Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27809918›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2016

Assessing demand-side barriers to uptake of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in pregnancy: a qualitative study in two regions of Uganda.

Christian Rassi, Kirstie Graham, Rebecca King, James Ssekitooleko, Patrobas Mufubenga, Sam Siduda Gudoi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Christian RassiMalaria Consortium, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London, UK. c.rassi@malariaconsortium.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0402-2410
Kirstie GrahamMalaria Consortium, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London, UK.
Rebecca KingNuffield Centre for International Health and Development, Leeds Institute of Health SciencesUniversity of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
James SsekitoolekoMalaria Consortium Uganda, Plot 25 Upper Naguru East Road, Kampala, Uganda.
Patrobas MufubengaMalaria Consortium Uganda and PAMU Consults (U) Ltd, Plot 577, Block 15, Nsambya Road, Kampala, Uganda.
Sam Siduda GudoiMalaria Consortium Uganda, Plot 25 Upper Naguru East Road, Kampala, Uganda.
Malaria Consortium · UGMalaria Consortium · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo prevent malaria infection during pregnancy in endemic areas in Africa, the World Health Organization recommends the administration of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) as part of the focused antenatal care package. However, IPTp uptake in most countries remains low despite generally high antenatal care coverage and increased efforts by governments to address known bottlenecks such as drug stock-outs. The study explored factors that continue to impede uptake of IPTp among women who attend antenatal care. This paper focuses on demand-side barriers with regard to accessibility, affordability and acceptability.

methodsThe research was conducted in 2013/2014 and involved 46 in-depth interviews with four types of respondents: (i) seven district health officials; (ii) 15 health workers; (iii) 19 women who attended antenatal care; (iv) five opinion leaders. Interviews were conducted in Eastern and West Nile regions of Uganda. Data was analysed by thematic analysis.

resultsDistrict health officials and health workers cited a range of barriers relating to knowledge and attitudes among pregnant women, including lack of awareness of pregnancy-related health risks, a tendency to initiate antenatal care late, reluctance to take medication and concerns about side effects of IPTp. However, women and opinion leaders expressed very positive views of antenatal care and IPTp. They also reported that the burden of travel and cost associated with antenatal care attendance was challenging, but did not keep them from accessing a service they perceived as beneficial. The role of trust in health workers' expertise was highlighted by all respondents and it was reported that women will typically accept IPTp if encouraged by a health worker.

conclusionsGiven the positive views of antenatal care and IPTp, high antenatal care coverage and reported low refusal rates for IPTp, supply-side issues are likely to account for the majority of missed opportunities for the provision of IPTp when women attend antenatal care. However, to increase uptake of IPTp on the demand side, health workers should be encouraged to reassure eligible women that IPTp is safe.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAfricaAntimalarialsChemopreventionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalariaPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousUgandaAntimalarialsANCAntenatal careCOMDIS-HSDCoverageIntermittent presumptive treatmentIntermittent preventive treatmentIPTpMalaria ConsortiumMalaria in pregnancyOperational researchPreventionUptake

Identifiers

PMID27809918
PMCPMC5096321
OpenAlexW2548939844

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.