ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Health workers' perspectives on barriers and opportunities to optimising quality improvement implementation in urban health facilities in Lilongwe, Malawi.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEliminating vertical HIV transmission requires high-quality Option B+ services, which provide lifelong antiretroviral therapy to pregnant and breastfeeding women living with HIV. In Malawi, coverage has expanded, but quality remains suboptimal, contributing to challenges in sustaining engagement in care. Quality improvement (QI) approaches can strengthen service delivery and evidence-based practices, with healthcare workers (HCWs) central to implementation. This study explores barriers and opportunities HCWs face in implementing QI in Option B+ within high-volume urban facilities in Lilongwe, Malawi.
methodsA descriptive phenomenological qualitative study was conducted between March and June 2021 in five health facilities in Lilongwe, Malawi. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 purposively selected HCWs (4-8 per facility) involved in delivering Option B+ services. Thematic analysis was used, with data coded deductively and inductively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was applied to map the identified themes into relevant domains and constructs.
resultsQI practices among HCWs were hindered by resource constraints, lack of incentives/reimbursement for QI activities conducted beyond working hours, poor communication between QI teams and implementers and resistance or negative attitudes towards QI. Opportunities to enhance QI included increasing meeting frequency, providing mentorship, peer-to-peer learning through exchange visits and securing funding from development partners.
conclusionImproving QI utilisation in Option B+ requires mobilising resources and having a structured feedback and mentorship mechanisms. Targeted incentives/reimbursements for HCWs and peer-to-peer learning through exchange visits between facilities can further enhance QI. Therefore, a blended QI approach incorporating these recommendations is needed to better support HCWs in delivering evidence-based interventions, strengthen the health system and may improve engagement outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.