Antibiotic stories: a mixed-methods, multi-country analysis of household antibiotic use in Malawi, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: As concerns about the prevalence of infections that are resistant to available antibiotics increase, attention has turned toward the use of these medicines both within and outside of formal healthcare settings. Much of what is known about use beyond formal settings is informed by survey-based research. Few studies to date have used comparative, mixed-methods approaches to render visible patterns of use within and between settings as well as wider points of context shaping these patterns. DESIGN: This article analyses findings from mixed-methods anthropological studies of antibiotic use in a range of rural and urban settings in Zimbabwe, Malawi and Uganda between 2018 and 2020. All used a 'drug bag' survey tool to capture the frequency and types of antibiotics used among 1811 households. We then undertook observations and interviews in residential settings, with health providers and key stakeholders to better understand the stories behind the most-used antibiotics. RESULTS: The most self-reported 'frequently used' antibiotics across settings were amoxicillin, cotrimoxazole and metronidazole. The stories behind their use varied between settings, reflecting differences in the configuration of health systems and antibiotic supplies. At the same time, these stories reveal cross-cutting features and omissions of contemporary global health programming that shape the contours of antibiotic (over)use at national and local levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the predominant focus of stewardship frameworks on the practices of antibiotic end users. We suggest future interventions could consider systems-rather than individuals-as stewards of antibiotics, reducing the need to rely on these medicines to fix other issues of inequity, productivity and security.

Challenging logics of complex intervention trials: community perspectives of a health care improvement intervention in rural Uganda.

Health systems in many African countries are failing to provide populations with access to good quality health care. Morbidity and mortality from curable diseases such as malaria remain high. The PRIME trial in Tororo, rural Uganda, designed and tested an intervention to improve care at health centres, with the aim of reducing ill-health due to malaria in surrounding communities. This paper presents the impact and context of this trial from the perspective of community members in the study area. Fieldwork was carried out for a year from the start of the intervention in June 2011, and involved informal observation and discussions as well as 13 focus group discussions with community members, 10 in-depth interviews with local stakeholders, and 162 context descriptions recorded through quarterly interviews with community members, health workers and district officials. Community members observed a small improvement in quality of care at most, but not all, intervention health centres. However, this was diluted by other shortfalls in health services beyond the scope of the intervention. Patients continued to seek care at health centres they considered inadequate as well as positioning themselves and their children to access care through other sources such as research and nongovernmental organization (NGO) projects. These findings point to challenges of designing and delivering interventions within a paradigm that requires factorial (reduced to predictable factors) problem definition with easily actionable and evaluable solutions by small-scale projects. Such requirements mean that interventions often work on the periphery of a health system rather than tackling the murky political and economic realities that shape access to care but are harder to change or evaluate with randomized controlled trials. Highly projectified settings further reduce the ability to genuinely 'control' for different health care access scenarios. We argue for a raised consciousness of how evaluation paradigms impact on intervention choices.

The PROCESS study: a protocol to evaluate the implementation, mechanisms of effect and context of an intervention to enhance public health centres in Tororo, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant investments into health improvement programmes in Uganda, health indicators and access to healthcare remain poor across the country. The PRIME trial aims to evaluate the impact of a complex intervention delivered in public health centres on health outcomes of children and management of malaria in rural Uganda. The intervention consists of four components: Health Centre Management; Fever Case Management; Patient- Centered Services; and support for supplies of malaria diagnostics and antimalarial drugs. METHODS: The PROCESS study will use mixed methods to evaluate the processes, mechanisms of change, and context of the PRIME intervention by addressing five objectives. First, to develop a comprehensive logic model of the intervention, articulating the project's hypothesised pathways to trial outcomes. Second, to evaluate the implementation of the intervention, including health worker training, health centre management tools, and the supply of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria. Third, to understand mechanisms of change of the intervention components, including testing hypotheses and interpreting realities of the intervention, including resistance, in context. Fourth, to develop a contextual record over time of factors that may have affected implementation of the intervention, mechanisms of change, and trial outcomes, including factors at population, health centre and district levels. Fifth, to capture broader expected and unexpected impacts of the intervention and trial activities among community members, health centre workers, and private providers. Methods will include intervention logic mapping, questionnaires, recorded consultations, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and contextual data documentation. DISCUSSION: The findings of this PROCESS study will be interpreted alongside the PRIME trial results. This will enable a greater ability to generalise the findings of the main trial. The investigators will attempt to assess which methods are most informative in such evaluations of complex interventions in low-resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01024426.