Does improving appropriate use of malaria medicines change population beliefs in testing and treatment? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial

Experience and confidence in health technologies: evidence from malaria testing and treatment in Western Kenya

Background

Low adoption of effective health technologies increases illness morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the case of malaria, effective tools such as malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and artemisinin-combination therapies (ACTs) are both under-used and used inappropriately. Individuals’ confidence in RDTs and ACTs likely affects the uptake of these tools.

Methods

In a cohort of 36 households (280 individuals) in Western Kenya observed for 30 months starting in June 2017, we examined if experience with RDTs and ACTs changes people’s beliefs about these technologies and how those beliefs affect treatment behavior. Household members requested a free RDT from the study team any time they suspected a malaria illness, and positive RDT results were treated with a free ACT. We conducted annual, monthly, and sick visit surveys to elicit beliefs about the accuracy of malaria RDT results and the effectiveness of ACTs. Beliefs were elicited on a 5-point Likert scale from “very unlikely” to “very likely.”

Results

Over the study period, the percentage of survey respondents that said a hypothetical negative RDT result was “very likely” to be correct increased from approximately 55% to 75%. Controlling for initial beliefs, people who had been tested at least once with an RDT in the past year had 3.6 times higher odds (95% CI [1 1.718 7.679], P = 0.001) of saying a negative RDT was “very likely” to be correct. Confidence in testing was associated with treatment behavior: those who believed a negative RDT was “very likely” to be correct had 1.78 times higher odds (95% CI [1.079 2.934], P = 0.024) of adhering to a negative RDT result (by not taking ACTs) than those who were less certain about the accuracy of negative RDTs. Adherence to a negative test also affected subsequent beliefs: controlling for prior beliefs, those who had adhered to their previous test result had approximately twice the odds (OR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.661 2.904], P < 0.001) of saying that a hypothetical negative RDT was “very likely” to be correct compared to those who had not adhered.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that greater experience with RDTs can not only increase people’s confidence in their accuracy but also improve adherence to the test result.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14102-y.

Subsidise the test, the treatment or both? Results of an individually randomised controlled trial of the management of suspected malaria fevers in the retail sector in western Kenya

INTRODUCTION

In many malaria-endemic countries, the private retail sector is a major source of antimalarial drugs. However, the rarity of malaria diagnostic testing in the retail sector leads to overuse of the first-line class of antimalarial drugs known as artemisinin-combination therapies (ACTs). The goal of this study was to identify the combination of malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and ACT subsidies that maximises the proportion of clients seeking care in a retail outlet that choose to purchase an RDT (RDT uptake) and use ACTs appropriately.

METHODS

842 clients seeking care in 12 select retail outlets in western Kenya were recruited and randomised into 4 arms of different combinations of ACT and RDT subsidies, with ACT subsidies conditional on a positive RDT. The outcomes were RDT uptake (primary) and appropriate and targeted ACT use (secondary). Participants' familiarity with RDTs and their confidence in test results were also evaluated.

RESULTS

RDT uptake was high (over 96%) across the study arms. Testing uptake was 1.025 times higher (98% CI 1.002 to 1.049) in the RDT subsidised arms than in the unsubsidised groups. Over 98% of clients were aware of malaria testing, but only 35% had a previous experience with RDTs. Nonetheless, confidence in the accuracy of RDTs was high. We found high levels of appropriate use and targeting of ACTs, with 86% of RDT positives taking an ACT, and 93.4% of RDT negatives not taking an ACT. The conditional ACT subsidy did not affect the RDT test purchasing behaviour (risk ratio: 0.994; 98% CI 0.979 to 1.009).

CONCLUSION

Test dependent ACT subsidies may contribute to ACT targeting. However, in this context, high confidence in the accuracy of RDTs and reliable supplies of RDTs and ACTs likely played a greater role in testing uptake and adherence to test results.