Motivation to test, treat, and report malaria cases: a quantitative assessment among private sector providers in the Greater Mekong Subregion.

BACKGROUND: Accurately testing, treating, and tracking all malaria cases is critical to achieving elimination. Ensuring health providers are able and motivated to test, treat, and report cases is a necessary component of elimination programmes, and particularly challenging in low endemic settings where providers may not encounter a large volume of cases. This study aimed to understand provider motivations to test, treat, and report malaria cases to better optimize programme design, adjust incentive schemes, and ultimately improve reporting rates while growing the evidence base around private providers in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). METHODS: With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, this study aimed to identify and validate distinctive subtypes of motivation among private sector providers enrolled in the Greater Mekong Subregion Elimination of Malaria through Surveillance (GEMS) programme, implemented by Population Services International. Quantitative questionnaires were administered electronically in person by trained enumerators to various provider groups in Myanmar, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. A three-stage confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted in STATA. RESULTS: Following this analysis, a two-factor solution that describes motivation in this population of providers was identified, and providers were scored on the two dimensions of motivation. The correlation between the two rotated factors was 0.3889, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.93, indicating an excellent level of suitability. These providers, who are often assumed to only be financially motivated, engaged in malaria elimination activities because of both internal and external motivational factors that are independent of remuneration or financial gain. For all three countries' data, significant covariances between the two latent variables for internal and external motivation were found. The models were found to be of adequate to good fit for the data across all three countries. It was determined that private sector providers, who were previously believed to be primarily financially motivated, were also motivated by personal factors. Motivation was also associated with key outcomes of importance to malaria elimination, such as reporting and stocking of tests and treatments. CONCLUSION: Maintaining or increasing provider motivation to test and treat is essential in the fight to eliminate malaria from the GMS, as it helps to ensure that providers continue to pursue this goal, even in a low incidence environment where cases may be rare and in which providers face financial pressure to focus on areas of health service provision. Establishing mechanisms to better motivate providers through intrinsic factors is likely to have a substantive impact on the sustainability of malaria case management activities.

The malaria testing and treatment landscape in the southern Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR).

BACKGROUND: In the context of national and regional goals to eliminate malaria by 2030, the Center for Malaria Parasitology and Entomology in the Lao PDR is implementing strategies to ensure all malaria cases are detected and appropriately treated with first-line artemisinin combination therapy, artemether-lumefantrine (AL). Timely and relevant evidence to inform policies and strategies is needed to ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources, and to accelerate progress towards elimination goals. A 2015 outlet survey conducted in five provinces of the southern Lao PDR was the first of its kind to study the total market for malaria treatments and diagnostics. The sub-national outlet survey was designed to describe the market and to assess public and private sector readiness and performance for malaria case management. Additionally, key indicators were estimated among private outlets within districts with and without a Public Private Mix (PPM) programme. RESULTS: Over half of anti-malarial stockists were public sector (65.1%). In the private sector, pharmacies most commonly stocked anti-malarials, although anti-malarials were also found in private health facilities, drug stores, general retailers, and itinerant drug vendors. Nearly all anti-malarial stocking public health facilities had AL (99.5%) and 90.8% had confirmatory testing. Fewer than half of anti-malarial stocking private outlets stocked AL (40.8%) and malaria testing (43.5%). Chloroquine has not been a first-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria since 2005 and Plasmodium vivax since 2011 yet private sector availability was 77.6% and chloroquine accounted for 62.2% of the total anti-malarial market share. AL and confirmatory testing availability were higher in private outlets in PPM (68.1, 72.6%) versus non-PPM districts (2.5, 12.1%). Chloroquine was available in 63.6% of PPM and 96.7% of non-PPM-district outlets, and was the most commonly distributed anti-malarial among private outlets in both PPM (61.7%) and non-PPM districts (99.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Public sector outlets in the southern Lao PDR are typically equipped to test and appropriately treat malaria. There is need to address widespread private sector availability and distribution of chloroquine. The PPM programme has improved private provider readiness to manage malaria according to national guidelines. However, supporting interventions to address provider and consumer behaviours are needed to further drive uptake.

Private sector opportunities and threats to achieving malaria elimination in the Greater Mekong Subregion: results from malaria outlet surveys in Cambodia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Thailand.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper is to review multi-country evidence of private sector adherence to national regulations, guidelines, and quality-assurance standards for malaria case management and to document current coverage of private sector engagement and support through ACTwatch outlet surveys implemented in 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: Over 76,168 outlets were screened, and approximately 6500 interviews were conducted (Cambodia, N = 1303; the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), N = 724; Myanmar, N = 4395; and Thailand, N = 74). There was diversity in the types of private sector outlets providing malaria treatment across countries, and the extent to which they were authorized to test and treat for malaria differed. Among outlets stocking at least one anti-malarial, public sector availability of the first-line treatment for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax malaria was >75%. In the anti-malarial stocking private sector, first-line treatment availability was variable (Cambodia, 70.9%; the Lao PDR, 40.8%; Myanmar P. falciparum = 42.7%, P. vivax = 19.6%; Thailand P. falciparum = 19.6%, P. vivax = 73.3%), as was availability of second-line treatment (the Lao PDR, 74.9%; Thailand, 39.1%; Myanmar, 19.8%; and Cambodia, 0.7%). Treatment not in the National Treatment Guidelines (NTGs) was most common in Myanmar (35.8%) and Cambodia (34.0%), and was typically stocked by the informal sector. The majority of anti-malarials distributed in Cambodia and Myanmar were first-line P. falciparum or P. vivax treatments (90.3% and 77.1%, respectively), however, 8.8% of the market share in Cambodia was treatment not in the NTGs (namely chloroquine) and 17.6% in Myanmar (namely oral artemisinin monotherapy). In the Lao PDR, approximately 9 in 10 anti-malarials distributed in the private sector were second-line treatments-typically locally manufactured chloroquine. In Cambodia, 90% of anti-malarials were distributed through outlets that had confirmatory testing available. Over half of all anti-malarial distribution was by outlets that did not have confirmatory testing available in the Lao PDR (54%) and Myanmar (59%). Availability of quality-assured rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) amongst the RDT-stocking public sector ranged from 99.3% in the Lao PDR to 80.1% in Cambodia. In Cambodia, the Lao PDR, and Myanmar, less than 50% of the private sector reportedly received engagement (access to subsidized commodities, supervision, training or caseload reporting), which was most common among private health facilities and pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this multi-country study suggest that Cambodia, the Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Thailand are generally in alignment with national regulations, treatment guidelines, and quality-assurance standards. However, important gaps persist in the private sector which pose a threat to national malaria control and elimination goals. Several options are discussed to help align the private sector anti-malarial market with national elimination strategies.

Can topical insect repellents reduce malaria? A cluster-randomised controlled trial of the insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) in Lao PDR.

BACKGROUND: Mosquito vectors of malaria in Southeast Asia readily feed outdoors making malaria control through indoor insecticides such as long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying more difficult. Topical insect repellents may be able to protect users from outdoor biting, thereby providing additional protection above the current best practice of LLINs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A double blind, household randomised, placebo-controlled trial of insect repellent to reduce malaria was carried out in southern Lao PDR to determine whether the use of repellent and long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) could reduce malaria more than LLINs alone. A total of 1,597 households, including 7,979 participants, were recruited in June 2009 and April 2010. Equal group allocation, stratified by village, was used to randomise 795 households to a 15% DEET lotion and the remainder were given a placebo lotion. Participants, field staff and data analysts were blinded to the group assignment until data analysis had been completed. All households received new LLINs. Participants were asked to apply their lotion to exposed skin every evening and sleep under the LLINs each night. Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax cases were actively identified by monthly rapid diagnostic tests. Intention to treat analysis found no effect from the use of repellent on malaria incidence (hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.01, p = 0.868). A higher socio-economic score was found to significantly decrease malaria risk (hazard ratio: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.90, p = 0.004). Women were also found to have a reduced risk of infection (hazard ratio: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.37-0.92, p = 0.020). According to protocol analysis which excluded participants using the lotions less than 90% of the time found similar results with no effect from the use of repellent. CONCLUSIONS: This randomised controlled trial suggests that topical repellents are not a suitable intervention in addition to LLINs against malaria amongst agricultural populations in southern Lao PDR. These results are also likely to be applicable to much of the Greater Mekong Sub-region. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with number NCT00938379.