The impact of an intervention to introduce malaria rapid diagnostic tests on fever case management in a high transmission setting in Uganda: A mixed-methods cluster-randomized trial (PRIME).

Rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (mRDTs) have been scaled-up widely across Africa. The PRIME study evaluated an intervention aiming to improve fever case management using mRDTs at public health centers in Uganda. A cluster-randomized trial was conducted from 2010-13 in Tororo, a high malaria transmission setting. Twenty public health centers were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to intervention or control. The intervention included training in health center management, fever case management with mRDTs, and patient-centered services; plus provision of mRDTs and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) when stocks ran low. Three rounds of Interviews were conducted with caregivers of children under five years of age as they exited health centers (N = 1400); reference mRDTs were done in children with fever (N = 1336). Health worker perspectives on mRDTs were elicited through semi-structured questionnaires (N = 49) and in-depth interviews (N = 10). The primary outcome was inappropriate treatment of malaria, defined as the proportion of febrile children who were not treated according to guidelines based on the reference mRDT. There was no difference in inappropriate treatment of malaria between the intervention and control arms (24.0% versus 29.7%, adjusted risk ratio 0.81 95\% CI: 0.56, 1.17 p = 0.24). Most children (76.0\%) tested positive by reference mRDT, but many were not prescribed AL (22.5\% intervention versus 25.9\% control, p = 0.53). Inappropriate treatment of children testing negative by reference mRDT with AL was also common (31.3\% invention vs 42.4\% control, p = 0.29). Health workers appreciated mRDTs but felt that integrating testing into practice was challenging given constraints on time and infrastructure. The PRIME intervention did not have the desired impact on inappropriate treatment of malaria for children under five. In this high transmission setting, use of mRDTs did not lead to the reductions in antimalarial prescribing seen elsewhere. Broader investment in health systems, including infrastructure and staffing, will be required to improve fever case management

"Even if the test result is negative, they should be able to tell us what is wrong with us": a qualitative study of patient expectations of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria.

BACKGROUND: The debate on rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria has begun to shift from whether RDTs should be used, to how and under what circumstances their use can be optimized. This has increased the need for a better understanding of the complexities surrounding the role of RDTs in appropriate treatment of fever. Studies have focused on clinician practices, but few have sought to understand patient perspectives, beyond notions of acceptability. METHODS: This qualitative study aimed to explore patient and caregiver perceptions and experiences of RDTs following a trial to assess the introduction of the tests into routine clinical care at four health facilities in one district in Ghana. Six focus group discussions and one in-depth interview were carried out with those who had received an RDT with a negative test result. RESULTS: Patients had high expectations of RDTs. They welcomed the tests as aiding clinical diagnoses and as tools that could communicate their problem better than they could, verbally. However, respondents also believed the tests could identify any cause of illness, beyond malaria. Experiences of patients suggested that RDTs were adopted into an existing system where patients are both physically and intellectually removed from diagnostic processes and where clinicians retain authority that supersedes tests and their results. In this situation, patients did not feel able to articulate a demand for test-driven diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in communication between the health worker and patient, particularly to explain the capabilities of the test and management of RDT negative cases, may both manage patient expectations and promote patient demand for test-driven diagnoses

Strengthening patient-centred communication in rural Ugandan health centres: A theory-driven evaluation within a cluster randomized trial.

This article describes a theory-driven evaluation of one component of an intervention to improve the quality of health care at Ugandan public health centres. Patient-centred services have been advocated widely, but such approaches have received little attention in Africa. A cluster randomized trial is evaluating population-level outcomes of an intervention with multiple components, including 'patient-centred services.' A process evaluation was designed within this trial to articulate and evaluate the implementation and programme theories of the intervention. This article evaluates one hypothesized mechanism of change within the programme theory: the impact of the Patient Centred Services component on health-worker communication. The theory-driven approach extended to evaluation of the outcome measures. The study found that the proximal outcome of patient-centred communication was rated 10 percent higher (p < 0.008) by care seekers consulting with the health workers who were at the intervention health centres compared with those at control health centres. This finding will strengthen interpretation of more distal trial outcomes

Improved Malaria Case Management through the Implementation of a Health Facility-Based Sentinel Site Surveillance System in Uganda

Heath facility-based sentinel site surveillance has been proposed as a means of monitoring trends in malaria morbidity but may also provide an opportunity to improve malaria case management. Here we described the impact of a sentinel site malaria surveillance system on promoting laboratory testing and rational antimalarial drug use.Sentinel site malaria surveillance was established at six health facilities in Uganda between September 2006 and January 2007. Data were collected from all patients presenting to the outpatient departments including demographics, laboratory results, diagnoses, and treatments prescribed. Between the start of surveillance and March 2010, a total 424,701 patients were seen of which 229,375 (54%) were suspected of having malaria. Comparing the first three months with the last three months of surveillance, the proportion of patients with suspected malaria who underwent diagnostic testing increased from 39% to 97% (p<0.001). The proportion of patients with an appropriate decision to prescribe antimalarial therapy (positive test result prescribed, negative test result not prescribed) increased from 64% to 95% (p<0.001). The proportion of patients appropriately prescribed antimalarial therapy who were prescribed the recommended first-line regimen artemether-lumefantrine increased from 48% to 69% (p<0.001).The establishment of a sentinel site malaria surveillance system in Uganda achieved almost universal utilization of diagnostic testing in patients with suspected malaria and appropriate decisions to prescribed antimalarial based on test results. Less success was achieved in promoting prescribing practice for the recommended first-line therapy. This system could provide a model for improving malaria case management in other health facilities in Africa

Malaria misdiagnosis in Uganda – implications for policy change

BACKGROUND: In Uganda, like in many other countries traditionally viewed as harbouring very high malaria transmission, the norm has been to recommend that febrile episodes are diagnosed as malaria. In this study, the policy implications of such recommendations are revisited. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken at outpatient departments of all health facilities in four Ugandan districts. The routine diagnostic practices were assessed for all patients during exit interviews and a research slide was obtained for later reading. Primary outcome measures were the accuracy of national recommendations and routine malaria diagnosis in comparison with the study definition of malaria (any parasitaemia on expert slide examination in patient with fever) stratified by age and intensity of malaria transmission. Secondary outcome measures were the use, interpretation and accuracy of routine malaria microscopy. RESULTS: 1,763 consultations undertaken by 233 health workers at 188 facilities were evaluated. The prevalence of malaria was 24.2% and ranged between 13.9% in patients >or=5 years in medium-to-high transmission areas to 50.5% for children <5 years in very high transmission areas. Overall, the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of routine malaria diagnosis were high (89.7% and 91.6% respectively) while the specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were low (35.6% and 30.8% respectively). However, malaria was under-diagnosed in 39.9% of children less than five years of age in the very high transmission area. At 48 facilities with functional microscopy, the use of malaria slide examination was low (34.5%) without significant differences between age groups, or between patients for whom microscopy is recommended or not. 96.2% of patients with a routine positive slide result were treated for malaria but also 47.6% with a negative result. CONCLUSION: Current recommendations and associated clinical practices result in massive malaria over-diagnosis across all age groups and transmission areas in Uganda. Yet, under-diagnosis is also common in children <5 years. The potential benefits of malaria microscopy are not realized. To address malaria misdiagnosis, Uganda's policy shift from presumptive to parasitological diagnosis should encompass introduction of malaria rapid diagnostic tests and substantial strengthening of malaria microscopy

The PRIME trial protocol: evaluating the impact of an intervention implemented in public health centres on management of malaria and health outcomes of children using a cluster-randomised design in Tororo, Uganda.

BACKGROUND: In Africa, inadequate health services contribute to the lack of progress on malaria control. Evidence of the impact of interventions to improve health services on population-level malaria indicators is needed. We are conducting a cluster-randomised trial to assess whether a complex intervention delivered at public health centres in Uganda improves health outcomes of children and treatment of malaria, as compared to the current standard of care. METHODS/DESIGN: Twenty public health centres (level II and III) in Tororo district will be included; 10 will be randomly assigned to the intervention and 10 to control. Clusters will include households located within 2 km of health centres. The trial statistician will generate the random allocation sequence and assign clusters. Health centres will be stratified by level, and restricted randomisation will be employed to ensure balance on cluster location and size. Allocation will not be blinded. The intervention includes training in health centre management, fever case management with use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria, and patient-centered services, and provision of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and RDTs when stocks run low. The impact of the intervention on population-level health indicators will be assessed through community surveys conducted at baseline in randomly selected children from each cluster, and repeated annually for two years. The impact on individuals over time will be assessed in a cohort study of children recruited from households randomly selected per cluster. The impact on health centres will be assessed using patient exit interviews, monthly surveillance, and assessment of health worker knowledge and skills. The primary outcome is the prevalence of anaemia (haemoglobin <11.0 g/dL) in individual children under five measured in the annual community surveys. The primary analysis will be based on the cluster-level results. DISCUSSION: The PRIME trial findings will be supplemented by the PROCESS study, an evaluation of the process, context, and wider impact of the PRIME intervention which will be conducted alongside the main trial, together providing evidence of the health impact of a public sector intervention in Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND FUNDING: This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01024426) and is supported by the ACT Consortium