Socio-economic differences and health seeking behaviour for the diagnosis and treatment of malaria: a case study of four local government areas operating the Bamako initiative programme in south-east Nigeria

BACKGROUND: Malaria is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in Nigeria. It is not known how user fees introduced under the Bamako Initiative (BI) system affect healthcare seeking among different socio-economic groups in Nigeria for diagnosis and treatment of malaria. Reliable information is needed to initiate new policy thrusts to protect the poor from the adverse effect of user fees. METHODS: Structured questionnaires were used to collect information from 1594 female household primary care givers or household head on their socio-economic and demographic status and use of malaria diagnosis and treatment services. Principal components analysis was used to create a socio-economic status index which was decomposed into quartiles and chi-square for trends was used to calculate for any statistical difference. RESULTS: The study showed that self diagnosis was the commonest form of diagnosis by the respondents. This was followed by diagnosis through laboratory tests, community health workers, family members and traditional healers. The initial choice of care for malaria was a visit to the patent medicine dealers for most respondents. This was followed by visit to the government hospitals, the BI health centres, traditional medicine healers, private clinics, community health workers and does nothing at home. Furthermore, the private health facilities were the initial choice of treatment for the majority with a decline among those choosing them as a second source of care and an increase in the utilization of public health facilities as a second choice of care. Self diagnosis was practiced more by the poorer households while the least poor used the patent medicine dealers and community health workers less often for diagnosis of malaria. The least poor groups had a higher probability of seeking treatment at the BI health centres (creating equity problem in BI), hospitals, and private clinics and in using laboratory procedures. The least poor also used the patent medicine dealers and community health workers less often for the treatment of malaria. The richer households complained more about poor staff attitude and lack of drugs as their reasons for not attending the BI health centres. The factors that encourage people to use services in BI health centres were availability of good services, proximity of the centres to the homes and polite health workers. CONCLUSIONS: Factors deterring people from using BI centres should be eliminated. The use of laboratory services for the diagnosis of malaria by the poor should be encouraged through appropriate information, education and communication which at the long run will be more cost effective and cost saving for them while devising means of reducing the equity gap created. This could be done by granting a properly worked out and implemented fee exemptions to the poor or completely abolishing user fees for the diagnosis and treatment of malaria in BI health centres

Exploring health systems research and its influence on policy processes in low income countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The interface between research and policymaking in low-income countries is highly complex. The ability of health systems research to influence policy processes in such settings face numerous challenges. Successful analysis of the research-policy interface in these settings requires understanding of contextual factors as well as key influences on the interface. <it>Future Health Systems (FHS): Innovations for Equity </it>is a consortium conducting research in six countries in Asia and Africa. One of the three cross-country research themes of the consortium is analysis of the relationship between research (evidence) and policy making, especially their impact on the poor; insights gained in the initial conceptual phase of FHS activities can inform the global knowledge pool on this subject.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper provides a review of the research-policy interface in low-income countries and proposes a conceptual framework, followed by directions for empirical approaches. First, four developmental perspectives are considered: social institutional factors; virtual versus grassroots realities; science-society relationships; and construction of social arrangements. Building on these developmental perspectives three research-policy interface entry points are identified: 1. Recognizing policy as complex processes; 2. Engaging key stakeholders: decision-makers, providers, scientists, and communities; and 3. Enhancing accountability. A conceptual framework with three entry points to the research-policy interface – policy processes; stakeholder interests, values, and power; and accountability – within a context provided by four developmental perspectives is proposed. Potential empirical approaches to the research-policy interface are then reviewed. Finally, the value of such innovative empirical analysis is considered.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to provide the background, conceptual framework, and key research directions for empirical activities focused on the research-policy interface in low income settings. The interface can be strengthened through such analysis leading to potential improvements in population health in low-income settings. Health system development cognizant of the myriad factors at the research-policy interface can form the basis for innovative future health systems.</p

Efficacy and safety of Syferol-IHP for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease: a pilot, double-blind randomized trial

George Uchenna Eleje,1,2 Henrietta Aritetsoma Ogbunugafor,1,3 Chiemelu Dickson Emegoakor,1,4 Ebere Innocent Okoye,1,5 Ogochukwu Ifeanyi Ezejiofor,6 Shirley Nneka Chukwurah,7 Joseph Ifeanyichukwu Ikechebelu,1,2 Godwin W Nchinda,8 Chidozie Godwin Ugochukwu,3 Lucy Ijeoma Nnaji-Ihedinmah,9 Festus Basden C Okoye,1,10 Frank Uchenna Eneh,3 Michael Emeka Onwukamuche,11 Charles Okechukwu Esimone1,12 1Biomedicine Research Group, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 2Effective Care Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 3Department of Applied Biochemistry, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 4Department of General Surgery, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 5Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Technology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 6Department of Medicine, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 7Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medicine, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Nigeria; 8Laboratory of Vaccinology/Biobanking, CIRCB BP 3077, Messa Yaounde, Cameroon; 9Department of Chemical Pathology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Nigeria; 10Department of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 11Department of Histopathology, Faculty of Medicine, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; 12Department of Pharmaceutical Microbiology and Biotechnology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Background: To our knowledge, there is no prior randomized study on the utility of Syferol-IHP (blend of virgin coconut oil and Ocimum sanctum oil) when coadministered with a triple therapy schedule.Aim: This study determined the efficacy and safety of Syferol-IHP as adjunct to conventional triple therapy for the treatment of peptic ulcer disease (PUD).Methods: A pilot double-blind randomized trial was conducted in patients with confirmed diagnosis (endoscopy-guided biopsy) of PUD. Eligible patients were randomized to Pylorest (a three-in-one tablet containing rabeprazole 20&nbsp;mg, amoxicillin 1&nbsp;g, and clarithromycin 500&nbsp;mg) and Syferol-IHP for 2&nbsp;weeks, followed by rabeprazole and Syferol-IHP for 2&nbsp;weeks or Pylorest and placebo for 2&nbsp;weeks, followed by rabeprazole and placebo for 2&nbsp;weeks. Repeat endoscopy-guided biopsy and histology were done 4&nbsp;weeks posttherapy. Primary outcome measures were the healing of ulcer and eradication of Helicobacter pylori. Secondary outcome measures were the disappearance of epigastric pain, gastritis, and duodenitis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.Results: Of the 63 patients enrolled, 60 patients had complete evaluation, with 37 patients receiving Pylorest and Syferol-IHP and 23 patients receiving Pylorest and Placebo. Healing of the PUD in favor of Pylorest and Syferol-IHP was significantly higher for gastric ulcer (RR=0.000, 95% CI=undefined, P=0.048) but not for duodenal ulcer (RR=0.400, 95% CI=0.07&ndash;2.37, P=0.241). H. pylori eradication was 100% with Syferol-IHP vs 50% with placebo (P=0.066). Epigastric pain (reduction to 16.2% vs 43.5%; P=0.021), gastritis (reduction to 13.5% vs 39.1%; P=0.024), and duodenitis (reduction to 0% vs 8.7%; P=0.327) were observed in the Syferol-IHP and Pylorest vs placebo and Pylorest groups, respectively. Adverse events (RR=0.971, 95% CI=0.46&ndash;2.04, P=0.937) and laboratory parameters were not significantly different pre- and posttherapies (P&gt;0.05, for both groups).Conclusion: Although both treatment arms were equally safe, co-administration of Syferol-IHP and triple therapy is more efficacious than triple therapy alone for treating PUD. Pan African Clinical trial registry identifier number is PACTR201606001665364. Keywords: gastritis, duodenitis, virgin coconut oil, Ocimum sanctum oil, triple therapy, Pylorest, gastric ulce