Adherence to Ebola-specific malaria case management guidelines at health facilities in Guinea during the West African Ebola epidemic

The practice of evaluating epidemic response in humanitarian and low-income settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Epidemics of infectious disease occur frequently in low-income and humanitarian settings and pose a serious threat to populations. However, relatively little is known about responses to these epidemics. Robust evaluations can generate evidence on response efforts and inform future improvements. This systematic review aimed to (i) identify epidemics reported in low-income and crisis settings, (ii) determine the frequency with which evaluations of responses to these epidemics were conducted, (iii) describe the main typologies of evaluations undertaken and (iv) identify key gaps and strengths of recent evaluation practice.

METHODS

Reported epidemics were extracted from the following sources: World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News (WHO DON), UNICEF Cholera platform, Reliefweb, PROMED and Global Incidence Map. A systematic review for evaluation reports was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Web of Science, WPRIM, Reliefweb, PDQ Evidence and CINAHL Plus databases, complemented by grey literature searches using Google and Google Scholar. Evaluation records were quality-scored and linked to epidemics based on time and place. The time period for the review was 2010-2019.

RESULTS

A total of 429 epidemics were identified, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. A total of 15,424 potential evaluations records were screened, 699 assessed for eligibility and 132 included for narrative synthesis. Only one tenth of epidemics had a corresponding response evaluation. Overall, there was wide variability in the quality, content as well as in the disease coverage of evaluation reports.

CONCLUSION

The current state of evaluations of responses to these epidemics reveals large gaps in coverage and quality and bears important implications for health equity and accountability to affected populations. The limited availability of epidemic response evaluations prevents improvements to future public health response. The diversity of emphasis and methods of available evaluations limits comparison across responses and time. In order to improve future response and save lives, there is a pressing need to develop a standardized and practical approach as well as governance arrangements to ensure the systematic conduct of epidemic response evaluations in low-income and crisis settings.

Quality of Malaria Case Management and Reporting at Public Health Facilities in Six Health Districts in Guinea, 2018

Data on fever and malaria cases reported by health facilities are used for tracking incidence and quantification of malaria commodity needs in Guinea. Periodic assessments of the quality of malaria case management and routine data are a critical activity for the malaria program. In May-June 2018, survey teams visited 126 health facilities in six health districts purposefully selected to represent a spectrum (Stratum 1-high, Stratum 2-intermediate, and Stratum 3-low) of perceived quality of case management and reporting, as assessed from an a priori analysis of routine data. Surveyors performed exit interviews with 939 outpatients and compared results with registry data for interviewed patients. Availability of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) was 100% in Strata 1 and 2, compared with 82% (95% CI: 63-92%) for RDTs and 86% (68-95%) for any formulation of ACT in Stratum 3. Correct case management for suspect malaria cases was 85% in both Stratum 1 (95% CI: 78-90%) and Stratum 2 (79-89%), but only 52% (37-67%) in Stratum 3. Concordance between exit interviews and registry entries for key malaria indicators was significantly higher in Strata 1 and 2 than in Stratum 3. Both adherence to national guidelines for testing and treatment and data quality were high in Strata 1 and 2, but substandard in Stratum 3. The survey results reflected the trends seen in the routine data, suggesting that analysis of routine data can identify areas requiring more attention to improve malaria case management and reporting.

Quality of malaria services offered in public health facilities in three provinces of Mozambique: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Fever associated with malaria is the leading cause of health care-seeking in Mozambique, yet there is limited evidence on the quality of malaria case management. This study evaluated the quality of malaria service provision offered in public health facilities in Mozambique.

METHODS

A cross-sectional assessment was conducted in April-May 2018 in three provinces of Mozambique: Maputo Province (low malaria burden), Cabo Delgado (high), and Zambézia (high). The study included all secondary and tertiary facilities and a random sample of primary facilities in each province. Data collection included exit interviews and re-examinations of 20 randomly selected outpatient service patients, interviews with up to five health care providers and the health facility director, a stockroom inventory and routine data abstraction.

RESULTS

A total of 319 health care providers and 1840 patients from 117 health facilities were included. Of these, 1325 patients (72%) had suspected malaria (fever/history of fever) and 550 (30%) had febrile, confirmed malaria with the highest burden in Cabo Delgado (43%), followed by Zambézia (34%) and Maputo Province (2%). Appropriate management of malaria cases, defined as testing malaria suspects and treating confirmed cases with the correct dose of anti-malarial, was highest in Zambézia and Cabo Delgado where 52% (95% CI 42-62) and 49% (42-57) of febrile malaria cases were appropriately managed, respectively. Only 14% (5-34) of febrile cases in Maputo Province were appropriately managed. The biggest gap in the malaria case management pathway was failure to test febrile patients, with only 46% of patients with this indication tested for malaria in Maputo Province. Additionally, anti-malarial treatment of patients with a negative malaria test result was common, ranging from 8% (2-23) in Maputo Province to 22% (14-32) of patients with a negative test in Zambézia. Only 58-62% of patients prescribed an anti-malarial correctly recited dosing instructions. Provider training and malaria knowledge was low outside of Zambézia and supervision rates were low in all provinces. Factors associated with correct case management varied by province and included patient age, facility type, treatment and testing availability, supervision, and training.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the need to strengthen provider testing of all patients with fever, provider adherence to negative test results, and effective counselling of patients across epidemiological settings in Mozambique.