| Literature DB >> 26896165 |
Andria Rusk1, Linda Highfield2, J Michael Wilkerson3, Melissa Harrell4, Andrew Obala5,6, Benjamin Amick7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve malaria case management in sub-Saharan Africa have shifted focus to private antimalarial retailers to increase access to appropriate treatment. Demands to decrease intervention cost while increasing efficacy requires interventions tailored to geographic regions with demonstrated need. Cluster analysis presents an opportunity to meet this demand, but has not been applied to the retail sector or antimalarial retailer behaviors. This research conducted cluster analysis on medicine retailer behaviors in Kenya, to improve malaria case management and inform future interventions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26896165 PMCID: PMC4759713 DOI: 10.1186/s12942-016-0038-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. 1Map of Kenya, with the Bungoma district containing the study area inset
Fig. 2Detailed map of the study area with shop locations. Adapted from Smith et al. 2011 [50]
Medicine retailer characteristics
| N = 91 | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| Under 30 | n = 34 | 37 |
| 30–50 | n = 49 | 54 |
| Over 50 | n = 7 | 8 |
| Missing | n = 1 | 1 |
| Female ratio | n = 70 | 77 |
| Education | ||
| Secondary school or less | n = 31 | 34 |
| More than secondary school | n = 60 | 66 |
| Training | ||
| Pharmacy trained | n = 37 | 41 |
| Nursing/midwifery trained | n = 42 | 46 |
| Untrained | n = 12 | 13 |
| Years worked in the shop | ||
| 1 year or less | n = 32 | 35 |
| 1–5 years | n = 38 | 42 |
| 5–10 years | n = 14 | 15 |
| 10+ years | n = 7 | 8 |
| Facility owner | ||
| Yes | n = 46 | 51 |
| No | n = 45 | 49 |
Retail drug shop characteristics
| N = 91 | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of staff—Mean (min–max) | 1.49 (1–6) | |
| Number who dispense—Mean (min–max) | 1.22 (1–2) | |
| Ever outage of antimalarials | ||
| Yes | n = 40 | 44 |
| No | n = 51 | 56 |
| Ever offered microscopic testing | ||
| Yes | n = 8 | 9 |
| No | n = 83 | 91 |
| Ever offered rapid diagnostic testing | ||
| Yes | n = 2 | 2 |
| No | n = 89 | 98 |
Results of the cluster analysis
| Retail drug shop characteristics | High rate or low rate | No. of cases in cluster | No. of expected cases | No. of controls in cluster | Log likelihood ratio | Relative risk |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sells ACTs more than any other antimalarial | Low | 4 | 12.54 | 28 | 8.24 | 0.23 | .007* |
| Offers diagnostic testing (MST or RDT) | Low | 0 | 4.45 | 45 | 6.62 | 0 | .014* |
| Medicine retailer characteristics | |||||||
| Has more than a secondary school education | Low | 0 | 8.57 | 13 | 16.24 | 0 | <.001* |
| Has health-related training | Low | 0 | 1.74 | 2 | 4.21 | 0 | .352 |
| Is trained in pharmacy, rather than nursing/midwifery | Low | 1 | 8.9 | 22 | 10.3 | 0.09 | .001* |
| Is trained in nursing/midwifery rather than pharmacy | Low | 0 | 4.25 | 8 | 6.58 | 2.45 | .053* |
| Did identify ACTs as the MOH-recommended firstline antimalarial for non-complicated malaria | Low | 0 | 4.4 | 7 | 7.46 | 0 | .025* |
| Medicine retailer behaviors | |||||||
| Would recommend appropriate malaria treatment for children under 5 | Low | 2 | 5.86 | 11 | 2.98 | 0.31 | .877 |
| Would recommend appropriate malaria treatment for adults | Low | 2 | 9.34 | 15 | 8.5 | 0.18 | .010* |
* Statistical significance at p < 0.05
Fig. 3Geographic position of statistically significant clusters for low rates of included variables
Fig. 4Cluster analysis results of varying intervals of maximum window sizes for single variable: Shop selling ACTs more than any other antimalarial
Results of cluster analysis at 5 % maximum window size intervals
| Maximum window | Size significant cluster order | Relative risk | Log likelihood ratio |
| No. of cases in cluster | No. of expected cases | No. of controls in cluster | Radius of cluster |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 45 | Primary | 0.23 | 8.24 | 0.007 | 4 | 12.54 | 32 | 7.97 |
| 45 | Secondary | 0 | 6.85 | 0.038 | 0 | 4.85 | 12 | 4.37 |
| 40 | Primary | 0.23 | 8.24 | 0.006 | 4 | 12.54 | 32 | 7.97 |
| 40 | Secondary | 0 | 6.85 | 0.036 | 0 | 4.85 | 12 | 4.37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 30 | Primary | 0.22 | 7.16 | 0.017 | 3 | 10.51 | 27 | 6.86 |
| 30 | Secondary | 0 | 6.85 | 0.031 | 0 | 4.85 | 12 | 4.37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 | Primary | 0 | 6.85 | 0.02 | 0 | 4.85 | 12 | 4.37 |
Italicized areas are clusters shown in Fig. 2
aThe primary cluster at 20 % is the same size and location of the secondary cluster for 50–25 %