IntroductionDevelopments in rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have opened new possibilities for improved remote malaria diagnosis that is independent of microscopic diagnosis. Studies in some settings have tried to assess the influence of RDTs on the prescribing behaviour of health workers, but such information is generally lacking in Nigeria and many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. This study analysed health workers' perceptions of RDTs and their potential influence on their prescribing and treatment practices after their introduction.MethodsThe study was conducted in four health centers in the Enugu East local government of Enugu State, Nigeria. All 32 health workers in the health centers where RDTs were deployed were interviewed by field workers. Information was sought on their perception of symptoms-based, RDT-based, and microscopy-based malaria diagnoses. In addition, prescription analysis was carried out on 400 prescriptions before and 12 months after RDT deployment.ResultsThe majority of the health workers perceived RDTs to be more effective for malaria diagnosis than microscopy and clinical diagnosis. They also felt that the benefits of RDTs included increased use of RDTs in the facilities and the tendency to prescribe more Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) and less chloroquine and SP. Some of the health workers experienced some difficulties in the process of using RDT kits. ACTs were prescribed in 74% of RDT-negative results.Conclusions/SignificanceRDT-supported malaria diagnosis may have led to the overprescription of ACTs, with the drug being prescribed to people with RDT-negative results. However, the prescription of other antimalarial drugs that are not first-line drugs has been reduced. Efforts should be made to encourage health workers to trust RDT results and prescribe ACTs only to those with positive RDT results. In-depth studies are needed to determine why health workers continue to prescribe ACTs in RDT-negative results.

Background The Nigerian government introduced and implemented a health programme to improve maternal and child health (MCH) called Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment programme for MCH (SURE-P/MCH). It ran from 2012 and ended abruptly in 2015 and was followed by increased advocacy for sustaining the MCH (antenatal, delivery, postnatal and immunization) services as a policy priority. Advocacy is important in allowing social voice, facilitating prioritization, and bringing different forces/actors together. Therefore, the study set out to understand how advocacy works - through understanding what effective advocacy implementation processes comprise and what mechanisms are triggered by which contexts to produce the intended outcomes. Methods The study used a Realist Evaluation design through a mixed quantitative and qualitative methods case study approach. The programme theory (PT) was developed from three substantive social theories (power politics, media influence communication theory, and the three-streams theory of agenda-setting), data and programme design documentation, and subsequently tested. We report information from 22 key informant interviews including national and State policy and law makers, policy implementers, CSOs, Development partners, NGOs, health professional groups, and media practitioners and review of relevant documents on advocacy events post-SURE-P. Results Key advocacy organizations and individuals including health professional groups, the media, civil society organizations, powerful individuals, and policymakers were involved in advocacy activities. The nature of their engagement included organizing workshops, symposiums, town hall meetings, individual meetings, press conferences, demonstrations, and engagements with media. Effective advocacy mechanism involved alliance brokering to increase influence, the media supporting and engaging in advocacy, and the use of champions, influencers, and spouses (Leadership and Elite Gendered Power Dynamics). The key contextual influences which determined the effectiveness of advocacy measures for MCH included the political cycle, availability of evidence on the issue, networking with powerful and interested champions, and alliance building in advocacy. All these enhanced the entrenchment of MCH on the political and financial agenda at the State and Federal levels. Conclusions Our result suggest that advocacy can be a useful tool to bring together different forces by allowing expression of voices and ensuring accountability of different actors including policymakers. In the context of poor health outcomes, interest from policymakers and politicians in MCH, combined with advocacy from key policy actors armed with evidence, can improve prioritization and sustained implementation of MCH services.