Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39061055›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Acceptability and feasibility of using a blended quality improvement strategy among health workers to monitor women engagement in Option B+ program in Lilongwe Malawi.

Wiza Kumwenda, Angela M Bengtson, Shaphil Wallie, Tarsizious Chikaonda, Mitch Matoga, Agatha K Bula, Jimmy Ba Villiera, Edith Kamanga, Mina C Hosseinipour, Victor Mwapasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Wiza KumwendaUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi. wkumwenda@unclilongwe.org.
Angela M BengtsonDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Shaphil WallieUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Tarsizious ChikaondaUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Mitch MatogaUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Agatha K BulaUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Jimmy Ba VillieraUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Edith KamangaUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Mina C HosseinipourUNC Project-Malawi, Tidziwe Center, P/Bag A104, 100 Mzimba Road, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Victor MwapasaDepartment of Community and Environmental Health, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.

Funding

Malawi HIV Implementation Research Scientist Training Program (MHIRST)D43TW010060 · FIC · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MINA CHRISTINE HOSSEINIPOUR, Victor Mwapasa · 2015 to 2026
$3.8M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Option B + provides lifelong ART to pregnant and breastfeeding women with HIV to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV (eMTCT) and improve maternal health. The effectiveness of Option B + relies on continuous engagement, but suboptimal monitoring of HIV care hinders our measurements of engagement. Process mapping and quality improvement (PROMAQI) is a quality improvement strategy for healthcare workers (HCWs) to optimize complex processes such as monitoring HIV care. We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of the PROMAQI among HCWs and identified barriers and facilitators for PROMAQI implementation. A cross-sectional study using a mixed method approach was conducted from August 2021 to March 2022 across five urban health facilities participating in PROMAQI implementation n the Lilongwe district, Malawi. We assessed PROMAQI acceptability and feasibility at the end of the study. A 5-point Likert (1 = worst to 5 = best) scale tool was administered to 110 HCWs (n = 15-33 per facility) involved in PROMAQI implementationThese data were analysed using descriptive statistics Among the 110 HCWs, twenty-two (QI team (n = 11) and QI implementers (n = 11)) were purposively selected for in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was conducted using deducted and inductive approaches. The theoretical framework for acceptability (TFA) was used to identify reasons for acceptability. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to characterize the barriers and facilitators of PROMAQI implementation. HCWs recruited had a median age of 37 (32-43) years, 82.0% of whom were female. Most (42%) had completed secondary education, and 84% were nurses and community health workers. The median (IQR) acceptability and feasibility scores for the PROMAQI were 5 (IQR 4-5) and 4 (IQR 4-5), respectively. Reasons for high PROMAQI acceptability included addressing a relevant gap and improving performance. Perceived implementation barriers included poor work attitudes, time constraints, resource limitations, knowledge gaps, and workbook difficulties. The facilitators included communication, mentorship, training, and financial incentives. PROMAQI is a highly acceptable and feasible tool for monitoring engagement of women in Option B + . Addressing these barriers may optimize the implementation of PROMAQI. Scaling up PROMAQI may enhance retention in the Option B + program and facilitate eMTCT.

Indexed as

Feasibility StudiesHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsQuality ImprovementAdultBreast FeedingCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMalawiPregnancyAcceptabilityEngagement in Option B+FeasibilityQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID39061055
PMCPMC11282652

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.