Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroduction: Observational studies have shown considerable attrition among adolescents living with HIV across the "cascade" of HIV care in sub‐Saharan Africa, leading to higher mortality rates compared to HIV‐infected adults or children. We synthesized evidence from qualitative studies on factors that promote or undermine engagement with HIV services among adolescents living with HIV in sub‐Saharan Africa.Methods: We systematically searched five databases for studies published between 2005 and 2016 that met pre‐defined inclusion criteria. We used a meta‐ethnographic approach to identify first, second and third order constructs from eligible studies, and applied a socio‐ecological framework to situate our results across different levels of influence, and in relation to each stage of the HIV cascade.Results and discussion: We identified 3089 citations, of which 24 articles were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 17 were from Southern Africa while 11 were from Eastern Africa. 6 explored issues related to HIV testing, 11 explored treatment adherence, and 7 covered multiple stages of the cascade. Twelve third‐order constructs emerged to explain adolescents' engagement in HIV care. Stigma was the most salient factor impeding adolescents' interactions with HIV care over the past decade. Self‐efficacy to adapt to life with HIV and support from family or social networks were critical enablers supporting uptake and retention in HIV care and treatment programmes. Provision of adolescent‐friendly services and health systems issues, such as the availability of efficient, confidential and comfortable services, were also reported to drive sustained care engagement. Individual‐level factors, including past illness experiences, identifying mechanisms to manage pill‐taking in social situations, financial (in)stability and the presence/absence of future aspirations also shaped adolescents HIV care engagement.Conclusions: Adolescents' initial and ongoing use of HIV care was frequently undermined by individual‐level issues; although family, community and health systems factors played important roles. Interventions should prioritise addressing psychosocial issues among adolescents to promote individual‐level engagement with HIV care, and ultimately reduce mortality. Further research should explore issues relating to care linkage and ART initiation in different settings, particularly as "test and treat" policies are scaled up.

This article explores how malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa is shaped in important ways by political and economic considerations within the contexts of aid-recipient nations and the global health community. Malaria control is often assumed to be a technically driven exercise: the remit of public health experts and epidemiologists who utilize available data to select the most effective package of activities given available resources. Yet research conducted with national and international stakeholders shows how the realities of malaria control decision-making are often more nuanced. Hegemonic ideas and interests of global actors, as well as the national and global institutional arrangements through which malaria control is funded and implemented, can all influence how national actors respond to malaria. Results from qualitative interviews in seven malaria-endemic countries indicate that malaria decision-making is constrained or directed by multiple competing objectives, including a need to balance overarching global goals with local realities, as well as a need for National Malaria Control Programmes to manage and coordinate a range of non-state stakeholders who may divide up regions and tasks within countries. Finally, beyond the influence that political and economic concerns have over programmatic decisions and action, our analysis further finds that malaria control efforts have institutionalized systems, structures and processes that may have implications for local capacity development.

This article explores how malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa is shaped in important ways by political and economic considerations within the contexts of aid-recipient nations and the global health community. Malaria control is often assumed to be a technically driven exercise: the remit of public health experts and epidemiologists who utilize available data to select the most effective package of activities given available resources. Yet research conducted with national and international stakeholders shows how the realities of malaria control decision-making are often more nuanced. Hegemonic ideas and interests of global actors, as well as the national and global institutional arrangements through which malaria control is funded and implemented, can all influence how national actors respond to malaria. Results from qualitative interviews in seven malaria-endemic countries indicate that malaria decision-making is constrained or directed by multiple competing objectives, including a need to balance overarching global goals with local realities, as well as a need for National Malaria Control Programmes to manage and coordinate a range of non-state stakeholders who may divide up regions and tasks within countries. Finally, beyond the influence that political and economic concerns have over programmatic decisions and action, our analysis further finds that malaria control efforts have institutionalized systems, structures and processes that may have implications for local capacity development.

Background: Conceptualisations of what it means to use evidence in policymaking often appear divided between two extremes. On the one side are works presenting it as the implementation of research findings – particularly evaluations of intervention effect. In contrast stand theoretically informed works exploring the multiple meanings of evidence use, political complexities, and the constructed nature of research evidence itself. The first perspective has been criticised as over-simplistic, while the latter can make it difficult to answer questions of what might be good, or improved, uses of evidence in policymaking.
Methods: To further debate, this paper develops a 'programmatic approach' to evidence use, drawing on theories of institutional decision making and empirical work on evidence use within 11 National Malaria Control Programmes in Africa. We apply the programmatic approach by investigating the key goals and tasks of programme officials, recognising that these will shape the routines and logics followed affecting evidence utilisation. We then map out the forms, sources, features, and applications of evidence that serve programme officials in their goals.
Findings: In the case of malaria programmes, evidence use was understood in relation to tasks including: advocacy for funding, budget allocation, regulation development, national planning, and identification of information gaps – all of which might require different evidence sources, forms, and applications.
Discussion and conclusions: Ultimately the programmatic approach aims to facilitate clearer understanding of what uses of evidence are appropriate to policymakers, while also allowing critical reflection on whether such uses are 'good' from both programme and broader social perspectives.

Background: Conceptualisations of what it means to use evidence in policymaking often appear divided between two extremes. On the one side are works presenting it as the implementation of research findings – particularly evaluations of intervention effect. In contrast stand theoretically informed works exploring the multiple meanings of evidence use, political complexities, and the constructed nature of research evidence itself. The first perspective has been criticised as over- simplistic, while the latter can make it difficult to answer questions of what might be good, or improved, uses of evidence in policymaking. Methods: To further debate, this paper develops a 'programmatic approach' to evidence use, drawing on theories of institutional decision making and empirical work on evidence use within 11 National Malaria Control Programmes in Africa. We apply the programmatic approach by investigating the key goals and tasks of programme officials, recognising that these will shape the routines and logics followed affecting evidence utilisation. We then map out the forms, sources, features, and applications of evidence that serve programme officials in their goals. Findings: In the case of malaria programmes, evidence use was understood in relation to tasks including: advocacy for funding, budget allocation, regulation development, national planning, and identification of information gaps – all of which might require different evidence sources, forms, and applications

Background: Conceptualisations of what it means to use evidence in policymaking often appear divided between two extremes. On the one side are works presenting it as the implementation of research findings ‐ particularly evaluations of intervention effect. In contrast stand theoretically informed works exploring the multiple meanings of evidence use, political complexities, and the constructed nature of research evidence itself. The first perspective has been criticised as over-simplistic, while the latter can make it difficult to answer questions of what might be good, or improved, uses of evidence in policymaking.Methods: To further debate, this paper develops a 'programmatic approach' to evidence use, drawing on theories of institutional decision making and empirical work on evidence use within 11 National Malaria Control Programmes in Africa. We apply the programmatic approach by investigating the key goals and tasks of programme officials, recognising that these will shape the routines and logics followed affecting evidence utilisation. We then map out the forms, sources, features, and applications of evidence that serve programme officials in their goals.Findings: In the case of malaria programmes, evidence use was understood in relation to tasks including: advocacy for funding, budget allocation, regulation development, national planning, and identification of information gaps ‐ all of which might require different evidence sources, forms, and applications.Discussion and conclusions: Ultimately the programmatic approach aims to facilitate clearer understanding of what uses of evidence are appropriate to policymakers, while also allowing critical reflection on whether such uses are 'good' from both programme and broader social perspectives.

Background: Conceptualisations of what it means to use evidence in policymaking often appear divided between two extremes. On the one side are works presenting it as the implementation of research findings – particularly evaluations of intervention effect. In contrast stand theoretically informed works exploring the multiple meanings of evidence use, political complexities, and the constructed nature of research evidence itself. The first perspective has been criticised as over-simplistic, while the latter can make it difficult to answer questions of what might be good, or improved, uses of evidence in policymaking. Methods: To further debate, this paper develops a 'programmatic approach' to evidence use, drawing on theories of institutional decision making and empirical work on evidence use within 11 National Malaria Control Programmes in Africa. We apply the programmatic approach by investigating the key goals and tasks of programme officials, recognising that these will shape the routines and logics followed affecting evidence utilisation. We then map out the forms, sources, features, and applications of evidence that serve programme officials in their goals. Findings: In the case of malaria programmes, evidence use was understood in relation to tasks including: advocacy for funding, budget allocation, regulation development, national planning, and identification of information gaps – all of which might require different evidence sources, forms, and applications. Discussion and Conclusions: Ultimately the programmatic approach aims to facilitate clearer understanding of what uses of evidence are appropriate to policymakers, while also allowing critical reflection on whether such uses are 'good' from both programme and broader social perspectives.

In 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its policy on intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). A global recommendation to revise the WHO policy on the treatment of malaria in the first trimester is under review. We conducted a retrospective study of the national policy adoption process for revised IPTp-SP dosing in four sub-Saharan African countries. Alongside this retrospective study, we conducted a prospective policy adoption study of treatment of first trimester malaria with artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs). A document review informed development and interpretation of stakeholder interviews. An analytical framework was used to analyse data exploring stakeholder perceptions of the policies from 47 in-depth interviews with a purposively selected range of national level stakeholders. National policy adoption processes were categorized into four stages: (1) identify policy need; (2) review the evidence; (3) consult stakeholders and (4) endorse and draft policy. Actors at each stage were identified with the roles of evidence generation; technical advice; consultative and statutory endorsement. Adoption of the revised IPTp-SP policy was perceived to be based on strong evidence, support from WHO, consensus from stakeholders; and followed these stages. Poor tolerability of quinine was highlighted as a strong reason for a potential change in treatment policy. However, the evidence on safety of ACTs in the first trimester was considered weak. For some, trust in WHO was such that the anticipated announcement on the change in policy would allay these fears. For others, local evidence would first need to be generated to support a change in treatment policy. A national policy change from quinine to ACTs for the treatment of first trimester malaria will be less straightforward than experienced with increasing the IPTp dosing regimen despite following the same policy processes. Strong leadership will be needed for consultation and consensus building at national level.

Background: Declining malaria prevalence and pressure on external funding have increased the need for efficiency in malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Modelled Plasmodium falciparum parasite rate (PfPR) maps are increasingly becoming available and provide information on the epidemiological situation of countries. However, how these maps are understood or used for national malaria planning is rarely explored. In this study, the practices and perceptions of national decision-makers on the utility of malaria risk maps, showing prevalence of parasitaemia or incidence of illness, was investigated. Methods: A document review of recent National Malaria Strategic Plans was combined with 64 in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Kenya, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The document review focused on the type of epidemiological maps included and their use in prioritising and targeting interventions. Interviews (14 Kenya, 17 Malawi, 27 DRC, 6 global level) explored drivers of stakeholder perceptions of the utility, value and limitations of malaria risk maps. Results: Three different types of maps were used to show malaria epidemiological strata: malaria prevalence using a PfPR modelled map (Kenya); malaria incidence using routine health system data (Malawi); and malaria prevalence using data from the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DRC). In Kenya the map was used to target preventative interventions, including long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp), whilst in Malawi and DRC the maps were used to target in-door residual spraying (IRS) and LLINs distributions in schools. Maps were also used for operational planning, supply quantification, financial justification and advocacy. Findings from the interviews suggested that decision-makers lacked trust in the modelled PfPR maps when based on only a few empirical data points (Malawi and DRC). Conclusions: Maps were generally used to identify areas with high prevalence in order to implement specific interventions. Despite the availability of national level modelled PfPR maps in all three countries, they were only used in one country. Perceived utility of malaria risk maps was associated with the epidemiological structure of the country and use was driven by perceived need, understanding (quality and relevance), ownership and trust in the data used to develop the maps.

BACKGROUND: Declining malaria prevalence and pressure on external funding have increased the need for efficiency in malaria control in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Modelled Plasmodium falciparum parasite rate (PfPR) maps are increasingly becoming available and provide information on the epidemiological situation of countries. However, how these maps are understood or used for national malaria planning is rarely explored. In this study, the practices and perceptions of national decision-makers on the utility of malaria risk maps, showing prevalence of parasitaemia or incidence of illness, was investigated. METHODS: A document review of recent National Malaria Strategic Plans was combined with 64 in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Kenya, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The document review focused on the type of epidemiological maps included and their use in prioritising and targeting interventions. Interviews (14 Kenya, 17 Malawi, 27 DRC, 6 global level) explored drivers of stakeholder perceptions of the utility, value and limitations of malaria risk maps. RESULTS: Three different types of maps were used to show malaria epidemiological strata: malaria prevalence using a PfPR modelled map (Kenya); malaria incidence using routine health system data (Malawi); and malaria prevalence using data from the most recent Demographic and Health Survey (DRC). In Kenya the map was used to target preventative interventions, including long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs) and intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp), whilst in Malawi and DRC the maps were used to target in-door residual spraying (IRS) and LLINs distributions in schools. Maps were also used for operational planning, supply quantification, financial justification and advocacy. Findings from the interviews suggested that decision-makers lacked trust in the modelled PfPR maps when based on only a few empirical data points (Malawi and DRC). CONCLUSIONS: Maps were generally used to identify areas with high prevalence in order to implement specific interventions. Despite the availability of national level modelled PfPR maps in all three countries, they were only used in one country. Perceived utility of malaria risk maps was associated with the epidemiological structure of the country and use was driven by perceived need, understanding (quality and relevance), ownership and trust in the data used to develop the maps.