The acceptability of three vaccine injections given to infants during a single clinic visit in South Africa

BACKGROUND: The Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) has increased the number of antigens and injections administered at one visit. There are concerns that more injections at a single immunisation visit could decrease vaccination coverage. We assessed the acceptability and acceptance of three vaccine injections at a single immunisation visit by caregivers and vaccinators in South Africa. METHODS: A mixed methods exploratory study of caregivers and vaccinators at clinics in two provinces of South Africa was conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using questionnaires as well as observations of the administration of three-injection vaccination sessions. RESULTS: The sample comprised 229 caregivers and 98 vaccinators. Caregivers were satisfied with the vaccinators’ care (97 %) and their infants receiving immunisation injections (93 %). However, many caregivers, (86 %) also felt that three or more injections were excessive at one visit. Caregivers had limited knowledge of actual vaccines provided, and reasons for three injections. Although vaccinators recognised the importance of informing caregivers about vaccination, they only did this sometimes. Overall, acceptance of three injections was high, with 97 % of caregivers expressing willingness to bring their infant for three injections again in future visits despite concerns about the pain and discomfort that the infant experienced. Many (55 %) vaccinators expressed concern about giving three injections in one immunisation visit. However, in 122 (95 %) observed three-injection vaccination sessions, the vaccinators administered all required vaccinations for that visit. The remaining seven vaccinations were not completed because of vaccine stock-outs. CONCLUSIONS: We found high acceptance by caregivers and vaccinators of three injections. Caregivers’ poor understanding of reasons for three injections resulted from limited information sharing by vaccinators for caregivers. Acceptability of three injections may be improved through enhanced vaccinator-caregiver communication, and improved management of infants’ pain. Vaccinator training should include evidence-informed ways of communicating with caregivers and reducing injection pain. Strategies to improve acceptance and acceptability of three injections should be rigorously evaluated as part of EPI’s expansion in resource-limited countries.IS

Equipping medical graduates to address health systems challenges in South Africa : an expressed need for curriculum change

CITATION: Mukinda, F. K., et al. 2015. Equipping medical graduates to address health systems challenges in South Africa : an expressed need for curriculum change. African Journal of Health Professions Education, 7(1):86-91, doi:10.7196/AJHPE.511.The original publication is available at http://www.ajhpe.org.zaBackground: Stellenbosch University Rural Medical Education Partnership Initiative (SURMEPI) aims to enhance health systems knowledge and skills to empower medical graduates to address health systems challenges especially in rural and underserved areas. Objectives: To assess the content of health systems research (HSR) and strengthening, and understand perceptions of medical graduates and faculty about HSR in the undergraduate medical curriculum at Stellenbosch University. Methods: We defined HSR and strengthening competencies for medical graduates through a literature review and expert consultations. Learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skill or attitude in the 64 module guides of the curriculum were compared with the competencies required. A survey of recent medical graduates assessed whether their training equipped them to address health systems challenges. Interviews with faculty assessed their views on teaching health systems competencies. Results. HSR foundational competencies were covered at a basic knowledge level, with little progression of learning levels, and several key competencies were not taught at all. Teaching was not integrated throughout the curriculum. Of 189 graduates, 63 (33.3%) agreed while 67 (35.4%) disagreed that their training prepared them to address health system challenges; 128 (67.7%) agreed on the importance of learning health systems competencies as undergraduates, and proposed learning areas of health system knowledge, leadership and management, problem solving, community service, evaluation methods and health economics. They wanted more practical, problem-oriented HSR training. Faculty supported the relevance and inclusion of HSR and strengthening in the curriculum. Conclusion: The curriculum needs adaptation to better equip students with HSR and strengthening competencies.http://www.ajhpe.org.za/index.php/ajhpe/search/searchPublisher's versionAfrican Journal of Health Professions Educatio

Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews

CITATION: Pantoja, T., et al. 2017. Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9:1-133, Art. CD011086, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011086.pub2.The original publication is available at https://www.cochranelibrary.comBackground: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low‐income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision‐makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness. Objectives: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low‐income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview. Methods: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ‐Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well‐conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low‐income countries. Main results: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high‐income countries. There were no studies from low‐income countries in eight reviews. Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories – strategies targeting: 1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review); 2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews); 3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews); 4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews). Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence and no moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence of undesirable effects.https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011086.pub2/fullPublisher's versio

Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews

CITATION: Ciapponi, A, et al. 2017. Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries : an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9:1-182, Art. CD011083, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011083.pub2.The original publication is available at https://www.cochranelibrary.comBackground: Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. Objectives: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. Methods: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ‐Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well‐conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low‐income countries. Main results: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence and no moderate‐ or high‐certainty evidence of undesirable effects.https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011083.pub2/fullPublisher's versio