Researching, co-creating and testing innovations in paper-based health information systems (PHISICC) to support health workers' decision-making: protocol of a multi-country, transdisciplinary, mixed-methods research programme in three sub-Saharan countries.

BACKGROUND: Health information systems are crucial to provide data for decision-making and demand for data is constantly growing. However, the link between data and decisions is not always rational or linear and the management of data ends up overloading frontline health workers, which may compromise quality of healthcare delivery. Despite limited evidence, there is an increasing push for the digitalization of health information systems, which poses enormous challenges, particularly in remote, rural settings in low- and middle-income countries. Paper-based tools will continue to be used in combination with digital solutions and this calls for efforts to make them more responsive to local needs. Paper-based Health Information Systems in Comprehensive Care (PHISICC) is a transdisciplinary, multi-country research initiative to create and test innovative paper-based health information systems in three sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS/DESIGN: The PHISICC initiative is being carried out in remote, rural settings in Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria through partnership with ministries of health and research institutions. We began with research syntheses to acquire the most up-to-date knowledge on health information systems. These were coupled with fieldwork in the three countries to understand the current design, patterns and contexts of use, and healthcare worker perspectives. Frontline health workers, with designers and researchers, used co-creation methods to produce the new PHISICC tools. This suite of tools is being tested in the three countries in three cluster-randomized controlled trials. Throughout the project, we have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and have maintained the highest scientific standards to ensure that results are relevant to the realities in the three countries. DISCUSSION: We have deployed a comprehensive research approach to ensure the robustness and future policy uptake of findings. Besides the innovative PHISICC paper-based tools, our process is in itself innovative. Rather than emphasizing the technical dimensions of data management, we focused instead on frontline health workers' data use and decision-making. By tackling the whole scope of primary healthcare areas rather than a subset of them, we have developed an entirely new design and visual language for a suite of tools across healthcare areas. The initiative is being tested in remote, rural areas where the most vulnerable live.

Does an innovative paper-based health information system (PHISICC) improve data quality and use in primary healthcare? Protocol of a multicountry, cluster randomised controlled trial in sub-Saharan African rural settings.

INTRODUCTION: Front-line health workers in remote health facilities are the first contact of the formal health sector and are confronted with life-saving decisions. Health information systems (HIS) support the collection and use of health related data. However, HIS focus on reporting and are unfit to support decisions. Since data tools are paper-based in most primary healthcare settings, we have produced an innovative Paper-based Health Information System in Comprehensive Care (PHISICC) using a human-centred design approach. We are carrying out a cluster randomised controlled trial in three African countries to assess the effects of PHISICC compared with the current systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Study areas are in rural zones of Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria. Seventy health facilities in each country have been randomly allocated to using PHISICC tools or to continuing to use the regular HIS tools. We have randomly selected households in the catchment areas of each health facility to collect outcomes' data (household surveys have been carried out in two of the three countries and the end-line data collection is planned for mid-2021). Primary outcomes include data quality and use, coverage of health services and health workers satisfaction; secondary outcomes are additional data quality and use parameters, childhood mortality and additional health workers and clients experience with the system. Just prior to the implementation of the trial, we had to relocate the study site in Mozambique due to unforeseen logistical issues. The effects of the intervention will be estimated using regression models and accounting for clustering using random effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committees in Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique and Nigeria approved the trials. We plan to disseminate our findings, data and research materials among researchers and policy-makers. We aim at having our findings included in systematic reviews on health systems interventions and future guidance development on HIS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PACTR201904664660639; Pre-results.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to October week 4, 2014), EMBASE (1990 to November 2014), CINAHL (1981 to November 2014), Web of Science (2000 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to November 2014) and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from one to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, two at high risk of bias and one at low risk of bias, involving 568 children. The studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, 'no treatment' and placebo for the effect on symptomatic relief of cough using a seven-point Likert scale. The lower the score, the better the cough symptom being assessed.Moderate quality evidence showed that honey may be better than 'no treatment' in reducing the frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I(2) statistic 23%; two studies, 154 participants). High quality evidence also suggests that honey may be better than placebo for reduction of cough frequency (MD -1.85; 95% Cl -3.36 to -0.33; one study, 300 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests that honey does not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies, 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests that honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study, 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies, 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study, 80 participants). When honey was compared with placebo, four children (1.8%) in the honey group and one (1.3%) from the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.33; 95% Cl 0.15 to 11.74). However, there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan, honey versus diphenhydramine or honey versus placebo. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment', diphenhydramine and placebo for the symptomatic relief of cough, but it is not better than dextromethorphan. None of the included studies assessed the effect of honey on 'cough duration' because intervention and follow-up were for one night only. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale. Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants). Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale.Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

Honey for acute cough in children.

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 2 2009); EMBASE (1990 to April 2009); CINAHL (1982 to April 2009); Web of Science (2000 to April 2009); AMED (1985 to April 2009); and LILACS (1982 to April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing honey given alone or in combination with antibiotics versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. Trial authors of the included study were contacted for additional information on unpublished data. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT of 108 children with upper respiratory tract infections comparing the effect of honey, dextromethorphan and no treatment on cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents was included. Comparing symptoms and sleep quality scores of children that received honey with those that received no treatment showed that honey was more effective in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -0.99; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.35, bothersome cough (MD -0.93; 95% CI -1.76 to -0.10), and sleep quality of the child (MD -0.92; 95% CI -1.77 to -0.07); but did not differ significantly between the honey versus no treatment groups in resolving severity of cough (MD -0.69; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.07) and sleep quality of the parents (MD 0.80; 95% CI -1.67 to 0.07). Dextromethorphan and honey did not differ significantly on cough frequency (MD -0.49; 95% CI -1.15 to 0.17); cough severity (MD -0.50; 95% CI -1.28 to 0.29), bothersome cough (MD -0.29; 95% CI -1.14 to 0.56) and sleep quality of the children (MD -0.70; 95% CI -1.57 to 0.17) or their parents (MD -0.34; 95% CI -1.24 to 0.55). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of honey for acute cough in children.

Antimalarial drug prescribing practice in private and public health facilities in South-east Nigeria: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Nigeria's national standard has recently moved to artemisinin combination treatments for malaria. As clinicians in the private sector are responsible for attending a large proportion of the population ill with malaria, this study compared prescribing in the private and public sector in one State in Nigeria prior to promoting ACTs. OBJECTIVE: To assess prescribing for uncomplicated malaria in government and private health facilities in Cross River State. METHOD: Audit of 665 patient records at six private and seven government health facilities in 2003. RESULTS: Clinicians in the private sector were less likely to record history or physical examination than those in public facilities, but otherwise practice and prescribing were similar. Overall, 45% of patients had a diagnostic blood slides; 77% were prescribed monotherapy, either chloroquine (30.2%), sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (22.7%) or artemisinin derivatives alone (15.8%). Some 20.8% were prescribed combination therapy; the commonest was chloroquine with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine. A few patients (3.5%) were prescribed sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine-mefloquine in the private sector, and only 3.0% patients were prescribed artemisinin combination treatments. CONCLUSION: Malaria treatments were varied, but there were not large differences between the public and private sector. Very few are following current WHO guidelines. Monotherapy with artemisinin derivatives is relatively common.

Artemether-lumefantrine versus artesunate plus amodiaquine for treating uncomplicated childhood malaria in Nigeria: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic efficacy of artesunate plus amodiaquine and artemether/lumefantrine were assessed in an area of Nigeria with high levels of Plasmodium falciparum resistance to chloroquine and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6 to 59 months with uncomplicated P. falciparum infection and parasite density 1,000 to 200,000 parasites/microL enrolled following informed consent by parents. METHODS: Eligible children were randomly assigned to receive either a 3-day course of artesunate (4 mg/kg) plus amodiaquine (10 mg/kg) or 6-dose course of artemether/lumefantrine (20/120 mg tablets) over three days. Patients were followed up with clinical and laboratory assessments until day 14 using standard WHO in-vivo antimalarial drug test protocol. RESULTS: A total 119 eligible children were enrolled but 111 completed the study. Adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) was 47 (87.0%) and 47 (82.5%) for artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate+amodiaquine (AAMQ) respectively (OR 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 2.22). Early treatment failure (ETF) occurred in one participant (1.8%) treated with AAQ but in none of those with AL. Two (3.7%) patients in the AL group and none in the AAQ group had late clinical failure. Late parasitological failure was observed in 9 (15.8) and 5 (9.3%) of patients treated with AAQ and AL respectively. None of participants had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSION: Artemether-lumenfantrine and artesunate plus amodiaquine have high and comparable cure rates and tolerability among under-five children in Calabar, Nigeria.