Policy uptake and implementation of the RTS,S/AS01 malaria vaccine in sub-Saharan African countries: status 2 years following the WHO recommendation.

In October 2021, the WHO recommended the world's first malaria vaccine-RTS,S/AS01-to prevent malaria in children living in areas with moderate-to-high transmission in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A second malaria vaccine, R21/Matrix-M, was recommended for use in October 2023 and added to the WHO list of prequalified vaccines in December 2023. This study analysis assessed the country status of implementation and delivery strategies for RTS,S/AS01 by searching websites for national malaria policies, guidelines and related documents. Direct contact with individuals working in malaria programmes was made to obtain documents not publicly available. 10 countries had documents with information relating to malaria vaccine implementation, 7 referencing RTS,S/AS01 and 3 (Burkina Faso, Kenya and Nigeria) referencing RTS,S/AS01 and R21/Matrix-M. Five other countries reported plans for malaria vaccine roll-out without specifying which vaccine. Ghana, Kenya and Malawi, which piloted RTS,S/AS01, have now integrated the vaccine into routine immunisation services. Cameroon and Burkina Faso are the first countries outside the pilot countries to incorporate the vaccine into national immunisation services. Uganda plans a phased RTS,S/AS01 introduction, while Guinea plans to first pilot RTS,S/AS01 in five districts. The RTS,S/AS01 schedule varied by country, with the first dose administered at 5 or 6 months in all countries but the fourth dose at either 18, 22 or 24 months. SSA countries have shown widespread interest in rolling out the malaria vaccine, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization having approved financial support for 20 of 30 countries which applied as of March 2024. Limited availability of RTS,S/AS01 means that some approved countries will not receive the required doses. Vaccine availability and equity must be addressed even as R21/Matrix-M becomes available.

Factors contributing to pre-treatment loss to follow-up in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis: a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and healthcare worker perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Since 2018, over 14 million people have been treated for tuberculosis (TB) globally. However, pre-treatment loss to follow-up (PTLFU) has been shown to contribute substantially to patient losses in the TB care cascade with subsequent high community transmission and mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: To identify, appraise, and synthesise evidence on the perspectives of patients and healthcare workers on factors contributing to PTLFU in adults with pulmonary TB. METHODS: We registered the title with PROSPERO (CRD42021253212). We searched nine relevant databases up to 24 May 2021 for qualitative studies. Two review authors independently reviewed records for eligibility and extracted data. We assessed methodological quality with the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Centre tool and synthesised data using the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence framework. We assessed confidence in our findings using Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual). RESULTS: We reviewed a total of 1239 records and included five studies, all from low- and middle-income countries. Key themes reported by patients and healthcare workers were communication challenges among healthcare workers and between healthcare workers and patients; knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours about TB and its management; accessibility and availability of facilities for TB care; and human resource and financial constraints, weakness in management and leadership in TB programmes. Patients' change of residence, long waiting times, and poor referral systems were additional factors that contributed to patients disengaging from care. We had moderate confidence in most of our findings. CONCLUSION: Findings from our qualitative evidence synthesis highlight multiple factors that contribute to PTLFU. Central to addressing these factors will be the need to strengthen health systems and offer people-centred care.

Implementing essential diagnostics-learning from essential medicines: A scoping review.

The World Health Organization (WHO) model list of Essential In vitro Diagnostic (EDL) introduced in 2018 complements the established Essential Medicines List (EML) and improves its impact on advancing universal health coverage and better health outcomes. We conducted a scoping review of the literature on implementing the WHO essential lists in Africa to inform the implementation of the recently introduced EDL. We searched eight electronic databases for studies reporting on implementing the WHO EDL and EML in Africa. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We used the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) framework to extract themes and synthesised findings using thematic content analysis. We used the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 to assess the quality of included studies. We included 172 studies reporting on EDL and EML after screening 3,813 articles titles and abstracts and 1,545 full-text papers. Most (75%, n = 129) studies were purely quantitative in design, comprising descriptive cross-sectional designs (60%, n = 104), 15% (n = 26) were purely qualitative, and 10% (n = 17) had mixed-methods approaches. There were no qualitative or randomised experimental studies about EDL. The main barrier facing the EML and EDL was poorly equipped health facilities-including unavailability or stock-outs of essential in vitro diagnostics and medicines. Financial and non-financial incentives to health facilities and workers were key enablers in implementing the EML; however, their impact differed from one context to another. Only fifty-six (33%) of the included studies were of high quality. Poorly equipped and stocked health facilities remain an implementation barrier to essential diagnostics and medicines. Health system interventions such as financial and non-financial incentives to improve their availability can be applied in different contexts. More implementation study designs, such as experimental and qualitative studies, are required to evaluate the effectiveness of essential lists.