BackgroundHealth system strengthening is needed to improve delivery of secondary prophylaxis against rheumatic heart disease.Methods and ResultsWe undertook a stepped‐wedge, randomized trial in northern Australia. Five pairs of Indigenous community clinics entered the study at 3‐month steps. Study phases comprised a 12 month baseline phase, 3 month transition phase, 12 month intensive phase and a 3‐ to 12‐month maintenance phase. Clinics received a multicomponent intervention supporting activities to improve penicillin delivery, aligned with the chronic care model, with continuous quality‐improvement feedback on adherence. The primary outcome was the proportion receiving ≥80% of scheduled penicillin injections. Secondary outcomes included “days at risk” of acute rheumatic fever recurrence related to late penicillin and acute rheumatic fever recurrence rates. Overall, 304 patients requiring prophylaxis were eligible. The proportion receiving ≥80% of scheduled injections during baseline was 141 of 304 (46%)—higher than anticipated. No effect attributable to the study was evident: in the intensive phase, 126 of 304 (41%) received ≥80% of scheduled injections (odds ratio compared with baseline: 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.54–1.11). There was modest improvement in the maintenance phase among high‐adhering patients (43% received ≥90% of injections versus 30% [baseline] and 28% [intensive], P<0.001). Also, the proportion of days at risk in the whole cohort decreased in the maintenance phase (0.28 versus 0.32 [baseline] and 0.34 [intensive], P=0.001). Acute rheumatic fever recurrence rates did not differ between study sites during the intensive phase and the whole jurisdiction (3.0 versus 3.5 recurrences per 100 patient‐years, P=0.65).ConclusionsThis strategy did not improve adherence to rheumatic heart disease secondary prophylaxis within the study time frame. Longer term primary care strengthening strategies are needed.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12613000223730.

Repeated painful procedures in children necessitate well-planned and child-focused care. Current practices are not in line with guidance from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians about effects of repeated painful procedures on children. Initiating the long-term injection regimen for rheumatic fever is a special event requiring expert input. A newly reported finding of a subset of young people feeling unwell after receiving the injection requires further investigation. Implications for public health: Improvement of local and jurisdictional guidelines on use of pain reduction measures for children who have been prescribed repeated painful injections for rheumatic fever is needed.

BackgroundRheumatic heart disease is a high‐burden condition in Australian Aboriginal communities. We evaluated a stepped‐wedge, community, randomized trial at 10 Aboriginal communities from 2013 to 2015. A multifaceted intervention was implemented using quality improvement and chronic care model approaches to improve delivery of penicillin prophylaxis for rheumatic heart disease. The trial did not improve penicillin adherence. This mixed‐methods evaluation, designed a priori, aimed to determine the association between methodological approaches and outcomes.Methods and ResultsAn evaluation framework was developed to measure the success of project implementation and of the underlying program theory. The program theory posited that penicillin delivery would be improved through activities implemented at clinics that addressed elements of the chronic care model. Qualitative data were derived from interviews with health‐center staff, informants, and clients; participant observation; and project officer reports. Quantitative data comprised numbers and types of “action items,” which were developed by participating clinic staff with project officers to improve delivery of penicillin injections. Interview data from 121 health‐center staff, 22 informants, and 72 clients revealed barriers to achieving the trial's aims, including project‐level factors (short trial duration), implementation factors (types of activities implemented), and contextual factors (high staff turnover and the complex sociocultural environment). Insufficient actions were implemented addressing “self‐management support” and “community linkage” streams of the chronic care model. Increased momentum was evident in later stages of the study.ConclusionsThe program theory underpinning the study was sound. The limited impact made by the study on adherence was attributable to complex implementation challenges.