Suchergebnisse

Background Artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) has been the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in Cameroon since 2004 and Nigeria since 2005, though many febrile patients receive less effective antimalarials. Patients often rely on providers to select treatment, and interventions are needed to improve providers' practice and encourage them to adhere to clinical guidelines. Methods Providers' adherence to malaria treatment guidelines was examined using data collected in Cameroon and Nigeria at public and mission facilities, pharmacies and drug stores. Providers' choice of antimalarial was investigated separately for each country. Multilevel logistic regression was used to determine whether providers were more likely to choose ACT if they knew it was the first-line antimalarial. Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data that arose when linking exit survey responses to details of the provider responsible for selecting treatment. Results There was a gap between providers' knowledge and their practice in both countries, as providers' decision to supply ACT was not significantly associated with knowledge of the first-line antimalarial. Providers were, however, more likely to supply ACT if it was the type of antimalarial they prefer. Other factors were country-specific, and indicated providers can be influenced by what they perceived their patients prefer or could afford, as well as information about their symptoms, previous treatment, the type of outlet and availability of ACT. Conclusions Public health interventions to improve the treatment of uncomplicated malaria should strive to change what providers prefer, rather than focus on what they know. Interventions to improve adherence to malaria treatment guidelines should emphasize that ACT is the recommended antimalarial, and it should be used for all patients with uncomplicated malaria. Interventions should also be tailored to the local setting, as there were differences between the two countries in providers' choice of antimalarial, and who or what influenced their practice.

Introduction: Ensuring equitable coverage of appropriate malaria treatment remains a high priority for the Nigerian government. This study examines the health seeking behaviour, patient-provider interaction and quality of care received by febrile patients of different socio-economic status (SES) groups. Methods: A total of 1642 febrile patients and caregivers exiting public health centres, pharmacies and patent medicine dealers were surveyed in Enugu state, South-East Nigeria to obtain information on treatment seeking behaviour, patient-provider interactions and treatment received. Socioeconomic status was estimated for each patient using exit survey data on household assets in combination with asset ownership data from the 2008 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. Results: Among the poorest SES group, 29% sought treatment at public health centres, 13% at pharmacies and 58% at patent medicine dealers (p < 0.01). Very few of those in the richest SES group used public health centres (4%) instead choosing to go to pharmacies (44%) and patent medicine dealers (52%, p < 0.001). During consultations with a healthcare provider, the poorest compared to the richest were significantly more likely to discuss symptoms with the provider, be physically examined and rely on providers for diagnosis and treatment rather than request a specific medicine. Those from the poorest SES group were however, least likely to request or to receive an antimalarial (p < 0.001). The use of artemisinin combination therapy (ACT), the recommended treatment for uncomplicated malaria, was low across all SES groups. Conclusions: The quality of malaria treatment is sub-optimal for all febrile patients. Having greater interaction with the provider also did not translate to better quality care for the poor. The poor face a number of significant barriers to accessing quality treatment especially in relation to treatment seeking behaviour and type of treatment received. Strategies to address these inequities are fundamental to achieving universal coverage of effective malaria treatment and ensuring that the most vulnerable people are not left behind.

The World Health Organization recommends that malaria be confirmed by parasitological diagnosis before treatment using Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT). Despite this, many health workers in malaria endemic countries continue to diagnose malaria based on symptoms alone. This study evaluates interventions to help bridge this gap between guidelines and provider practice. A stratified cluster-randomized trial in 42 communities in Enugu state compared 3 scenarios: Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) with basic instruction (control); RDTs with provider training (provider arm); and RDTs with provider training plus a school-based community intervention (provider-school arm). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients treated according to guidelines, a composite indicator requiring patients to be tested for malaria and given treatment consistent with the test result. The primary outcome was evaluated among 4946 (93%) of the 5311 patients invited to participate. A total of 40 communities (12 in control, 14 per intervention arm) were included in the analysis. There was no evidence of differences between the three arms in terms of our composite indicator (p = 0.36): stratified risk difference was 14% (95% CI -8.3%, 35.8%; p =0.26) in the provider arm and 1% (95% CI -21.1%, 22.9%; p = 0.19) in the provider-school arm, compared with control. The level of testing was low across all arms (34% in control; 48% provider arm; 37% provider-school arm; p = 0.47). Presumptive treatment of uncomplicated malaria remains an ingrained behaviour that is difficult to change. With or without extensive supporting interventions, levels of testing in this study remained critically low. Governments and researchers must continue to explore alternative ways of encouraging providers to deliver appropriate treatment and avoid the misuse of valuable medicines.

Donors and other development partners commonly introduce innovative practices and technologies to improve health in low and middle income countries. Yet many innovations that are effective in improving health and survival are slow to be translated into policy and implemented at scale. Understanding the factors influencing scale-up is important. We conducted a qualitative study involving 150 semi-structured interviews with government, development partners, civil society organisations and externally funded implementers, professional associations and academic institutions in 2012/13 to explore scale-up of innovative interventions targeting mothers and newborns in Ethiopia, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh and the six states of northeast Nigeria, which are settings with high burdens of maternal and neonatal mortality. Interviews were analysed using a common analytic framework developed for cross-country comparison and themes were coded using Nvivo. We found that programme implementers across the three settings require multiple steps to catalyse scale-up. Advocating for government to adopt and finance health innovations requires: designing scalable innovations; embedding scale-up in programme design and allocating time and resources; building implementer capacity to catalyse scale-up; adopting effective approaches to advocacy; presenting strong evidence to support government decision making; involving government in programme design; invoking policy champions and networks; strengthening harmonisation among external programmes; aligning innovations with health systems and priorities. Other steps include: supporting government to develop policies and programmes and strengthening health systems and staff; promoting community uptake by involving media, community leaders, mobilisation teams and role models. We conclude that scale-up has no magic bullet solution – implementers must embrace multiple activities, and require substantial support from donors and governments in doing so.

Rigorous evidence of 'what works' to improve health care is in demand, but methods for the development of interventions have not been scrutinized in the same ways as methods for evaluation. This paper presents and examines intervention development processes of eight malaria health care interventions in East and West Africa. A case study approach was used to draw out experiences and insights from multidisciplinary teams who undertook to design and evaluate these studies. Four steps appeared necessary for intervention design: (1) definition of scope, with reference to evaluation possibilities; (2) research to inform design, including evidence and theory reviews and empirical formative research; (3) intervention design, including consideration and selection of approaches and development of activities and materials; (4) refining and finalizing the intervention, incorporating piloting and pretesting. Alongside these steps, projects produced theories, explicitly or implicitly, about (i) intended pathways of change and (ii) how their intervention would be implemented.The work required to design interventions that meet and contribute to current standards of evidence should not be underestimated. Furthermore, the process should be recognized not only as technical, but the result of micro and macro social, political and economic contexts, which should be acknowledged and documented in order to infer generalizability. Reporting of interventions should go beyond descriptions of final intervention components or techniques, to encompass the development process. The role that evaluation possibilities play in intervention design should be brought to the fore in debates over health care improvement.

AbstractRigorous evidence of ?what works? to improve health care is in demand, but methods for the development of interventions have not been scrutinized in the same ways as methods for evaluation. This paper presents and examines intervention development processes of eight malaria health care interventions in East and West Africa. A case study approach was used to draw out experiences and insights from multidisciplinary teams who undertook to design and evaluate these studies. Four steps appeared necessary for intervention design: (1) definition of scope, with reference to evaluation possibilities; (2) research to inform design, including evidence and theory reviews and empirical formative research; (3) intervention design, including consideration and selection of approaches and development of activities and materials; (4) refining and finalizing the intervention, incorporating piloting and pretesting. Alongside these steps, projects produced theories, explicitly or implicitly, about (i) intended pathways of change and (ii) how their intervention would be implemented.The work required to design interventions that meet and contribute to current standards of evidence should not be underestimated. Furthermore, the process should be recognized not only as technical, but the result of micro and macro social, political and economic contexts, which should be acknowledged and documented in order to infer generalizability. Reporting of interventions should go beyond descriptions of final intervention components or techniques, to encompass the development process. The role that evaluation possibilities play in intervention design should be brought to the fore in debates over health care improvement.

Rigorous evidence of "what works" to improve health care is in demand, but methods for the development of interventions have not been scrutinized in the same ways as methods for evaluation. This article presents and examines intervention development processes of eight malaria health care interventions in East and West Africa. A case study approach was used to draw out experiences and insights from multidisciplinary teams who undertook to design and evaluate these studies. Four steps appeared necessary for intervention design: (1) definition of scope, with reference to evaluation possibilities; (2) research to inform design, including evidence and theory reviews and empirical formative research; (3) intervention design, including consideration and selection of approaches and development of activities and materials; and (4) refining and finalizing the intervention, incorporating piloting and pretesting. Alongside these steps, projects produced theories, explicitly or implicitly, about (1) intended pathways of change and (2) how their intervention would be implemented.The work required to design interventions that meet and contribute to current standards of evidence should not be underestimated. Furthermore, the process should be recognized not only as technical but as the result of micro and macro social, political, and economic contexts, which should be acknowledged and documented in order to infer generalizability. Reporting of interventions should go beyond descriptions of final intervention components or techniques to encompass the development process. The role that evaluation possibilities play in intervention design should be brought to the fore in debates over health care improvement.