digestible way to the multiplicity of field actors.

BACKGROUND: Each year, an estimated 17 million children suffer from severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and 33 million from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), with many of the most severe cases found in extremely food insecure contexts or conflict situations. Current global outpatient treatment protocols for uncomplicated SAM and MAM, adapted by most countries for use at national level, call for SAM and MAM to be managed separately, however global-level stakeholders have recently begun evaluating simplified and/or combined protocols managing acute malnutrition. METHODS: This study analyzes national policy discussions and decision-making around outpatient acute malnutrition treatment for uncomplicated cases in emergency situations in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection (March–July 2018) included semi-structured in-depth interviews with 50 respondents (N = 11–15 per country) from government, funding agencies, and implementing partners, as well as 11 global and regional stakeholders. We also conducted a document analysis (N = 10–15 per country and at global level) to situate debates and evaluate current policy. Data were analyzed iteratively using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We find that while combined/simplified protocols for outpatient management of uncomplicated cases of acute malnutrition are being used in emergency situations in all four countries, there is widespread confusion about protocol terminology and content, stemming from a lack of coherence at the global level. As a result, national-level stakeholders express diverse, if overlapping, rationales for modifying current protocols, which vary given the intensity and scope of the emergency. Without specific global-level guidance, combined/simplified protocols are often used on an ad hoc basis, although the processes for triggering them were at least nominally controlled at the national level. Decisions about when and where to enact "exceptional" modifications to country protocols were often based on inconsistent determinations of ...

Each year, acute malnutrition affects an estimated 52 million children under 5 years of age. Current global treatment protocols divide treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) despite malnutrition being a spectrum disease. A proposed Combined Protocol provides for (a) treatment of MAM and SAM at the same location; (b) diagnosis using middle‐upper‐arm circumference (MUAC) and oedema only; (c) treatment using a single product, ready‐to‐use‐therapeutic food (RUTF), and (d) a simplified dosage schedule for RUTF. This study examines stakeholders' knowledge of and opinions on the Combined Protocol in Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan. Data collection included a document review followed by in‐depth interviews with 50 respondents from government, implementing partners, and multilateral agencies, plus 11 global and regional stakeholders. Data were analysed iteratively using thematic content analysis. We find that acute malnutrition protocols in these countries have not been substantially modified to include components of the Combined Protocol, although aspects were accepted for use in emergencies. Respondents generally agreed that MAM and SAM treatment should be provided in the same location, however they said MUAC and oedema‐only diagnosis, although more field‐ready than other diagnostic measures, did not necessarily catch all malnourished children and may not be appropriate for "tall and slim" morphologies. Similarly, using only RUTF presented inherent logistical advantages, but respondents worried about pipeline issues. Respondents did not express strong opinions about simplified dosage schedules. Stakeholders interviewed indicated more evidence is needed on the operational implications and effectiveness of the Combined Protocol in different contexts.

Power is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). Theoretical development and empirical research on power are crucial for providing deeper, more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to social inequities and health disparities; placing contemporary policy concerns in a wider historical, political and social context; and for contributing to the (re)design or reform of health systems to drive progress towards improved health outcomes. Nonetheless, explicit analyses of power in HPSR remain relatively infrequent, and there are no comprehensive resources that serve as theoretical and methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a consolidated guide to researchers wishing to consider, design and conduct power analyses of health policies or systems. This practice article presents a synthesis of theoretical and conceptual understandings of power; describes methodologies and approaches for conducting power analyses; discusses how they might be appropriately combined; and throughout reflects on the importance of engaging with positionality through reflexive praxis. Expanding research on power in health policy and systems will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of health disparities and strengthen health systems for all.