What is the value of reactive case detection in malaria control? A case-study in India and a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reactive case detection (RCD) for malaria is a strategy to identify additional malaria infections in areas of low malaria transmission and can complement passive surveillance. This study describes experiences with RCD in two Indian sites, and aimed to synthesize experiences with RCD across endemic countries. METHODS: RCD programmes were piloted in two urban areas of India with a low prevalence of mainly Plasmodium vivax malaria in 2014. Cases were identified in a clinic by microscopy and contacts were screened within 2 weeks; PCR, in addition to microscopy, was used to detect Plasmodium parasites. A systematic review was conducted to identify RCD experiences in the literature. RESULTS: In Chennai, 868 contacts were enrolled for 18 index cases of clinical malaria; in Nadiad, 131 contacts were enrolled for 20 index cases. No new malaria infections were detected in Nadiad among contacts, and four new infections were detected in Chennai (three P. vivax and one Plasmodium falciparum), of which two were among household members of index cases. An additional five studies describing results from an RCD strategy were identified in the literature: four in Africa and one in Thailand. Including the results from India, the average number of contacts screened per index case in a total of seven studies ranged from four to 50, and 126 in a case study in Thailand with one index case. Malaria was detected in 0-45 % of the contacted persons. The average number of index cases needed to be traced to find one new case of malaria ranged from one to five, and could not be assessed in one study in India (no contacts positive for 20 cases). Sharing the household with an index case was associated with a five-fold increased risk of malaria compared to contacts from households without an index case (pooled risk ratio 5.29, 95 % CI 3.31-8.47, I(2) 0 %, four studies). CONCLUSIONS: RCD in areas of low malaria transmission is a labour-intensive strategy, and its benefit is not clear. Studies are needed to assess how RCD can be optimized or into alternatives where interventions are targeted to family members or hotspots.

Need for operational simplicity and timely disbursal of benefits-a qualitative exploration of the implementation of a direct benefit transfer scheme for persons with tuberculosis in India.

BACKGROUND: Ni-kshay Poshan Yojana (NPY) is a direct benefit transfer scheme of the Government of India introduced in 2018 to support the additional nutritional requirements of persons with TB (PwTB). Our recent nationwide evaluation of implementation and utilization of NPY using programmatic data of PwTB from nine randomly selected Indian states, reported a 70% coverage and high median delay in benefit credit. We undertook a qualitative study between January and July 2023, to understand the detailed implementation process of NPY and explore the enablers and barriers to effective implementation and utilization of the NPY scheme. METHODS: We followed a grounded theory approach to inductively develop theoretical explanations for social phenomena through data generated from multiple sources. We conducted 36 in-depth interviews of national, district and field-level staff of the National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme (NTEP) and NPY beneficiaries from 30 districts across nine states of India, selected using theoretical sampling. An analytical framework developed through inductive coding of a set of six interviews, guided the coding of the subsequent interviews. Categories and themes emerged through constant comparison and the data collection continued until theoretical saturation. RESULTS: Stakeholders perceived NPY as a beneficial initiative. Strong political commitment from the state administration, mainstreaming of NTEP work with the district public healthcare delivery system, availability of good geographic and internet connectivity and state-specific grievance redressal mechanisms and innovations were identified as enablers of implementation. However, the complex, multi-level benefit approval process, difficulties in accessing banking services, perceived inadequacy of benefits and overworked human resources in the NTEP were identified as barriers to implementation and utilization. CONCLUSION: The optimal utilization of NPY is enabled by strong political commitment and challenged by its lengthy implementation process and delayed disbursal of benefits. We recommend greater operational simplicity in NPY implementation, integrating NTEP activities with the public health system to reduce the burden on the program staff, and revising the benefit amount more equitably.