Assessment of the Acceptability of Testing and Treatment during a Mass Drug Administration Trial for Malaria in Zambia Using Mixed Methods

Kafula Silumbe, Timothy P Finn, Todd Jennings, Chilumba Sikombe, Elizabeth Chiyende, Busiku Hamainza, Elizabeth Chizema Kawesha, Thomas P Eisele, Duncan Earle, Richard W Steketee, John M Miller, Kafula Silumbe, Timothy P Finn, Todd Jennings, Chilumba Sikombe, Elizabeth Chiyende, Busiku Hamainza, Elizabeth Chizema Kawesha, Thomas P Eisele, Duncan Earle, Richard W Steketee, John M Miller

Abstract

From 2014 to 2016, a community-randomized controlled trial in Southern Province, Zambia, compared mass drug administration (MDA) and focal MDA (fMDA) with the standard of care. Acceptability of the intervention was assessed quantitatively using closed-ended and Likert scale-based questions posed during three household surveys conducted from April to May in 2014, 2015, and 2016 in 40 health catchments that implemented MDA and fMDA and 20 catchments that served as trial controls. In 2014 and 2015, 47 households per catchment were selected, targeting 1,880 households in MDA and fMDA trial arms; in 2016, 55 households per catchment were selected for a target of 2,200 households in MDA and fMDA trial arms. Concurrently, 27 focus group discussions and 23 in-depth interviews with 248 participants were conducted on reasons for testing and treatment refusal, reasons for nonadherence, and community perception of the MDA campaign. Results demonstrated that the MDA campaign was highly accepted with more than 99% of respondents stating that they would take treatment if positive for malaria. High acceptability at baseline could be associated with test-and-treat campaigns recently conducted in the study area. There was a large increase in the acceptability of prophylactic treatment if negative for malaria from the baseline to follow-up survey for adults and children, from 62% to 96% for each. This likely resulted from an intensive community-wide sensitization program that occurred before the first treatment round at each household during community health worker visits.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: All authors had full access to all the data in the study.

Disclaimer: The funding source had no role in the conduct, analysis, or interpretation of results of the study.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Responses to Likert scale–based questions from baseline to follow-up surveys for malaria mass drug administration–implementing areas of southern Zambia. This figure appears in color at www.ajtmh.org.

References

    1. Eisele TP, et al. 2015. Assessing the effectiveness of household-level focal mass drug administration and community-wide mass drug administration for reducing malaria parasite infection prevalence and incidence in Southern Province, Zambia: study protocol for a community randomized controlled trial. Trials 16: 347.
    1. Zambia Ministry of Health , 2016. National Malaria Indicatory Survey 2015. Lusaka, Zambia: Zambia Ministry of Health.
    1. Zambia Ministry of Health , 2017. National Malaria Elimination Strategic Plan 2017–2021. Lusaka, Zambia: Zambia Ministry of Health.
    1. Zambia Ministry of Health , 2014. Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Malaria in Zambia, 4th edition Lusaka, Zambia: Zambia Ministry of Health.
    1. Larsen DA, Bennett A, Silumbe K, Hamainza B, Yukich JO, Keating J, Littrell M, Miller JM, Steketee RW, Eisele TP, 2015. Population-wide malaria testing and treatment with rapid diagnostic tests and artemether-lumefantrine in Southern Zambia: a community randomized step-wedge control trial design. Am J Trop Med Hyg 92: 913–921.
    1. Silumbe K, et al. 2015. A qualitative study of perceptions of a mass test and treat campaign in Southern Zambia and potential barriers to effectiveness. Malar J 14: 480.
    1. Okello G, Ndegwa SN, Halliday KE, Hanson K, Brooker SJ, Jones C, 2012. Local perceptions of intermittent screening and treatment for malaria in school children on the south coast of Kenya. Malar J 11: 185.
    1. Okell L, et al. 2015. Consensus Modelling Evidence to Support the Design of Mass Drug Administration Programmes. Geneva, Switzerland: Malaria Policy Advisory Committee.
    1. Shuford K, Were F, Awino N, Samuels A, Ouma P, Kariuki S, Desai M, Allen DR, 2016. Community perceptions of mass screening and treatment for malaria in Siaya county, western Kenya. Malar J 15: 71.
    1. Nguyen TN, et al. 2017. Community perceptions of targeted anti-malarial mass drug administrations in two provinces in Vietnam: a quantitative survey. Malar J 16: 17.
    1. Dial NJ, Ceesay SJ, Gosling RD, D’Alessandro U, Baltzell KA, 2014. A qualitative study to assess community barriers to malaria mass drug administration trials in the Gambia. Malar J 13: 1–9.
    1. Zambia Ministry of Health , 2015. Zambia National Malaria Indicator Survey 2015. Lusaka, Zambia: Zambia Ministry of Health.
    1. Walker JL, 2012. The use of saturation in qualitative research. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs 22: 37–46.
    1. Zani B, Gathu M, Donegan S, Olliaro PL, Sinclair D, 2014. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1: 1–160.
    1. Kajeechiwa L, et al. 2016. The acceptability mass administrations of anti-malarial drug as part of targeted malaria elimination in villages along the Thai–Myanmar border. Malar J 15: 494.
    1. Eisele TP, et al. 2020. Impact of four rounds of mass drug administration with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine implemented in Southern Province, Zambia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 103 (Suppl 2): 7–18.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner