Risks and challenges in COVID-19 infection prevention and control in a hospital setting: Perspectives of healthcare workers in Thailand

Introduction: In hospital settings, awareness of, and responsiveness to, COVID-19 are crucial to reducing the risk of transmission among healthcare workers and protecting them from infection. Healthcare professionals can offer insights into the practicalities of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and on how the guideline aimed to ensure adherence to IPC, including use of personal protective equipment (PPE), could best be delivered during the pandemic. To inform future development of such guideline, this study examined the perspectives of healthcare professionals working in a large hospital during the pandemic regarding their infection risks, the barriers or facilitators to implementing their tasks and the IPC measures to protect their safety and health and of their patients. Method: In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 hospital staff coming into contact with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19, or were at potential risk of contracting the disease, including medical doctors, nurses, virology laboratory staff, and non-medical workers. This qualitative study was carried out as part of a knowledge, attitudes and practice survey to prevent COVID-19 transmission at Ramathibodi Hospital in Thailand. We used content analysis to categorize and code transcribed interview data. Existing IPC guideline and evidence synthesis of organisational, environmental, and individual factors to IPC adherence among healthcare workers were used to guide the development of the interview questions and analysis. Finding: Factors identified as influencing the use of, and adherence to, prevention measures among healthcare workers included knowledge, perceived risk and concerns about the infection. The extent to which these factors were influential varied based on the medical procedures, among other features, that individuals were assigned to perform in the hospital setting. Beyond availability of PPE and physical safety, ease of and readiness to utilize the equipment and implement IPC measures were crucial to motivate hospital staff to follow the practice guideline. Having a ventilated outdoor space for screening and testing, and interaction through mobile technology, facilitated the performance of healthcare workers while reducing the transmission risk for staff and patients. Adequate training, demonstration of guided practices, and streamlined communications are crucial organisational and management support factors to encourage appropriate use of, and adherence to, implementation of infection prevention and control measures among healthcare workers. Conclusion: This finding could help inform the development of recommendations to optimise compliance with appropriate use of these measures, and to improve guidance to reduce HCW’s risk of disease in hospital settings. Further study should explore the perceptions and experiences of health professionals in smaller health facilities and community-based workers during the pandemic, particularly in resource-limited settings

Risks and challenges in COVID-19 infection prevention and control in a hospital setting: Perspectives of healthcare workers in Thailand

Introduction: In hospital settings, awareness of, and responsiveness to, COVID-19 are crucial to reducing the risk of transmission among healthcare workers and protecting them from infection. Healthcare professionals can offer insights into the practicalities of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and on how the guideline aimed to ensure adherence to IPC, including use of personal protective equipment (PPE), could best be delivered during the pandemic. To inform future development of such guideline, this study examined the perspectives of healthcare professionals working in a large hospital during the pandemic regarding their infection risks, the barriers or facilitators to implementing their tasks and the IPC measures to protect their safety and health and of their patients. Method: In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 hospital staff coming into contact with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19, or were at potential risk of contracting the disease, including medical doctors, nurses, virology laboratory staff, and non-medical workers. This qualitative study was carried out as part of a knowledge, attitudes and practice survey to prevent COVID-19 transmission at Ramathibodi Hospital in Thailand. We used content analysis to categorize and code transcribed interview data. Existing IPC guideline and evidence synthesis of organisational, environmental, and individual factors to IPC adherence among healthcare workers were used to guide the development of the interview questions and analysis. Finding: Factors identified as influencing the use of, and adherence to, prevention measures among healthcare workers included knowledge, perceived risk and concerns about the infection. The extent to which these factors were influential varied based on the medical procedures, among other features, that individuals were assigned to perform in the hospital setting. Beyond availability of PPE and physical safety, ease of and readiness to utilize the equipment and implement IPC measures were crucial to motivate hospital staff to follow the practice guideline. Having a ventilated outdoor space for screening and testing, and interaction through mobile technology, facilitated the performance of healthcare workers while reducing the transmission risk for staff and patients. Adequate training, demonstration of guided practices, and streamlined communications are crucial organisational and management support factors to encourage appropriate use of, and adherence to, implementation of infection prevention and control measures among healthcare workers. Conclusion: This finding could help inform the development of recommendations to optimise compliance with appropriate use of these measures, and to improve guidance to reduce HCW’s risk of disease in hospital settings. Further study should explore the perceptions and experiences of health professionals in smaller health facilities and community-based workers during the pandemic, particularly in resource-limited settings

Forest malaria and prospects for anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis among forest goers: findings from a qualitative study in Lao PDR

Background Despite significant decline in malarial incidence and mortality in countries across the Greater Mekong Subregion, the disease remains a public health challenge in the region; transmission continues mainly among people who visit forests in remote areas, often along international borders, where access to primary healthcare is limited. In the absence of effective vector-control measures and limited exposure periods, malaria chemoprophylaxis has been proposed as a strategy to protect forest goers. As a rarely used approach for indigenous populations, questions remain about its feasibility and acceptability. Drawing on in-depth interviews with forest goers and stakeholders, this article examines opportunities and challenges for implementation of anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for forest goers in Lao PDR. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 forest goers and 15 stakeholders in Savannakhet province, Lao PDR. Interview topics included experience of malaria prevention and health services, and perceptions of prophylaxis as a potential component of malaria elimination strategy. The interviews were transcribed and coded using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative thematic analysis. Results In ethnically and geographically diverse villages, awareness of malaria risk prompts forest goers to protect themselves, albeit sub-optimally using available preventive measures. Stakeholders highlighted challenges for targeting at-risk populations and approaches to address forest malaria in southern Lao PDR. Among policymakers, choice and cost of anti-malarials, particularly their efficacy and source of funding, were key considerations for the feasibility of malaria prophylaxis. Acceptability of prophylaxis among forest goers was also influenced by the complexity of the regimen, including the number of tablets and timing of doses. Implementation of prophylaxis may be affected by a lack of transportation and communication barriers in remote communities. Conclusion Adding prophylaxis to existing malaria control activities requires strengthening the capacity of local health workers in Lao PDR. Ideally, this would be part of an integrated approach that includes strategies to address the other febrile illnesses that forest goers describe as priority health concerns. The prophylactic regimen also requires careful consideration in terms of effectiveness and simplicity of dosing

Forest malaria and prospects for anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis among forest goers: findings from a qualitative study in Thailand

Background: Across the Greater Mekong Subregion, malaria remains a dangerous infectious disease, particularly for people who visit forested areas where residual transmission continues. Because vector control measures offer incomplete protection to forest goers, chemoprophylaxis has been suggested as a potential supplementary measure for malaria prevention and control. To implement prophylaxis effectively, additional information is needed to understand forest goers’ activities and their willingness to use malaria prevention measures, including prophylaxis, and how it could be delivered in communities. Drawing on in-depth interviews with forest goers and stakeholders, this article examines the potential acceptability and implementation challenges of malaria prophylaxis for forest goers in northeast Thailand. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with forest goers (n = 11) and stakeholders (n = 16) including healthcare workers, community leaders, and policymakers. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded using NVivo, employing an inductive and deductive approach, for thematic analysis. Results: Forest goers were well aware of their (elevated) malaria risk and reported seeking care for malaria from local health care providers. Forest goers and community members have a close relationship with the forest but are not a homogenous group: their place and time-at-risk varied according to their activities and length of stay in the forest. Among stakeholders, the choice and cost of anti-malarial prophylactic regimen—its efficacy, length and complexity, number of tablets, potential side effects, and long-term impact on users—were key considerations for its feasibility. They also expressed concern about adherence to the preventive therapy and potential difficulty treating malaria patients with the same regimen. Prophylaxis was considered a low priority in areas with perceived accessible health system and approaching malaria elimination. Conclusions: In the context of multi-drug resistance, there are several considerations for implementing malaria prophylaxis: the need to target forest goers who are at-risk with a clear period of exposure, to ensure continued use of vector control measures and adherence to prophylactic anti-malarials, and to adopt an evidence-based approach to determine an appropriate regimen. Beyond addressing current intervention challenges and managing malaria incidence in low-transmission setting, it is crucial to keep malaria services available and accessible at the village level especially in areas home to highly mobile populations

Improving knowledge, attitudes and practice to prevent COVID-19 transmission in healthcare workers and the public in Thailand

Background: Key infection prevention and control measures to limit transmission of COVID-19 include social distancing, hand hygiene, use of facemasks and personal protective equipment. However, these have limited or no impact if not applied correctly through lack of knowledge, inappropriate attitude or incorrect practice. In order to maximise the impact of infection prevention and control measures on COVID-19 spread, we undertook a study to assess and improve knowledge, attitudes and practice among 119 healthcare workers and 100 general public in Thailand. The study setting was two inpatient hospitals providing COVID-19 testing and treatment. Detailed information on knowledge, attitudes and practice among the general public and healthcare workers regarding COVID-19 transmission and its prevention were obtained from a combination of questionnaires and observations. Results: Knowledge of the main transmission routes, commonest symptoms and recommended prevention methods was mostly very high (> 80%) in both groups. There was lower awareness of aerosols, food and drink and pets as sources of transmission; of the correct duration for handwashing; recommended distance for social/physical distancing; and about recommended types of face coverings. Information sources most used and most trusted were the workplace, work colleagues, health workers and television. The results were used to produce a set of targeted educational videos which addressed many of these gaps with subsequent improvements on retesting in a number of areas. This included improvements in handwashing practice with an increase in the number of areas correctly washed in 65.5% of the public, and 57.9% of healthcare workers. The videos were then further optimized with feedback from participants followed by another round of retesting. Conclusions: Detailed information on gaps in knowledge, attitudes and practice among the general public and healthcare workers regarding COVID-19 transmission and its prevention were obtained from a combination of questionnaires and observations. This was used to produce targeted educational videos which addressed these gaps with subsequent improvements on retesting. The resulting videos were then disseminated as a resource to aid in efforts to fight COVID-19 in Thailand and worldwide.</p

Acceptability and feasibility of malaria prophylaxis for forest goers: findings from a qualitative study in Cambodia

Background: In the Greater Mekong Subregion, adults are at highest risk for malaria, particularly those who visit forests. The absence of effective vector control strategies and limited periods of exposure during forest visits suggest that chemoprophylaxis could be an appropriate strategy to protect forest goers against malaria. Methods: Alongside a clinical trial of anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis in northern Cambodia, qualitative research was conducted, including in-depth interviews and observation, to explore the acceptability of malaria prophylaxis for forest goers, the implementation opportunities, and challenges of this strategy. Results: Prophylaxis with artemether–lumefantrine for forest goers was found to be acceptable under trial conditions. Three factors played a major role: the community’s awareness and perception of the effectiveness of prophylaxis, their trust in the provider, and malaria as a local health concern. The findings highlight how uptake and adherence to prophylaxis are influenced by the perceived balance between benefits and burden of anti-malarials which are modulated by the seasonality of forest visits and its influence on malaria risk. Conclusions: The implementation of anti-malarial prophylaxis needs to consider how the preventive medication can be incorporated into existing vector-control measures, malaria testing and treatment services. The next step in the roll out of anti-malarial prophylaxis for forest visitors will require support from local health workers

Antimalarial Chemoprophylaxis for Forest Goers in Southeast Asia: An Open-Label, Individually Randomised Controlled Trial

Summary Background Malaria in the eastern Greater Mekong subregion has declined to historic lows. Countries in the Greater Mekong subregion are accelerating malaria elimination in the context of increasing antimalarial drug resistance. Infections are now increasingly concentrated in remote, forested foci. No intervention has yet shown satisfactory efficacy against forest-acquired malaria. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of malaria chemoprophylaxis among forest goers in Cambodia. Methods We conducted an open-label, individually randomized controlled trial in Cambodia, which recruited participants aged 16–65 years staying overnight in forests. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to antimalarial chemoprophylaxis, a 3-day course of twice-daily artemether–lumefantrine followed by the same daily dosing once a week while travelling in the forest and for a further 4 weeks after leaving the forest (four tablets per dose; 20 mg of artemether and 120 mg of lumefantrine per tablet), or a multivitamin with no antimalarial activity. Allocations were done according to a computer-generated randomization schedule, and randomization was in permuted blocks of size ten and stratified by village. Investigators and participants were not masked to drug allocation, but laboratory investigations were done without knowledge of allocation. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of either clinical malaria with any Plasmodium species within 1–28, 29–56, or 57–84 days, or subclinical infection detected by PCR on days 28, 56, or 84 using complete-case analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to study drug was assessed primarily by self-reporting during follow-up visits. Adverse events were assessed in the intention-to-treat population as a secondary endpoint from self-reporting at any time, plus a physical examination and symptom questionnaire at follow-up. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04041973) and is complete. Findings Between March 11 and November 20, 2020, 1,480 individuals were enrolled, of whom 738 were randomly assigned to artemether–lumefantrine and 742 to the multivitamin. 713 participants in the artemether–lumefantrine group and 714 in the multivitamin group had a PCR result or confirmed clinical malaria by rapid diagnostic test during follow-up. During follow-up, 19 (3%, 95% CI 2–4) of 713 participants had parasitaemia or clinical malaria in the artemether– lumefantrine group and 123 (17%, 15–20) of 714 in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 15%, 95% CI 12–18; p \u3c 0·0001). During follow-up, there were 166 malaria episodes caused by Plasmodium vivax, 14 by Plasmodium falciparum, and five with other or mixed species infections. The numbers of participants with P. vivax were 18 (3%, 95% CI 2–4) in the artemether–lumefantrine group versus 112 (16%, 13–19) in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 13%, 95% CI 10–16; p \u3c 0.0001). The numbers of participants with P. falciparum were two (0.3%, 95% CI 0.03–1.01) in the artemether–lumefantrine group versus 12 (1·7%, 0.9–2.9) in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 1·4%, 95% CI 0.4–2·4; p = 0.013). Overall reported adherence to the full course of medication was 97% (95% CI 96–98; 1,797 completed courses out of 1,854 courses started) in the artemether–lumefantrine group and 98% (97–98; 1,842 completed courses in 1,885 courses started) in the multivitamin group. Overall prevalence of adverse events was 1.9% (355 events in 18,806 doses) in the artemether–lumefantrine group and 1.1% (207 events in 19,132 doses) in the multivitamin group (p \u3c 0.0001). Interpretation Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis with artemether–lumefantrine was acceptable and well tolerated and substantially reduced the risk of malaria. Malaria chemoprophylaxis among high-risk groups such as forest workers could be a valuable tool for accelerating elimination in the Greater Mekong subregion

Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis for forest goers in southeast Asia: an open-label, individually randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundMalaria in the eastern Greater Mekong subregion has declined to historic lows. Countries in the Greater Mekong subregion are accelerating malaria elimination in the context of increasing antimalarial drug resistance. Infections are now increasingly concentrated in remote, forested foci. No intervention has yet shown satisfactory efficacy against forest-acquired malaria. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of malaria chemoprophylaxis among forest goers in Cambodia. MethodsWe conducted an open-label, individually randomised controlled trial in Cambodia, which recruited participants aged 16-65 years staying overnight in forests. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to antimalarial chemoprophylaxis, a 3-day course of twice-daily artemether-lumefantrine followed by the same daily dosing once a week while travelling in the forest and for a further 4 weeks after leaving the forest (four tablets per dose; 20 mg of artemether and 120 mg of lumefantrine per tablet), or a multivitamin with no antimalarial activity. Allocations were done according to a computer-generated randomisation schedule, and randomisation was in permuted blocks of size ten and stratified by village. Investigators and participants were not masked to drug allocation, but laboratory investigations were done without knowledge of allocation. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of either clinical malaria with any Plasmodium species within 1-28, 29-56, or 57-84 days, or subclinical infection detected by PCR on days 28, 56, or 84 using complete-case analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to study drug was assessed primarily by self-reporting during follow-up visits. Adverse events were assessed in the intention-to-treat population as a secondary endpoint from self-reporting at any time, plus a physical examination and symptom questionnaire at follow-up. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04041973) and is complete. FindingsBetween March 11 and Nov 20, 2020, 1480 individuals were enrolled, of whom 738 were randomly assigned to artemether-lumefantrine and 742 to the multivitamin. 713 participants in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 714 in the multivitamin group had a PCR result or confirmed clinical malaria by rapid diagnostic test during follow-up. During follow-up, 19 (3%, 95% CI 2-4) of 713 participants had parasitaemia or clinical malaria in the artemether-lumefantrine group and 123 (17%, 15-20) of 714 in the multivitamin group (absolute risk difference 15%, 95% CI 12-18; p Interpretation Antimalarial chemoprophylaxis with artemether-lumefantrine was acceptable and well tolerated and substantially reduced the risk of malaria. Malaria chemoprophylaxis among high-risk groups such as forest workers could be a valuable tool for accelerating elimination in the Greater Mekong subregion

Forest malaria and prospects for anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis among forest goers: findings from a qualitative study in Lao PDR

Background: Despite significant decline in malarial incidence and mortality in countries across the Greater Mekong Subregion, the disease remains a public health challenge in the region; transmission continues mainly among people who visit forests in remote areas, often along international borders, where access to primary healthcare is limited. In the absence of effective vector-control measures and limited exposure periods, malaria chemoprophylaxis has been proposed as a strategy to protect forest goers. As a rarely used approach for indigenous populations, questions remain about its feasibility and acceptability. Drawing on in-depth interviews with forest goers and stakeholders, this article examines opportunities and challenges for implementation of anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis for forest goers in Lao PDR. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 forest goers and 15 stakeholders in Savannakhet province, Lao PDR. Interview topics included experience of malaria prevention and health services, and perceptions of prophylaxis as a potential component of malaria elimination strategy. The interviews were transcribed and coded using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative thematic analysis. Results: In ethnically and geographically diverse villages, awareness of malaria risk prompts forest goers to protect themselves, albeit sub-optimally using available preventive measures. Stakeholders highlighted challenges for targeting at-risk populations and approaches to address forest malaria in southern Lao PDR. Among policymakers, choice and cost of anti-malarials, particularly their efficacy and source of funding, were key considerations for the feasibility of malaria prophylaxis. Acceptability of prophylaxis among forest goers was also influenced by the complexity of the regimen, including the number of tablets and timing of doses. Implementation of prophylaxis may be affected by a lack of transportation and communication barriers in remote communities. Conclusion: Adding prophylaxis to existing malaria control activities requires strengthening the capacity of local health workers in Lao PDR. Ideally, this would be part of an integrated approach that includes strategies to address the other febrile illnesses that forest goers describe as priority health concerns. The prophylactic regimen also requires careful consideration in terms of effectiveness and simplicity of dosing