Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine and amodiaquine is an efficacious intervention for protection of children against Plasmodium falciparum malaria during the rainy season. In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Malaria Consortium adapted its SMC delivery model to ensure safety of distributors, data collectors and beneficiaries. We conducted a SMC monitoring survey in July 2020 in the states of Bauchi, Jigawa, Kano, Katsina, Sokoto and Yobe, with questions on COVID-19 prevention behaviours and symptoms, and belief in misinformation. We investigated the associations between receipt of information on COVID-19 by different sources, including from SMC distributors, and these three outcomes using logistic generalised estimating equations. We also considered moderation of effectiveness of message delivery by SMC distributors and adherence to use of face coverings. RESULTS: We obtained a representative sample of 40,157 caregivers of eligible children aged 3–59 months, of which 36,914 (91.92%) reported knowledge of COVID-19. The weighted proportions of respondents who correctly identified COVID-19 prevention behaviours and symptoms, and who reported belief in COVID-19 misinformation, were 80.52% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 80.02–81.00), 81.72% (95% CI 81.23–82.20) and 22.90% (95% CI 22.24–23.57). Receipt of information on COVID-19 from SMC distributors during the campaign was significantly associated with higher odds of caregiver knowledge of COVID-19 prevention behaviours (odds ratio [OR] 1.78, 95% CI 1.64–1.94, p < 0.001) and symptoms (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.59–1.90, p < 0.001) and lower odds of belief in COVID-19 misinformation (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85–1.00, p = 0.038). The associations between message delivery by SMC distributors and the three outcomes were moderated by their adherence to face covering use. Receipt of information by other sources used to deliver government public health messages, including radio and health facility workers, was also associated ...

—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.

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.

Abstract-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.