Kathryn W Roberts1,2, Cara Smith Gueye3,4, Kimberly Baltzell3,5, Henry Ntuku3,4, Patrick McCreesh6, Alysse Maglior3, Brooke Whittemore6, Petrina Uusiku7, Davis Mumbengegwi8, Immo Kleinschmidt9,10,11, Roly Gosling3,4,8, Michelle S Hsiang12,13,14. 1. Malaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California, (UCSF), 550 16th St, San Francisco, CA, USA. roberts.kathryn@gmail.com. 2. Global Programs for Research and Training, Malaria Elimination Initiative Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia. roberts.kathryn@gmail.com. 3. Malaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California, (UCSF), 550 16th St, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Global Programs for Research and Training, Malaria Elimination Initiative Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia. 5. Department of Family Health Care Nursing, School of Nursing, UCSF, San Francisco, USA. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, TX, Dallas, USA. 7. National Vectorborne Diseases Control Programme, Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services, Windhoek, Namibia. 8. Multidisciplinary Research Centre, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia. 9. Wits Research Institute for Malaria, Wits/SAMRC Collaborating Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Research on Malaria, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 10. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 11. Southern Africa Development Community Malaria Elimination Eight Secretariat, Windhoek, Namibia. 12. Malaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California, (UCSF), 550 16th St, San Francisco, CA, USA. michelle.hsiang@utsouthwestern.edu. 13. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, TX, Dallas, USA. michelle.hsiang@utsouthwestern.edu. 14. Department of Pediatrics, UCSF, San Francisco, USA. michelle.hsiang@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Namibia, as in many malaria elimination settings, reactive case detection (RACD), or malaria testing and treatment around index cases, is a standard intervention. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), or treatment without testing, and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in the form of indoor residual spraying, are alternative or adjunctive interventions, but there are limited data regarding their community acceptability. METHODS: A parent trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of rfMDA versus RACD, RAVC versus no RAVC, and rfMDA + RAVC versus RACD only. To assess acceptability of these interventions, a mixed-methods study was conducted using key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in three rounds (pre-trial and in years 1 and 2 of the trial), and an endline survey. RESULTS: In total, 17 KIIs, 49 FGDs were conducted with 449 people over three annual rounds of qualitative data collection. Pre-trial, community members more accurately predicted the level of community acceptability than key stakeholders. Throughout the trial, key participant motivators included: malaria risk perception, access to free community-based healthcare and IRS, and community education by respectful study teams. RACD or rfMDA were offered to 1372 and 8948 individuals in years 1 and 2, respectively, and refusal rates were low (< 2%). RAVC was offered to few households (n = 72) in year 1. In year 2, RAVC was offered to more households (n = 944) and refusals were < 1%. In the endline survey, 94.3% of 2147 respondents said they would participate in the same intervention again. CONCLUSIONS: Communities found both reactive focal interventions and their combination highly acceptable. Engaging communities and centering and incorporating their perspectives and experiences during design, implementation, and evaluation of this community-based intervention was critical for optimizing study engagement.
BACKGROUND: In Namibia, as in many malaria elimination settings, reactive case detection (RACD), or malaria testing and treatment around index cases, is a standard intervention. Reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA), or treatment without testing, and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) in the form of indoor residual spraying, are alternative or adjunctive interventions, but there are limited data regarding their community acceptability. METHODS: A parent trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of rfMDA versus RACD, RAVC versus no RAVC, and rfMDA + RAVC versus RACD only. To assess acceptability of these interventions, a mixed-methods study was conducted using key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) in three rounds (pre-trial and in years 1 and 2 of the trial), and an endline survey. RESULTS: In total, 17 KIIs, 49 FGDs were conducted with 449 people over three annual rounds of qualitative data collection. Pre-trial, community members more accurately predicted the level of community acceptability than key stakeholders. Throughout the trial, key participant motivators included: malaria risk perception, access to free community-based healthcare and IRS, and community education by respectful study teams. RACD or rfMDA were offered to 1372 and 8948 individuals in years 1 and 2, respectively, and refusal rates were low (< 2%). RAVC was offered to few households (n = 72) in year 1. In year 2, RAVC was offered to more households (n = 944) and refusals were < 1%. In the endline survey, 94.3% of 2147 respondents said they would participate in the same intervention again. CONCLUSIONS: Communities found both reactive focal interventions and their combination highly acceptable. Engaging communities and centering and incorporating their perspectives and experiences during design, implementation, and evaluation of this community-based intervention was critical for optimizing study engagement.
Entities:
Keywords:
Community acceptability; Indoor residual spraying; Malaria; Malaria elimination; Mass drug administration; Namibia; Plasmodium falciparum; Qualitative and Mixed Methods; Reactive case detection
Authors: Teun Bousema; Jamie T Griffin; Robert W Sauerwein; David L Smith; Thomas S Churcher; Willem Takken; Azra Ghani; Chris Drakeley; Roly Gosling Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Kate Sahan; Christopher Pell; Frank Smithuis; Aung Kyaw Phyo; Sai Maung Maung; Chanida Indrasuta; Arjen M Dondorp; Nicholas J White; Nicholas P J Day; Lorenz von Seidlein; Phaik Yeong Cheah Journal: Malar J Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Emmanuel Chanda; Mohd Arshad; Asmaa Khaloua; Wenyi Zhang; Josephine Namboze; Pentrina Uusiku; Andreas H Angula; Khoti Gausi; Desta Tiruneh; Quazi M Islam; Korine Kolivras; Ubydul Haque Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Lindsey Wu; Michelle S Hsiang; Lisa M Prach; Leah Schrubbe; Henry Ntuku; Mi-Suk Kang Dufour; Brooke Whittemore; Valerie Scott; Joy Yala; Kathryn W Roberts; Catriona Patterson; Joseph Biggs; Tom Hall; Kevin K A Tetteh; Cara Smith Gueye; Bryan Greenhouse; Adam Bennett; Jennifer L Smith; Stark Katokele; Petrina Uusiku; Davis Mumbengegwi; Roly Gosling; Chris Drakeley; Immo Kleinschmidt Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-02-14
Authors: Mattimi Passah; Carinthia Balabet Nengnong; Mark L Wilson; Jane M Carlton; Larry Kharbamon; Sandra Albert Journal: Malar J Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.469