Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30309746›Full record

ArticleVaccine2019

The need to improve access to rabies post-exposure vaccines: Lessons from Tanzania.

Joel Changalucha, Rachel Steenson, Eleanor Grieve, Sarah Cleaveland, Tiziana Lembo, Kennedy Lushasi, Geofrey Mchau, Zacharia Mtema, Maganga Sambo, Alphoncina Nanai and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Joel ChangaluchaIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Electronic address: jchangalucha@ihi.or.tz.
Rachel SteensonBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK.
Eleanor GrieveHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health and Wellbeing, 1 Lilybank Gardens, University of Glasgow, UK.
Sarah CleavelandBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK.
Tiziana LemboBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK.
Kennedy LushasiIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Geofrey MchauMinistry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children, P.O. Box 573 Dodoma, Tanzania.
Zacharia MtemaIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Maganga SamboIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK.
Alphoncina NanaiWorld Health Organization, Tanzania Country Office, P.O. Box 9292, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Nicodem J GovellaIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Angel DilipIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Lwitiko SikanaIfakara Health Institute, P.O. Box 78373, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Francesco VenturaBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK.
Katie HampsonBoyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK.
Ifakara Health Institute · TZUniversity of Glasgow · GBGlasgow Centre for Population Health · GBMinistry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children · TZ

Funding

Wellcome Trust 095787/Z/11/ZWellcome Trust 106824/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 207569/Z/17/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRabies is preventable through prompt administration of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to exposed persons, but PEP access is limited in many rabies-endemic countries. We investigated how access to PEP can be improved to better prevent human rabies.

methodsUsing data from different settings in Tanzania, including contact tracing (2,367 probable rabies exposures identified) and large-scale mobile phone-based surveillance (24,999 patient records), we estimated the incidence of rabies exposures and bite-injuries, and examined health seeking and health outcomes in relation to PEP access. We used surveys and qualitative interviews with stakeholders within the health system to further characterise PEP supply and triangulate these findings.

resultsIncidence of bite-injury patients was related to dog population sizes, with higher incidence in districts with lower human:dog ratios and urban centres. A substantial percentage (25%) of probable rabies exposures did not seek care due to costs and limited appreciation of risk. Upon seeking care a further 15% of probable rabies exposed persons did not obtain PEP due to shortages, cost barriers or misadvice. Of those that initiated PEP, 46% did not complete the course. If no PEP was administered, the risk of developing rabies following a probable rabies exposure was high (0.165), with bites to the head carrying most risk. Decentralized and free PEP increased the probability that patients received PEP and reduced delays in initiating PEP. No major difficulties were encountered by health workers whilst switching to dose-sparing ID administration of PEP. Health infrastructure also includes sufficient cold chain capacity to support improved PEP provision. However, high costs to governments and patients currently limits the supply chain and PEP access. The cost barrier was exacerbated by decentralization of budgets, with priority given to purchase of cheaper medicines for other conditions. Reactive procurement resulted in limited and unresponsive PEP supply, increasing costs and risks to bite victims.

conclusionPEP access could be improved and rabies deaths reduced through ring-fenced procurement, switching to dose-sparing ID regimens and free provision of PEP.

Indexed as

Bites and StingsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansImmunologic FactorsIncidencePatient Acceptance of Health CarePost-Exposure ProphylaxisRabiesRabies VaccinesSurvival AnalysisTanzaniaTreatment OutcomeImmunologic FactorsRabies VaccinesCanine rabiesDog-mediated rabiesImmunoglobulinIntradermalIntramuscularPost-exposure prophylaxisProcurementRabies preventionSupply chainVaccine regimen

Identifiers

PMID30309746
PMCPMC6863039
OpenAlexW2897703704

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.