Dataset Information

Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a Community-delivered Integrated Malaria Elimination (CIME) model in Myanmar: protocol for an open stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In the Greater Mekong Subregion, community health workers, known as malaria volunteers, have played a key role in reducing malaria in the control phase, providing essential malaria services in areas with limited formal healthcare. However, the motivation and social role of malaria volunteers, and testing rates, have declined with decreasing malaria burden and reorientation of malaria programmes from control to elimination. Provision of additional interventions for common health concerns could help sustain the effectiveness of volunteers and maintain malaria testing rates required for malaria elimination accreditation by the WHO.

Methods and analysis

The Community-delivered Integrated Malaria Elimination (CIME) volunteer model, integrating interventions for malaria, dengue, tuberculosis, childhood diarrhoea and malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT)-negative fever, was developed based on global evidence and extensive stakeholder consultations. An open stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial, randomised at the volunteer level, will be conducted over 6 months to evaluate the effectiveness of the CIME model in Myanmar. One hundred and forty Integrated Community Malaria Volunteers (ICMVs, current model of care) providing malaria services in 140 villages will be retrained as CIME volunteers (intervention). These 140 ICMVs/villages will be grouped into 10 blocks of 14 villages, with blocks transitioned from control (ICMV) to intervention states (CIME), fortnightly, in random order, following a 1-week training and transition period. The primary outcome of the trial is blood examination rate determined by the number of malaria RDTs performed weekly. Difference in rates will be estimated across village intervention and control states using a generalised linear mixed modelling analytical approach with maximum likelihood estimation.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was approved by Institutional Review Board, Myanmar Department of Medical Research (Ethics/DMR/2020/111) and Alfred Hospital Ethics Review Committee, Australia (241/20). Findings will be disseminated in peer-review journals, conferences and regional, national and local stakeholder meetings.

Trial registration number

NCT04695886.

SUBMITTER: Oo WH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8365797 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo combat emerging drug resistance in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) the World Health Organization and GMS countries have committed to eliminating malaria in the region by 2030. The overall approach includes providing universal access to diagnosis and treatment of malaria, and sustainable preventive measures, including vector control. Topical repellents are an intervention that can be used to target residual malaria transmission not covered by long lasting insecticide nets and indoor residual spraying. Although there is strong evidence that topical repellents protect against mosquito bites, evidence is not well established for the effectiveness of repellents distributed as part of malaria control activities in protecting against episodes of malaria. A common approach to deliver malaria services is to assign Village Health Volunteers (VHVs) to villages, particularly where limited or no services exist. The proposed trial aims to provide evidence for the effectiveness of repellent distributed through VHVs in reducing malaria.MethodsThe study is an open stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial randomised at the village level. Using this approach, repellent (N,N-diethyl-benzamide - 12% w/w, cream) is distributed by VHVs in villages sequentially throughout the malaria transmission season. Villages will be grouped into blocks, with blocks transitioned monthly from control (no repellent) to intervention states (to receive repellent) across 14 monthly intervals in random order). This follows a 4-week baseline period where all villages do not receive repellent. The primary endpoint is defined as the number of individuals positive for Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections diagnosed by a rapid diagnostic test. Secondary endpoints include symptomatic malaria, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-detectable Plasmodium spp. infections, molecular markers of drug resistance and antibodies specific for Plasmodium spp. parasites.DiscussionThis study has been approved by relevant institutional ethics committees in Myanmar and Australia. Results will be disseminated through workshops, conferences and peer-reviewed publications. Findings will contribute to a better understanding of the optimal distribution mechanisms of repellent, context specific effectiveness and inform policy makers and implementers of malaria elimination programs in the GMS.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12616001434482 ). Retrospectively registered 14th October 2016.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of Teach-Back on communication quality in a national telephone-based telehealth service, for callers varying in health literacy.DesignCross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trial with continuous recruitment, short (fixed) exposure and blinded outcome assessors. Nurses were stratified by hours worked and randomised into training groups using a computer generated sequence.SettingAn Australian national pregnancy and parenting telephone helpline.InterventionComplex intervention involving a single 2-hour group Teach-Back training session, combined with ongoing nurse self-reflection on their communication following each call and each shift.ParticipantsParticipants were 637 callers to the telephone helpline aged 18-75 (87% female), of whom 127 (13%) had inadequate health literacy (measured with the Single Item Literacy Screener); and 15 maternal and child health nurses with 15 years' experience on average.MeasuresPrimary outcome was a modified subscale of the Health Literacy Questionnaire, 'having sufficient information to manage health'. Secondary caller outcomes included caller confidence, perceived actionability of information and nurse effort to listen and understand. Nurse outcomes were perceptions of their communication effectiveness.ResultsOver a 7 week period, 376 surveyed callers received usual care and 261 Teach-Back. Ratings on the primary outcome increased over time (OR 1.17, CI 1.01 to 1.32, p = 0.03) but no independent Teach-Back effect was observed. A consistent pattern suggests that, compared with usual care, Teach-Back helps callers with inadequate health literacy feel listened to (OR 2.3, CI 0.98 to 5.42, p = 0.06), confident to act (OR 2.44, CI 1.00 to 5.98, p = 0.06), and know what steps to take (OR 2.68, CI 1.00 to 7.17, p = 0.06). Nurse perceptions of both their own communication effectiveness (OR = 2.31; CI 1.38 to 3.86, p<0.0001), and caller understanding (OR = 2.56; CI 1.52 to 4.30, p<0.001) both increased with Teach-Back. No harms were reported.ConclusionsTeach-Back appears to benefit telephone health service users with inadequate health literacy, but the extent of this is unclear due to smaller numbers of lower literacy participants. Improving caller ratings over time are likely due to increasing nurse communication competence.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization has yet to endorse deployment of topical repellents for malaria prevention as part of public health campaigns. We aimed to quantify the effectiveness of repellent distributed by the village health volunteer (VHV) network in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) in reducing malaria in order to advance regional malaria elimination.Methods and findingsBetween April 2015 and June 2016, a 15-month stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted in 116 villages in Myanmar (stepped monthly in blocks) to test the effectiveness of 12% N,N-diethylbenzamide w/w cream distributed by VHVs, on Plasmodium spp. infection. The median age of participants was 18 years, approximately half were female, and the majority were either village residents (46%) or forest dwellers (40%). No adverse events were reported during the study. Generalised linear mixed modelling estimated the effect of repellent on infection detected by rapid diagnostic test (RDT) (primary outcome) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (secondary outcome). Overall Plasmodium infection detected by RDT was low (0.16%; 50/32,194), but infection detected by PCR was higher (3%; 419/13,157). There was no significant protection against RDT-detectable infection (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.25, 95% CI 0.004-15.2, p = 0.512). In Plasmodium-species-specific analyses, repellent protected against PCR-detectable P. falciparum (adjusted relative risk ratio [ARRR] = 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.95, p = 0.026), but not P. vivax infection (ARRR = 1.41, 95% CI 0.80-2.47, p = 0.233). Repellent effects were similar when delayed effects were modelled, across risk groups, and regardless of village-level and temporal heterogeneity in malaria prevalence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$256 per PCR-detectable infection averted. Study limitations were a lower than expected Plasmodium spp. infection rate and potential geographic dilution of the intervention.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed apparent protection against new infections associated with the large-scale distribution of repellent by VHVs. Incorporation of repellent into national strategies, particularly in areas where bed nets are less effective, may contribute to the interruption of malaria transmission. Further studies are warranted across different transmission settings and populations, from the GMS and beyond, to inform WHO public health policy on the deployment of topical repellents for malaria prevention.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616001434482).

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:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an internet-based perioperative care programme compared with usual care for gynaecological patients. DESIGN:Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. SETTING:Secondary care, nine hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-2014. PARTICIPANTS:433 employed women aged 18-65 years scheduled for a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery. INTERVENTION:The intervention comprised an internet-based care programme aimed at improving convalescence and preventing delayed return to work (RTW) following gynaecological surgery and was sequentially rolled out. Depending on the implementation phase of their hospital, patients were allocated to usual care (n=206) or to the intervention (n=227). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was duration until full sustainable RTW. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related quality of life and recovery. RESULTS:At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences in total societal costs (€-647; 95% CI €-2116 to €753) and duration until RTW (-4.1; 95% CI -10.8 to 2.6) between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RTW was 56; each day earlier RTW in the intervention group was associated with cost savings of €56 compared with usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.79 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0 per day earlier RTW, which increased to 0.97 at a WTP of €76 per day earlier RTW. The difference in QALYs gained over 12 months between the groups was clinically irrelevant resulting in a low probability of cost-effectiveness for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS:Considering that on average the costs of a day of sickness absence are €230, the care programme is considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care for duration until sustainable RTW after gynaecological surgery for benign disease. Future research should indicate whether widespread implementation of this care programme has the potential to reduce societal costs associated with gynaecological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR2933; Results.