Decentralising chronic disease management in sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol for the qualitative process evaluation of community-based integrated management of HIV, diabetes and hypertension in Tanzania and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Sub-Saharan Africa continues to experience a syndemic of HIV and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Vertical (stand-alone) HIV programming has provided high-quality care in the region, with almost 80% of people living with HIV in regular care and 90% virally suppressed. While integrated health education and concurrent management of HIV, hypertension and diabetes are being scaled up in clinics, innovative, more efficient and cost-effective interventions that include decentralisation into the community are required to respond to the increased burden of comorbid HIV/NCD disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes procedures for a process evaluation running concurrently with a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial (INTE-COMM) in Tanzania and Uganda that will compare community-based integrated care (HIV, diabetes and hypertension) with standard facility-based integrated care. The INTE-COMM intervention will manage multiple conditions (HIV, hypertension and diabetes) in the community via health monitoring and adherence/lifestyle advice (medicine, diet and exercise) provided by community nurses and trained lay workers, as well as the devolvement of NCD drug dispensing to the community level. Based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, the process evaluation will use qualitative methods to investigate sociostructural factors shaping care delivery and outcomes in up to 10 standard care facilities and/or intervention community sites with linked healthcare facilities. Multistakeholder interviews (patients, community health workers and volunteers, healthcare providers, policymakers, clinical researchers and international and non-governmental organisations), focus group discussions (community leaders and members) and non-participant observations (community meetings and drug dispensing) will explore implementation from diverse perspectives at three timepoints in the trial implementation. Iterative sampling and analysis, moving between data collection points and data analysis to test emerging theories, will continue until saturation is reached. This process of analytic reflexivity and triangulation across methods and sources will provide findings to explain the main trial findings and offer clear directions for future efforts to sustain and scale up community-integrated care for HIV, diabetes and hypertension. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the University College of London (UK), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (UK), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology and the Uganda Virus Research Institute Research and Ethics Committee (Uganda) and the Medical Research Coordinating Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research (Tanzania). The University College of London is the trial sponsor. Dissemination of findings will be done through journal publications and stakeholder meetings (with study participants, healthcare providers, policymakers and other stakeholders), local and international conferences, policy briefs, peer-reviewed journal articles and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15319595.

Implementing integrated care clinics for HIV-infection, diabetes and hypertension in Uganda (INTE-AFRICA): process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing a dual burden of chronic human immunodeficiency virus and non-communicable diseases. A pragmatic parallel arm cluster randomised trial (INTE-AFRICA) scaled up 'one-stop' integrated care clinics for HIV-infection, diabetes and hypertension at selected facilities in Uganda. These clinics operated integrated health education and concurrent management of HIV, hypertension and diabetes. A process evaluation (PE) aimed to explore the experiences, attitudes and practices of a wide variety of stakeholders during implementation and to develop an understanding of the impact of broader structural and contextual factors on the process of service integration. METHODS: The PE was conducted in one integrated care clinic, and consisted of 48 in-depth interviews with stakeholders (patients, healthcare providers, policy-makers, international organisation, and clinical researchers); three focus group discussions with community leaders and members (n = 15); and 8 h of clinic-based observation. An inductive analytical approach collected and analysed the data using the Empirical Phenomenological Psychological five-step method. Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework was subsequently used to conceptualise integrated care across multiple contextual levels (macro, meso, micro). RESULTS: Four main themes emerged; Implementing the integrated care model within healthcare facilities enhances detection of NCDs and comprehensive co-morbid care; Challenges of NCD drug supply chains; HIV stigma reduction over time, and Health education talks as a mechanism for change. Positive aspects of integrated care centred on the avoidance of duplication of care processes; increased capacity for screening, diagnosis and treatment of previously undiagnosed comorbid conditions; and broadening of skills of health workers to manage multiple conditions. Patients were motivated to continue receiving integrated care, despite frequent NCD drug stock-outs; and development of peer initiatives to purchase NCD drugs. Initial concerns about potential disruption of HIV care were overcome, leading to staff motivation to continue delivering integrated care. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing integrated care has the potential to sustainably reduce duplication of services, improve retention in care and treatment adherence for co/multi-morbid patients, encourage knowledge-sharing between patients and providers, and reduce HIV stigma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43896688.

Strengthening integration of chronic care in Africa: protocol for the qualitative process evaluation of integrated HIV, diabetes and hypertension care in a cluster randomised controlled trial in Tanzania and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: In sub-Saharan Africa, the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension, has increased rapidly in recent years, although HIV infection remains a leading cause of death among young-middle-aged adults. Health service coverage for NCDs remains very low in contrast to HIV, despite the increasing prevalence of comorbidity of NCDs with HIV. There is an urgent need to expand healthcare capacity to provide integrated services to address these chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes procedures for a qualitative process evaluation of INTE-AFRICA, a cluster randomised trial comparing integrated health service provision for HIV infection, DM and hypertension, to the current stand-alone vertical care. Interviews, focus group discussions and observations of consultations and other care processes in two clinics (in Tanzania, Uganda) will be used to explore the experiences of stakeholders. These stakeholders will include health service users, policy-makers, healthcare providers, community leaders and members, researchers, non-governmental and international organisations. The exploration will be carried out during the implementation of the project, alongside an understanding of the impact of broader structural and contextual factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (UK), the National Institute of Medical Research (Tanzania) and TASO Research Ethics Committee (Uganda) in 2020. The evaluation will provide the opportunity to document the implementation of integration over several timepoints (6, 12 and 18 months) and refine integrated service provision prior to scale up. This synergistic approach to evaluate, understand and respond will support service integration and inform monitoring, policy and practice development efforts to involve and educate communities in Tanzania and Uganda. It will create a model of care and a platform of good practices and lessons learnt for other countries implementing integrated and decentralised community health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43896688; Pre-results.

Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Iron-deficiency anaemia is common during childhood. Iron administration has been claimed to increase the risk of malaria. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects and safety of iron supplementation, with or without folic acid, in children living in areas with hyperendemic or holoendemic malaria transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (up to August 2015) and LILACS (up to February 2015). We also checked the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2015. We contacted the primary investigators of all included trials, ongoing trials, and those awaiting assessment to ask for unpublished data and further trials. We scanned references of included trials, pertinent reviews, and previous meta-analyses for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs conducted in hyperendemic and holoendemic malaria regions or that reported on any malaria-related outcomes that included children younger than 18 years of age. We included trials that compared orally administered iron, iron with folic acid, and iron with antimalarial treatment versus placebo or no treatment. We included trials of iron supplementation or fortification interventions if they provided at least 80% of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for prevention of anaemia by age. Antihelminthics could be administered to either group, and micronutrients had to be administered equally to both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were clinical malaria, severe malaria, and death from any cause. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with domain-based evaluation and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis for all outcomes and random-effects meta-analysis for hematological outcomes, and adjusted analyses for cluster RCTs. We based the subgroup analyses for anaemia at baseline, age, and malaria prevention or management services on trial-level data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five trials (31,955 children) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, iron does not cause an excess of clinical malaria (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; 14 trials, 7168 children, high quality evidence). Iron probably does not cause an excess of clinical malaria in both populations where anaemia is common and those in which anaemia is uncommon. In areas where there are prevention and management services for malaria, iron (with or without folic acid) may reduce clinical malaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; seven trials, 5586 participants, low quality evidence), while in areas where such services are unavailable, iron (with or without folic acid) may increase the incidence of malaria, although the lower CIs indicate no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.31; nine trials, 19,086 participants, low quality evidence). Iron supplementation does not cause an excess of severe malaria (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; 6 trials, 3421 children, high quality evidence). We did not observe any differences for deaths (control event rate 1%, low quality evidence). Iron and antimalarial treatment reduced clinical malaria (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.67; three trials, 728 children, high quality evidence). Overall, iron resulted in fewer anaemic children at follow up, and the end average change in haemoglobin from base line was higher with iron. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Iron treatment does not increase the risk of clinical malaria when regular malaria prevention or management services are provided. Where resources are limited, iron can be administered without screening for anaemia or for iron deficiency, as long as malaria prevention or management services are provided efficiently.

Foul wind, spirits and witchcraft: illness conceptions and health-seeking behaviour for malaria in the Gambia.

BACKGROUND: As the disease burden in the Gambia has reduced considerably over the last decade, heterogeneity in malaria transmission has become more marked, with infected but asymptomatic individuals maintaining the reservoir. The identification, timely diagnosis and treatment of malaria-infected individuals are crucial to further reduce or eliminate the human parasite reservoir. This ethnographic study focused on the relationship between local beliefs of the cause of malaria and treatment itineraries of suspected cases. METHODS: An ethnographic qualitative study was conducted in twelve rural communities in the Upper River Region and the Central River Region in the Gambia. The data collection methods included in-depth interviews, participant observation, informal conversations, and focus group discussions. RESULTS: While at first glance, the majority of people seek biomedical treatment for 'malaria', there are several constraints to seeking treatment at health centres. Certain folk illnesses, such as Jontinooje and Kajeje, translated and interpreted as 'malaria' by healthcare professionals, are often not considered to be malaria by local populations but rather as self-limiting febrile illnesses--consequently not leading to seeking care in the biomedical sector. Furthermore, respondents reported delaying treatment at a health centre while seeking financial resources, and consequently relying on herbal treatments. In addition, when malaria cases present symptoms, such as convulsions, hallucinations and/or loss of consciousness, the illness is often interpreted as having a supernatural aetiology, leading to diagnosis and treatment by traditional healers. CONCLUSION: Although malaria diagnostics and treatment-seeking in the biomedical sector has been reported to be relatively high in the Gambia compared to other sub-Saharan African countries, local symptom interpretation and illness conceptions can delay or stop people from seeking timely biomedical treatment, which may contribute to maintaining a parasite reservoir of undiagnosed and untreated malaria patients.

Improving malaria control in West Africa: interruption of transmission as a paradigm shift.

With the paradigm shift from the reduction of morbidity and mortality to the interruption of transmission, the focus of malaria control broadens from symptomatic infections in children ≤5 years of age to include asymptomatic infections in older children and adults. In addition, as control efforts intensify and the number of interventions increases, there will be decreases in prevalence, incidence and transmission with additional decreases in morbidity and mortality. Expected secondary consequences of these changes include upward shifts in the peak ages for infection (parasitemia) and disease, increases in the ages for acquisition of antiparasite humoral and cellular immune responses and increases in false-negative blood smears and rapid diagnostic tests. Strategies to monitor these changes must include: (1) studies of the entire population (that are not restricted to children ≤5 or ≤10 years of age), (2) study sites in both cities and rural areas (because of increasing urbanization across sub-Saharan Africa) and (3) innovative strategies for surveillance as the prevalence of infection decreases and the frequency of false-negative smears and rapid diagnostic tests increases.

Sahel, savana, riverine and urban malaria in West Africa: Similar control policies with different outcomes.

The study sites for the West African ICEMR are in three countries (The Gambia, Senegal, Mali) and are located within 750 km of each other. In addition, the National Malaria Control Programmes of these countries have virtually identical policies: (1) Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACTs) for the treatment of symptomatic Plasmodium falciparum infection, (2) Long-Lasting Insecticide-treated bed Nets (LLINs) to reduce the Entomololgic Inoculation Rate (EIR), and (3) sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for the Intermittent Preventive Treatment of malaria during pregnancy (IPTp). However, the prevalence of P. falciparum malaria and the status of malaria control vary markedly across the four sites with differences in the duration of the transmission season (from 4-5 to 10-11 months), the intensity of transmission (with EIRs from unmeasurably low to 4-5 per person per month), multiplicity of infection (from a mean of 1.0 to means of 2-5) and the status of malaria control (from areas which have virtually no control to areas that are at the threshold of malaria elimination). The most important priority is the need to obtain comparable data on the population-based prevalence, incidence and transmission of malaria before new candidate interventions or combinations of interventions are introduced for malaria control.

Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Iron-deficiency anaemia is common during childhood. Iron supplementation has been claimed to increase the risk of malaria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of iron on malaria and deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS; and trial registry databases, all up to June 2011. We scanned references of included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually and cluster randomized controlled trials conducted in hypoendemic to holoendemic malaria regions and including children below 18 years of age. We included trials comparing orally administered iron, iron with antimalarial treatment, or iron with folic acid versus placebo or no treatment. Iron fortification was excluded. Antihelminthics could be administered to either group. Additional micronutrients had to be administered equally to both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were clinical (symptomatic) malaria, severe malaria, and death. Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. We assessed heterogeneity and conducted subgroup analyses by the presence of anaemia at baseline, age, and malaria endemicity. We assessed risk of bias using domain-based evaluation. We performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis for all outcomes and random-effects meta-analysis for hematological outcomes. We adjusted analyses for cluster randomized trials. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-one trials (45,353 children) were included. For clinical malaria, no significant difference between iron alone and placebo was detected, (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.90 to 1.09, 13 trials). The results were similar in the subgroups of non-anaemic children and children below 2 years of age. There was no significant difference in deaths in hyper- and holoendemic areas, risk difference +1.93 per 1000 children (95% CI -1.78 to 5.64, 13 trials, 17,898 children). Iron administered for treatment of anaemia resulted in a larger increase in haemoglobin than iron given for prevention, and the benefit was similar in hyper- or holoendemic and lower endemicity settings. Iron and folic acid supplementation resulted in mixed results for severe malaria. Overall, the risk for clinical malaria was higher with iron or with iron plus folic acid in trials where services did not provide for malaria surveillance and treatment. Iron with antimalarial treatment significantly reduced malaria. Iron supplementation during an acute attack of malaria did not increase the risk for parasitological failure, (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.24, three trials) or deaths. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Iron alone or with antimalaria treatment does not increase the risk of clinical malaria or death when regular malaria surveillance and treatment services are provided. There is no need to screen for anaemia prior to iron supplementation.

Oral iron supplementation for preventing or treating anaemia among children in malaria-endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: Iron-deficiency anaemia is common during childhood. Iron supplementation has been claimed to increase the risk of malaria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of iron on malaria and deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (2009, issue 1); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS and metaRegister of Controlled Trials, all up to March 2009. We scanned references of included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually and cluster-randomized controlled trials conducted in hypoendemic to holoendemic malaria regions and including children < 18 years. We included trials comparing orally administered iron with or without folic acid vs. placebo or no treatment. Iron fortification was excluded. Antimalarials and/or antiparasitics could be administered to either group. Additional micronutrients could only be administered equally to both groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were malaria-related events and deaths. Secondary outcomes included haemoglobin, anaemia, other infections, growth, hospitalizations, and clinic visits. We assessed risk of bias using domain-based evaluation. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We contacted authors for missing data. We assessed heterogeneity. We performed fixed-effect meta-analysis and presented random-effects results when heterogeneity was present. We present pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used adjusted analyses for cluster-randomized trials. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-eight trials (42,981 children) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Iron supplementation did not increase the risk of clinical malaria (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 22,724 children, 14 trials, random-effects model). The risk was similar among children who were non-anaemic at baseline (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09). An increased risk of malaria with iron was observed in trials that did not provide malaria surveillance and treatment. The risk of malaria parasitaemia was higher with iron (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26), but there was no difference in adequately concealed trials. Iron + antimalarial was protective for malaria (four trials). Iron did not increase the risk of parasitological failure when given during malaria (three trials). There was no increased risk of death across all trials comparing iron versus placebo (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.36; 21,272 children, 12 trials). Iron supplementation increased haemoglobin, with significant heterogeneity, and malaria endemicity did not affect this effect. Growth and other infections were mostly not affected by iron supplementation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Iron does not increase the risk of clinical malaria or death, when regular malaria surveillance and treatment services are provided. There is no need to screen for anaemia prior to iron supplementation.

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.