| Literature DB >> 29584724 |
Paschal Kum Awah1, Alphonse Um Boock2, Ferdinand Mou3, Joseph Tohnain Koin1, Evaristus Mbah Anye1, Djeunga Noumen4, Mark Nichter5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Cameroon, previous efforts to identify Buruli ulcer (BU) through the mobilization of community health workers (CHWs) yielded poor results. In this paper, we describe the successful creation of a BU community of practice (BUCOP) in Bankim, Cameroon composed of hospital staff, former patients, CHWs, and traditional healers. METHODS AND PRINCIPLEEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29584724 PMCID: PMC5889189 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006238
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Four essential characteristics of a BU community of practice: Domain, community, practice, mutual respect.
Fig 2Cases of Buruli ulcer by district of Cameroon 2006–2014.
Stages of formative research adapted for a community- Based Buruli ulcer intervention.
| Stages of Formative Research 1–7 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Why don’t villagers come for free Bu treatment? Why do they come late? Why don’t they complete therapy or drop out? Why do they consult traditional healers for chronic wounds? | What predisposing factors influence health care seeking (HCS) for BU? What local illness perceptions and practices influence HCS for BU? What enabling factors influence HCS for BU? What seasonal and livelihood related factors influence HCS for BU? | What are local concerns related to health service utilization for BU What are local perceptions, rumors, concerns about BU treatment What are local perceptions of government health services: trust, fears What is staff and health volunteer motivation for engaging in BU outreach | |
Identify BU in early stages when BU is easiest to treat? Make BU programs more accessible and acceptable? | Better enable patents to follow the course of BU therapy as recommended? How can we be more innovative and effective in delivering BU services? | Motivate community health workers to be more proactive in BU outreach? Involve traditional healers in BU programs as partners and not see them as obstacles | |
Who, when, where, and how much How best to introduce, organize, support shifts in roles | |||
Community awareness of BU Referral patterns Data on suspected and confirmed cases of BU identified by community stakeholders—by category of disease severity Data on treatment adherence and so on | Evaluate task shifting and task sharing; and shifts in social roles and relations between BUCOP members Do different stakeholders see such shifts as positive or negative? Do shifts in social relations better enable outreach activities and enhance patient? How has conflict resolution processes in place worked? | Does collaboration extend beyond BU? Has social status of CHW and reputation of hospital improved? Are healers seen as partners in health programs; how has their status in community and health service changed? Have positive relationships been sustained; once pilot project has ended, what minimum resources will be necessary to keep relationships strong Has the BUCOP served to add a community component to health service strengthening efforts? Can new relationships in BUCOP be used as a base for preparedness and emergency response to emerging diseases like Ebola? |
Three phases of COP research following seven stage model of formative research.
| Research phase | Formative research stage | Year | Core activities | Role of social scientist |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline data collected prior to intervention Identify problems Generate and weigh intervention options, Work out details of intervention strategies | Formative research stages 1–4 | Three social scientists conduct focused ethnographies related to BU
Former BU patients and community members Health system and staff Community health workers Traditional Healers |
Ethnography Health service Research Action research to identify potential intervention strategies | |
Intervention implementation and refinement Intervention implementation, monitoring, problem solving | Formative research Stage 5–6 | Implementation of intervention in early stages Monitor and make suggestions for mid- course correction | ||
| Formative research stage 7 | 2016 |
Outcome evaluation Process evaluation: shifts in social relations, partnerships, task shifting and task sharing, role identity, new norms and practices Impact evaluation: impact on stakeholder relations and health care seeking beyond BU | Ethnography: Interviews, case studies, observations of stakeholder meetings, focus groups Data triangulation from mixed methods Evaluation (Qualitative and quantitative data) |
Format of outreach education.
| Nine sections of outreach education program | Key messages conveyed | Issues downplayed or emphasized |
|---|---|---|
| Signs and symptoms of BU, how to recognize the disease, and the need to treat it early |
Visuals of physical signs of BU in different stages Visual and tactile cues suggesting that a lesion, abscess ulcer or edema may be BU Progression of disease if not treated | Category I and II BU depicted, but not category III as this evoked great fear |
| High risk environments and modes of transmission |
High risk environments where one is more likely to be exposed to Focus was on addressing incorrect ideas about BU transmission and contagion | Less time and attention allotted to risk environments and possible modes of transmission as the science is inconclusive and behavior change related to exposure to water sources difficult given the local reality |
| What clinic staff do to determine if the affliction is BU or some other disease | Why health staff take swabs, what they look for under the microscope, why medicine for BU is specific and not the same as medications used for other ulcers | Step-by-step explanation of what staff is actually doing along with pictures to offset fears and rumors about what they are doing as a means to increase trust |
| Effective and ineffective treatments for BU |
Why 56 days of pills and injections are needed Why herbal medicine for this disease does not lead to a cure even if a wound is dried | Agricultural analogies used to convey the idea that medication is taken beyond treatment for the visible wound, as a means to get at the roots and seeds of BU as a systemic infection in the body Pictures used to show inappropriate treatment, how drying wound is not curing, and effectiveness of medication after herbal medicine has failed to treat the wound |
|
Traditional healers and rapid referral to clinics Emphasis on rapid referral | Positive messages about exemplar healers who recognize signs of BU and rapidly refer patients to clinic after spiritual protection is offered |
No message disrespecting local practices as superstitious Respect for traditional healers’ role in offering spiritual protection for those for whom this is a concern |
| Quality of care at the clinic | Quality of care offered by staff: pictures of what care in the clinic looks like, approachable staff, hygienic conditions, empathetic caretakers, etc. | To offset fear and evoke confidence |
| Before and after pictures of BU related wounds successfully treated |
Pictures of BU treatment, and the healing process at different stages Depict the healing of ulcers on different parts of the body | Pictures depict children and male and female patients of different ages so members of the audience can personally relate |
| The presentation ends on a note of hope | Testimonials of patients who have been cured speak of their experiences and to the quality of care they have received at the clinic. | Open microphone: some testimonials are planned and others are spontaneous |
| Questions from the audience | On any topic related to information presented or any other issue related to BU |
Open microphone empowers people to speak Questions are recorded and responses to questions assessed as part of iterative process of ongoing research |
Case referral, confirmation by community stakeholder.
| Community of Practice Stakeholder | Community Health workers** | Traditional Healers*** | Former patient | Self/family initiated**** | Health staff ***** | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011–2012 | Suspected | 60 | 49 | 17 | 98 | 21 | 245 |
| Confirmed * | 37 | 13 | 11 | 45 | 19 | 125 | |
| 2013–2015 | Suspected | 78 | 59 | 16 | 145 | 18 | 316 |
| Confirmed | 23 | 22 | 6 | 81 | 6 | 138 | |
| Total | Suspected | 138 | 108 | 33 | 243 | 39 | 561 |
| Confirmed | 60 | 35 | 17 | 126 | 25 | 263 |
* Suspected cases are cases referred to health staff that they deemed to be possible BU based on visual inspection warranting diagnostic testing
** Cases detected during outreach program activities
*** Cases detected when healer treats patient
**** Cases self-identified within households after exposure to BU outreach program. Note: CHWs and healers are often consulted for a second opinion. Second opinion not presented in this table
*****Cases identified by health staff during routine health care activities at clinic or in community (i.e., during immunization programs)
Percentages of cases referred and confirmed by stakeholder.
| Community of Practice Stakeholder | Community Health workers | Traditional Healers | Former patient | Self/family initiated | Health staff | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24% | 20% | 7% | 40% | 9% | 100% | ||
| 30% | 10% | 9% | 36% | 15% | 100% | ||
| 25% | 19% | 5% | 46% | 6% | 100% | ||
| 17% | 16% | 4% | 59% | 4% | 100% | ||
| 25% | 19% | 6% | 43% | 7% | 100% | ||
| 23% | 13% | 6% | 48% | 10% | 100% |
Category of confirmed BU cases by stakeholder referral *.
| Community of Practice Stakeholder | Community Health workers | Traditional Healers | Former patient | Self/family initiated | Health staff | Category total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 (28%) | 3 (12%) | 1 (4%) | 10 (40%) | 4 (16%) | 25 (100%) | ||
| 12 (28% | 7 (16%) | 3 (7%) | 15 (35% | 6 (14%) | 43 (100%) | ||
| 18 (32%) | 3 (5%) | 7 (12%) | 20 (35%) | 9 (16%) | 57 (100%) | ||
| 6 (19%) | 7 23%) | 1 (3%) | 16 (52%) | 1 (3%) | 31 (100%) | ||
| 9 (16%) | 7 (13%) | 2(4%) | 35 (64%) | 2 (4%) | 55 (100%) | ||
| 8 (16%) | 8 (16%) | 3 (6%) | 30 (39%) | 3 (6%) | 51 (100%) | ||
| 13 (23%) | 10 (18%) | 2 (4%) | 26 (46%) | 3 (5%) | 54 (100%) | ||
| 21 (21%) | 14 (14%) | 5 (5%) | 50 (52%) | 8 (8%) | 98 (100%) | ||
| 26 (24%) | 11 (10%) | 10 (9%) | 50 (46%) | 12 (11%) | 109 (100%) |
* Cases confirmed by Ziehl-Neelsen and/or PCR
Adherence rate of confirmed cases undergoing treatment by stakeholder referring.
| Adherence to Treatment | Community of Practice Stakeholder | Community Health workers | Traditional Healers | Former patient | Self/family initiated | Health staff referrals | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011–2015 | # of cases treated | 60 | 35 | 17 | 126 | 25 | 263 |
| % who completed therapy | 93% | 86% | 94% | 97% | 92% | 94% |