No abstract

BackgroundThe standard practice in treating uncomplicated malaria is to prescribe artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) for only patients with positive test results. However, health workers (HWs) sometimes prescribe ACTs for patients with negative malaria rapid diagnostic test (mRDT) results. Available evidence on HWs perception of mRDT and their level of compliance with test results in Nigeria lacks adequate stratification by state and context. We assessed HWs perception of mRDT and factors influencing ACTs prescription to patients with negative mRDT results in Ebonyi state, Nigeria.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 303 HWs who treat suspected malaria patients in 40 randomly selected public and private health facilities in Ebonyi state. Health workers’ perception of mRDT was assessed with 18 equally weighted five-point likert scale questions with maximum obtainable total score of 90. Scores ≥72 were graded as good and less, as poor perception. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression model at 5% significance level.ResultsMean age of respondents was 34.6±9.4 years, 229 (75.6%) were females, 180 (59.4%) community health workers and 67 (22.1%) medical doctors. Overall, 114 (37.6%) respondents across healthcare facility strata had poor perception of mRDT. Respondents who prescribed ACTs to patients with negative mRDT results within six months preceding the survey were 154 (50.8%) [PHCs: 50 (42.4%), General hospitals: 18 (47.4%), tertiary facility: 51 (79.7%) and missionary hospitals: 35 (42.2%)]. Poor HWs’ perception of mRDT promoted prescription of ACT to patients with negative mRDT results (AOR = 5.6, 95% C.I = 3.2–9.9). The likelihood of prescribing ACTs to patients with negative mRDT results was higher among HWs in public health facilities (AOR = 2.8, 95% C.I = 1.4–5.5) than those in the private.ConclusionsThe poor perception of mRDT and especially common prescribing of ACTs to patients with negative mRDT results among HWs in Ebonyi state calls for context specific interventions to improve their perception and compliance with mRDT test results.

Introduction primary health care (PHC) is essential towards achieving universal health coverage. Improving PHC services require understanding context-specific factors influencing utilisation. We assessed the factors influencing utilisation of PHC services in a rural community in Enugu, Nigeria. Methods we conducted a cross-sectional community-based survey between May and June, 2017. Information on socio-demographic characteristics, utilisation of PHC services, community- and PHC facility-related factors associated with utilisation of PHC services was obtained from 335 adult residents aged ≥ 18 years using a pre-tested semi-structured interviewer-administered questionnaire. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics at 5% level of significance. Results of the 335 respondents, 155 (46.2%) reported utilisation of PHC services the last time they were sick. Of 178 respondents who did not utilise PHC services, 51 (28.7%) reported poor quality health services, 41 (23.0%) unavailability of medical doctors, 31 (17.4%) long patient waiting time and 25 (14.0%) unavailability of drugs as reasons for non-utilisation. Being a female (AOR = 2.3 (95% CI 1.3 - 4.0)), affordability of health services (AOR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.3 - 4.6)), inadequacy of healthcare staff (AOR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.1 - 0.5)), shorter hospital waiting time (AOR = 2.2 (95% CI 1.2 - 4.3)) and satisfaction with PHC services during previous visit (AOR = 2.6 (95% CI 1.1 - 6.3)) influenced utilisation of PHC services. Conclusion PHC services utilisation was low. Improving utilisation would require addressing cost of health services, adequacy of healthcare staff, patient waiting time and ensuring patient satisfaction with PHC services.

The rate of switch to second-line therapy was low but there were good treatment outcomes among patients with available data. Attrition rate was high. Regular viral load monitoring, improved availability/affordability of second-line regimens and retention in care should become priorities in resource-limited settings.

No abstract