Dataset Information

Provision of medical supply kits to improve quality of antenatal care in Mozambique: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High levels of maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity remain a daunting reality in many low-income countries. Several interventions delivered during antenatal care have been shown to improve maternal and newborn outcomes, but stockouts of medical supplies at point of care can prevent implementation of these services. We aimed to evaluate whether a supply chain strategy based on the provision of kits could improve quality of care.

Methods

We did a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial at ten antenatal care clinics in Mozambique. Clinics were eligible if they were not already implementing the proposed antenatal care package; they served at least 200 new pregnant women per year; they had Maternal and Child Health (MCH) nurses; and they were willing to participate. All women attending antenatal care visits at the participating clinics were included in the trial. Participating clinics were randomly assigned to shift from control to intervention on prespecified start dates. The intervention involved four components (kits with medical supplies, a cupboard to store these supplies, a tracking sheet to monitor stocks, and a one-day training session). The primary outcomes were the proportion of women screened for anaemia and proteinuria, and the proportion of women who received mebendazole in the first antenatal care visit. The intervention was delivered under routine care conditions, and analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201306000550192.

Findings

Between March, 2014, and January, 2016, 218 277 antenatal care visits were registered, with 68 598 first and 149 679 follow-up visits. We found significant improvements in all three primary outcomes. In first visits, 5519 (14·6%) of 37 826 women were screened for anaemia in the control period, compared with 30 057 (97·7%) of 30 772 in the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio 832·40; 99% CI 666·81-1039·11; p<0·0001); 3739 (9·9%) of 37 826 women were screened for proteinuria in the control period, compared with 29 874 (97·1%) of 30 772 in the intervention period (1875·18; 1447·56-2429·11; p<0·0001); and 17 926 (51·4%) of 34 842 received mebendazole in the control period, compared with 24 960 (88·2%) of 28 294 in the intervention period (1·88; 1·70-2·09; p<0·0001). The effect was immediate and sustained over time, with negligible heterogeneity between sites.

Interpretation

A supply chain strategy that resolves stockouts at point of care can result in a vast improvement in quality during antenatal care visits, when compared with the routine national process for procurement and distribution of supplies.

Funding

Government of Flanders and the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.

SUBMITTER: Betran AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5732314 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIt is critical to increase the uptake of interventions proven to be effective to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. Supply kits have been suggested to be a feasible strategy designed to ensure timely availability and effective follow-up of care.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the uptake, effectiveness and safety of supply kits for maternal care.Search strategyMEDLINE, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, Campbell Collaboration, Lilacs, Embase and unpublished studies were searched.Selection criteriaStudies that reported the efficacy, safety and use of supply kits for maternal healthcare were eligible. Participants were pregnant women or in childbirth. Supply kits were defined as a collection of medicines, supplies or instruments packaged together with the aim of conducting a healthcare task.Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and methodological and quality assessment.Main results24 studies were included: 4 of them were systematic reviews and 20 primary studies. Eighteen studies evaluated a so-called "clean delivery kit". In all but two studies, the kits were used by more than half of the participants. A meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to the heterogeneity in study design, in the components of the interventions implemented, in the content of the kits, and in outcomes. Nine studies assessed neonatal outcomes and found statistically significant reductions in cord infection, sepsis and tetanus-related mortality in the intervention group. Three studies showed evidence of reduced neonatal mortality (OR 0.52, 0.60 and 0.71) with statistically significant confidence intervals in all cases. Four studies reported odd ratios for maternal mortality, but only one showed evidence of a statistically significant decrease in this outcome but it was ascribed to hand washing prior to childbirth and not with the use of kits.ConclusionThis review suggests potential benefits in the use of supply kits to improve maternal and neonatal health. However, the observational nature of the studies, the heterogeneity and the use of kits incorporated within complex interventions limit the interpretation of the findings.

Project description:Practice facilitation has been associated with meaningful improvements in disease prevention and quality of patient care. Using practice facilitation, the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project aimed to improve the delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular care in primary care practices across a large health region. Our goal was to evaluate IDOCC's impact on adherence to processes of care delivery.A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting primary care providers in practices located in Eastern Ontario, Canada (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808). Participants were randomly assigned by region to one of three steps. Practice facilitators were intended to visit practices every 3-4 (year 1-intensive) or 6-12 weeks (year 2-sustainability) to support changes in practice behavior. The primary outcome was mean adherence to indicators of evidence-based care measured at the patient level. Adherence was assessed by chart review of a randomly selected cohort of 66 patients per practice in each pre-intervention year, as well as in year 1 and year 2 post-intervention.Eighty-four practices (182 physicians) participated. On average, facilitators had 6.6 (min: 2, max: 11) face-to-face visits with practices in year 1 and 2.5 (min: 0 max: 10) visits in year 2. We collected chart data from 5292 patients. After adjustment for patient and provider characteristics, there was a 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): -2.9 to -0.9 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI: -5.7 to -2.6 %) absolute decrease in mean adherence from baseline to intensive and sustainability years, respectively.IDOCC did not improve adherence to best-practice guidelines. Our results showed a small statistically significant decrease in mean adherence of questionable clinical significance. Potential reasons for this result include implementation challenges, competing priorities in practices, a broad focus on multiple chronic disease indicators, and use of an overall index of adherence. These results contrast with findings from previously reported facilitation trials and highlight the complexities and challenges of translating research findings into clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.

Project description:BackgroundDenmark has inferior cancer survival rates compared with many European countries. The main reason for this is suggested to be late diagnosis at advanced cancer stages. Cancer diagnostic work-up begins in general practice in 85% of all cancer cases. Thus, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in the diagnostic process. The latest Danish Cancer Plan included continuing medical education (CME) on early cancer diagnosis in general practice to improve early diagnosis. This dual aims of this protocol are, first, to describe the conceptualisation, operationalisation and implementation of the CME and, second, to describe the study design and outcomes chosen to evaluate the effects of the CME.Methods/designThe intervention is a CME in early cancer diagnosis targeting individual GPs. It was developed by a step-wise approach. Barriers for early cancer diagnosis at GP level were identified systematically and analysed using the behaviour system involving capability, opportunity and motivation described by Michie et al. The study will be designed as a geographical cluster randomised stepped wedge study. The study population counts 836 GPs from 417 general practices in the Central Denmark Region, geographically divided into eight clusters. GPs from each cluster will be invited to a CME meeting at a certain date three weeks apart. The primary outcomes will be primary care interval and GP referral rate on cancer suspicion. Data will be obtained from national registries, GP-completed forms on patients referred to cancer fast-track pathways and GP-completed online questionnaires before and after the intervention.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first study to measure the effect of a theory-based CME in early cancer diagnosis at three levels: GP knowledge and attitude, GP activity and patient outcomes. The achieved knowledge will contribute to the understanding of whether and how general practice's ability to perform cancer diagnosis may be improved.Trial registrationRegistered as NCT02069470 on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:Youth living with HIV (YLHIV) report that negative interactions with health care workers (HCWs) affects willingness to return to care. This stepped wedge randomized trial evaluated effectiveness of a standardized patient actor (SP) HCW training intervention on adolescent engagement in care in Kenya. HCWs caring for YLHIV at 24 clinics received training on adolescent care, values clarification, communication, and motivational interviewing, with 7 SP encounters followed by facilitated feedback of videotaped interactions. Facilities were randomized to timing of the intervention. The primary outcome was defined as return within 3 months after first visit (engagement) among YLHIV who were either newly enrolled or who returned to care after >3 months out of care. Visit data was abstracted from electronic medical records. Generalized linear mixed models adjusted for time, being newly enrolled, and clustering by facility. YLHIV were surveyed regarding satisfaction with care. Overall, 139 HCWs were trained, and medical records were abstracted for 4,595 YLHIV. Median YLHIV age was 21 (IQR 19-23); 82% were female, 77% were newly enrolled in care, and 75% returned within 3 months. Half (54%) of trained HCWs remained at their clinics 9 months post-training. YLHIV engagement improved over time (global Wald test, p = 0.10). In adjusted models, the intervention showed no significant effect on engagement [adjusted Prevalence Ratio (aPR) = 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.88-1.02]. Newly enrolled YLHIV had significantly higher engagement than those with prior lapses in care (aPR = 1.18, 95%CI: 1.05-1.33). Continuous satisfaction with care scores were significantly higher by wave 3 compared to baseline (coefficient = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.19-0.58). Despite provider skill improvement, there was no effect of SP training on YLHIV engagement in care. This may be due to temporal improvements or turnover of trained HCWs. Strategies to retain SP-training benefits need to address HCW turnover. YLHIV with prior gaps in care may need more intensive support. Registration CT #: NCT02928900. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02928900.