Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27502213›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2016

A qualitative review of implementer perceptions of the national community-level malaria surveillance system in Southern Province, Zambia.

Lynne Lohfeld, Tokozile Kangombe-Ngwenya, Anna M Winters, Zunda Chisha, Busiku Hamainza, Mulakwa Kamuliwo, John M Miller, Matthew Burns, Daniel J Bridges

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evaluation of the Performance of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Malaria Diagnosis and Mapping of DifferentInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lynne LohfeldBachelor of Health Sciences (Honours) Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tokozile Kangombe-NgwenyaAkros, Cresta Golfview Grounds, Great East Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Anna M WintersAkros, Cresta Golfview Grounds, Great East Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Zunda ChishaAkros, Cresta Golfview Grounds, Great East Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Busiku HamainzaNational Malaria Control Centre, Government of Zambia Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
Mulakwa KamuliwoNational Malaria Control Centre, Government of Zambia Ministry of Health, Lusaka, Zambia.
John M MillerMalaria Control and Evaluation Partnership in Africa (MACEPA/PATH), Lusaka, Zambia.
Matthew BurnsAkros, Cresta Golfview Grounds, Great East Road, Lusaka, Zambia.
Daniel J BridgesAkros, Cresta Golfview Grounds, Great East Road, Lusaka, Zambia. danieljbridges@gmail.com.
Ministry of Health · ZMMcMaster University · CANational HIV/AIDS/STI/TB Council · ZM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParts of Zambia with very low malaria parasite prevalence and high coverage of vector control interventions are targeted for malaria elimination through a series of interventions including reactive case detection (RCD) at community level. When a symptomatic individual presenting to a community health worker (CHW) or government clinic is diagnostically confirmed as an incident malaria case an RCD response is initiated. This consists of a CHW screening the community around the incident case with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and treating positive cases with artemether-lumefantrine (AL, Coartem™) in accordance with national policy. Since its inception in 2011, Zambia's RCD programme has relied on anecdotal feedback from staff to identify issues and possible solutions. In 2014, a systematic qualitative programme review was conducted to determine perceptions around malaria rates, incentives, operational challenges and solutions according to CHWs, their supervisors and district-level managers.

methodsA criterion-based sampling framework based on training regime and performance level was used to select nine rural health posts in four districts of Southern Province. Twenty-two staff interviews were completed to produce English or bilingual (CiTonga or Silozi + English) verbatim transcripts, which were then analysed using thematic framework analysis.

resultsCHWs, their supervisors and district-level managers strongly credited the system with improving access to malaria services and significantly reducing the number of cases in their area. The main implementation barriers included access (e.g., lack of rain gear, broken bicycles), insufficient number of CHWs for programme coverage, communication (e.g. difficulties maintaining cell phones and "talk time" to transmit data by phone), and inconsistent supply chain (e.g., inadequate numbers of RDT kits and anti-malarial drugs to test and treat uncomplicated cases).

conclusionsThis review highlights the importance of a community surveillance system like RCD in shaping Zambia's malaria elimination campaign by identifying community-based infections that might otherwise remain undetected. At this stage the system must ensure it can meet growing public demand by providing CHWs the tools and materials they need to consistently carry out their work and expand programme reach to more isolated communities. Results from this review will be used to plan programme scale-up into other parts of Zambia.

Indexed as

Disease EradicationEpidemiological MonitoringHealth Services ResearchCommunity Health WorkersHumansInterviews as TopicMalariaZambiaCommunity health workerMalaria eliminationQualitativeReactive case detectionSurveillanceZambia

Identifiers

PMID27502213
PMCPMC4977701
OpenAlexW2497017636

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.