Background Inappropriate use of antimicrobials in both humans and animals is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In addition, human behaviours such as poor disposal of antimicrobials in the environment can increase their exposure to microbes which can impact on humans and animals. However, evidence on access, use and disposal of antimicrobials for humans and animals at community level in Uganda is limited. This study therefore explored access, use and disposal of antimicrobials among humans and animals in Wakiso district, Uganda. Methods A qualitative study was conducted that involved focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). Participants of the FGDs were community health workers (CHWs) and farmers involved in animal husbandry, while key informants included: officials from the Ministry of Health; Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries; human and animal health professionals; district health officials; and members of the national AMR surveillance committee. Twelve FGDs were held (8 for CHWs and 4 for farmers) while 15 KIIs were conducted. Thematic analysis in NVivo (version 12) was performed. Results Five main themes emerged from the study: access to antimicrobials in humans; access to antimicrobials in animals; use of antimicrobials in humans; use of antimicrobials in animals; and disposal of antimicrobials. Community members mainly accessed antimicrobials for humans from public health facilities such as government health centres, as well as private facilities, including drug shops and clinics. Antimicrobials for animals were obtained from veterinary practitioners and drug shops (both for humans and veterinary). Examples of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in both humans and animals was evident, such as sharing antibiotics among household members, and giving human-prescribed antimicrobials to food-producing animals as growth promoters. While some CHWs returned unused antimicrobials to public health facilities for proper disposal, community members mainly disposed of antimicrobials with general household waste including dumping in rubbish pits. Conclusions There is a need to increase awareness among the population on proper access, use and disposal of antimicrobials for both humans and animals. Development of a drug disposal system at community level would facilitate improved waste management of antimicrobials. Together, these measures would help prevent the rate of progression of AMR in communities.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is increasingly becoming a threat to global public health, not least in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where it is contributing to longer treatment for illnesses, use of higher generation drugs, more expenditure on antimicrobials, and increased deaths attributed to what should be treatable diseases. Some of the known causes of AMR include misuse and overuse of antimicrobials in both humans and animals, unnecessary use of antimicrobials in animals as growth promoters, and lack of awareness among the public on how to protect antimicrobials. As a result, resistant organisms are circulating in the wider environment, and there is a need to consider the One Health approach to minimise the continuing development of AMR. Environmental Health, specifically water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), waste management, and food hygiene and safety, are key components of One Health needed to prevent the spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms particularly in LMICs and reduce the AMR threat to global public health. The key Environmental Health practices in the prevention of AMR include: (1) adequate WASH through access and consumption of safe water; suitable containment, treatment and disposal of human excreta and other wastewater including from health facilities; good personal hygiene practices such as washing hands with soap at critical times to prevent the spread of resistant microorganisms, and contraction of illnesses which may require antimicrobial treatment; (2) proper disposal of solid waste, including the disposal of unused and expired antimicrobials to prevent their unnecessary exposure to microorganisms in the environment; and (3) ensuring proper food hygiene and safety practices, such as sale and consumption of animal products in which adequate antimicrobial withdrawal periods have been observed, and growing vegetables on unpolluted soil. Environmental Health is therefore crucial in the prevention of infectious diseases that would require antimicrobials, reducing the spread of resistant organisms, and exposure to antimicrobial residues in LMICs. Working with other professionals in One Health, Environmental Health Practitioners have a key role in reducing the spread of AMR including health education and promotion, surveillance, enforcement of legislation, and research.

Abstract We explored the facilitators and barriers to uptake of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions among slum dwellers in Kampala, Uganda using a socio-ecological perspective. This qualitative exploration used focus group discussions with community members and key informant interviews with community leaders and technocrats to collect data. Among facilitators to uptake of WASH interventions were susceptibility to WASH-related diseases and low WASH knowledge levels at individual level, peer practices at household level, and promotion of WASH at organizational level. At community and public policy levels, community engagement and empowerment, and formation and enforcement of ordinances and bye-laws, respectively, motivated slums dwellers to adopt WASH interventions. Conversely, individual knowledge, beliefs, language, and financial status inhibited individuals from taking up WASH interventions. Negative peer practices and upbringing at peer level; unsupportive environments, and engagement of communities at organizational level; cultural beliefs and lack of space at community level; and unexamplary leaders and political interference barred slum dwellers in Kampala from embracing the WASH interventions. Uptake of WASH interventions in the slum community is influenced by a cascade of facilitators and barriers across the socio-ecological realm. Hence, a multi-faceted approach targeting all stakeholders is required in planning and implementation of WASH interventions.

Background As many countries aim to eliminate malaria, use of comprehensive approaches targeting the mosquito vector and environment are needed. Integrated malaria prevention advocates the use of several malaria prevention measures holistically at households and in the community. The aim of this systematic review was to collate and summarize the impact of integrated malaria prevention in low- and middle-income countries on malaria burden. Methods Literature on integrated malaria prevention, defined as the use of two or more malaria prevention methods holistically, was searched from 1st January 2001 to 31st July 2021. The primary outcome variables were malaria incidence and prevalence, while the secondary outcome measures were human biting and entomological inoculation rates, and mosquito mortality. Results A total of 10,931 studies were identified by the search strategy. After screening, 57 articles were included in the review. Studies included cluster randomized controlled trials, longitudinal studies, programme evaluations, experimental hut/houses, and field trials. Various interventions were used, mainly combinations of two or three malaria prevention methods including insecticide-treated nets (ITNs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), topical repellents, insecticide sprays, microbial larvicides, and house improvements including screening, insecticide-treated wall hangings, and screening of eaves. The most common methods used in integrated malaria prevention were ITNs and IRS, followed by ITNs and topical repellents. There was reduced incidence and prevalence of malaria when multiple malaria prevention methods were used compared to single methods. Mosquito human biting and entomological inoculation rates were significantly reduced, and mosquito mortality increased in use of multiple methods compared to single interventions. However, a few studies showed mixed results or no benefits of using multiple methods to prevent malaria. Conclusion Use of multiple malaria prevention methods was effective in reducing malaria infection and mosquito density in comparison with single methods. Results from this systematic review can be used to inform future research, practice, policy and programming for malaria control in endemic countries.

Background A randomised controlled trial (RCT) on integrated malaria prevention, which advocates the use of several malaria prevention methods holistically, has been proposed. However, before conducting an RCT, it is recommended that a feasibility study is carried out to provide information to support the main study, particularly for such a complex intervention. Therefore, a feasibility study for an RCT on integrated malaria prevention in Uganda was conducted. Methods The qualitative study carried out in Wakiso District employed focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) to explore community willingness to participate in the RCT as well as assess stakeholder perspectives on the future study. The participants of the FGDs were community members, while the key informants were selected from malaria stakeholders including Ministry of Health officials, health practitioners, local leaders, district health team members, and community health workers (CHWs). Thematic analysis was employed with the support of NVivo. Results A total of 12 FGDs and 19 KIIs were conducted. Five main themes emerged from the study: malaria prevention practices related to integrated malaria prevention; preferred malaria prevention methods in the integrated approach; potential challenges of integrated malaria prevention; perspectives on the proposed RCT; and sustainability of integrated malaria prevention. Despite a few methods being employed holistically in the community, insecticide-treated nets were the most widely used and preferred method for malaria prevention mainly because they were provided free by the government. The main challenges in the integrated approach were the high cost of some methods such as house screening, and concerns about the potential side effects of insecticide-based methods such as indoor residual spraying. Participants expressed high willingness to participate in the RCT to promote the use of multiple methods in their households and community. Involvement of CHWs during implementation was proposed as a sustainability strategy for the RCT interventions. Conclusion There was high willingness to participate in the proposed RCT on integrated malaria prevention. However, high cost and perceived negative health effects from some methods were identified as potential challenges. The type of methods to be included as well as sustainability mechanisms needs to be considered during the design of the RCT.