Understanding contextual and practical factors to inform WHO recommendations on using chest imaging to monitor COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae: a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' perspective.

BACKGROUND: A recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) was issued about the use of chest imaging to monitor pulmonary sequelae following recovery from COVID-19. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspective of key stakeholders to understand their valuation of the outcome of the proposition, preferences for the modalities of chest imaging, acceptability, feasibility, impact on equity and practical considerations influencing the implementation of using chest imaging. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design using in-depth interviews approach. Key stakeholders included adult patients who recovered from the acute illness of COVID-19, and providers caring for those patients. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) conceptual framework was used to guide data collection of contextual and practical factors related to monitoring using imaging. Data analysis was based on the framework thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: 33 respondents, including providers and patients, were recruited from 15 different countries. Participants highly valued the ability to monitor progression and resolution of long-term sequelae but recommended the avoidance of overuse of imaging. Their preferences for the imaging modalities were recorded along with pros and cons. Equity concerns were reported across countries (e.g., access to resources) and within countries (e.g., disadvantaged groups lacked access to insurance). Both providers and patients accepted the use of imaging, some patients were concerned about affordability of the test. Facilitators included post- recovery units and protocols. Barriers to feasibility included low number of specialists in some countries, access to imaging tests among elderly living in nursing homes, experience of poor coordination of care, emotional exhaustion, and transportation challenges driving to a monitoring site. CONCLUSION: We were able to demonstrate that there is a high value and acceptability using imaging but there were factors influencing feasibility, equity and some practical considerations associated with implementation. We had a few suggestions to be considered by the expert panel in the formulation of the guideline to facilitate its implementation such as using validated risk score predictive tools for lung complications to recommend the appropriate imaging modality and complementary pulmonary function test.

Stakeholders' views and perspectives on treatments of visceral leishmaniasis and their outcomes in HIV-coinfected patients in East Africa and South-East Asia: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: In visceral leishmaniasis (VL) patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), combination therapy (liposomal amphotericin B infusion and oral miltefosine) is being considered as an alternative to liposomal amphotericin B monotherapy. We aimed to assess the views of stakeholders in relation to these treatment options. METHODOLOGY: In a mixed methods study, we surveyed and interviewed patients, government functionaries, programme managers, health service providers, nongovernmental organizations, researchers, and World Health Organization (WHO) personnel. We used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for data collection planning and analysis. Constructs of interest included valuation of outcomes, impact on equity, feasibility and acceptability of the treatment options, implementation considerations, monitoring and evaluation, and research priorities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS/CONCLUSION: Mortality and non-serious adverse events were rated as "critical" by respectively the highest (61%) and lowest percentages (47%) of survey participants. Participants viewed clinical cure as essential for patients to regain productivity. Non-patient stakeholders emphasized the importance of "sustained" clinical cure. For most survey participants, combination therapy, compared with monotherapy, would increase health equity (40%), and be more acceptable (79%) and feasible (57%). Interviews revealed that combination therapy was more feasible and acceptable than monotherapy when associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization. The findings of the interviews provided insight into those of the survey. When choosing between alternative options, providers should consider the outcomes that matter to patients as well as the impact on equity, feasibility, and acceptability of the options.