Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26573910›Full record

Trial reportMalaria journal2015

Introducing rapid diagnostic tests for malaria into registered drug shops in Uganda: lessons learned and policy implications.

Anthony K Mbonye, Sîan E Clarke, Sham Lal, Clare I Chandler, Eleanor Hutchinson, Kristian S Hansen, Pascal Magnussen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Malaria journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Anthony K MbonyeMinistry of Health, Kampala and School of Public Health-College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Box 7272, Kampala, Uganda. vpadmn@infocom.co.ug.
Sîan E ClarkeDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Sian.Clarke@lshtm.ac.uk.
Sham LalDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. Sham.lal@lshtm.ac.uk.
Clare I ChandlerDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. clare.chandler@lshtm.ac.uk.
Eleanor HutchinsonDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. eleanor.hutchinson@lshtm.ac.uk.
Kristian S HansenDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Kristian.Hansen@lshtm.ac.uk.
Pascal MagnussenDepartment of Veterinary Disease and Biology, Centre for Medical Parasitology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. pma@sund.ku.dk.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMinistry of Health · UGUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N003810/1Wellcome Trust 084933
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria is a major public health problem in Uganda and the current policy recommends introduction of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (RDTs) to facilitate effective case management. However, provision of RDTs in drug shops potentially raises a new set of issues, such as adherence to RDTs results, management of severe illnesses, referral of patients, and relationship with caretakers. The main objective of the study was to examine the impact of introducing RDTs in registered drug shops in Uganda and document lessons and policy implications for future scale-up of malaria control in the private health sector.

methodsA cluster-randomized trial introducing RDTs into registered drug shops was implemented in central Uganda from October 2010 to July 2012. An evaluation was undertaken to assess the impact and the processes involved with the introduction of RDTs into drug shops, the lessons learned and policy implications.

resultsIntroducing RDTs into drug shops was feasible. To scale-up this intervention however, drug shop practices need to be regulated since the registration process was not clear, supervision was inadequate and record keeping was poor. Although initially it was anticipated that introducing a new practice of record keeping would be cumbersome, but at evaluation this was not found to be a constraint. This presents an important lesson for introducing health management information system into drug shops. Involving stakeholders, especially the district health team, in the design was important for ownership and sustainability. The involvement of village health teams in community sensitization to the new malaria treatment and diagnosis policy was a success and this strategy is recommended for future interventions.

conclusionIntroducing RDTs into drug shops was feasible and it increased appropriate treatment of malaria with artemisinin-based combination therapy. It is anticipated that the lessons presented will help better implementation of similar interventions in the private sector.

Indexed as

PharmaciesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchHumansMalariaReagent Kits, DiagnosticUgandaReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID26573910
PMCPMC4647310
OpenAlexW2176683529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.