Dataset Information

Understanding and experience of adverse event following immunization (AEFI) and its consequences among healthcare providers in Kebbi State, Nigeria: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccines used in the national immunization program are relatively safe and effective. However, no vaccine is perfectly safe. Therefore, adverse reactions may occur. This study aimed to investigate the understanding and experience of Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) among healthcare workers and Routine Immunization (RI) officers.

Methods

Phenomenological qualitative study was conducted between June and September 2019, using a semi-structured question guide in Kebbi State, Northwest Nigeria. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 12 RI providers, eight Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) officers, and eight Disease Surveillance and Notification Officers. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. The interviews were transcribed and translated, then manually analyzed thematically.

Results

The knowledge level of healthcare providers on AEFI definition and classification varied and was suboptimal. Error during vaccination was the study participants' most frequently mentioned possible cause of AEFI. Persistent crying, fever, fainting, and swelling and tenderness at injection sites were the AEFI experienced by the healthcare providers in their careers. Block rejection, lower immunization uptake, loss of confidence in RI, attack on RI providers, discrimination of RI providers and divorce threats among spouses were the consequences of AEFI. Supportive supervision of the RI sessions, refresher training on safe injection for RI providers, and symptomatic treatment of clients with AEFI would prevent AEFI consequences. Also, educating caregivers, community sensitization, and dialogue would minimize the consequences of AEFI.

Conclusions

Evidence of a sub-optimal understanding of AEFI was established in this study. Hence, policymakers should consider regular refresher training on AEFI to ensure all RI providers have an optimal understanding of AEFI. Health education of caregivers and parents during RI sessions and community engagement should be considered to minimise AEFI consequences on the immunization program and the society.

SUBMITTER: Omoleke SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9166581 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with chronic conditions routinely see multiple outpatient providers, who may or may not communicate with each other. Gaps in information across providers caring for the same patient can lead to harm for patients. However, the exact causes and consequences of healthcare fragmentation are not understood well enough to design interventions to address them. OBJECTIVE:We sought to elicit patients' and providers' views on the causes and consequences of healthcare fragmentation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted a qualitative study with focus groups of patients and, separately, of providers (attending physicians and nurse practitioners) at an academic hospital-based primary care practice in New York City in June-August 2017. Patient participants were English-speaking adults with ??2 chronic conditions. APPROACH:Each focus group lasted 1 h and asked the same two questions: "Why do you think some patients receive care from many different providers and others do not?" and "What do you think happens as a result of patients receiving care from many different providers?" Data collection continued until a point of data saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS:We conducted 6 focus groups with a total of 46 participants (25 patients and 21 providers). Study participants identified 41 unique causes of fragmentation, which originate from 4 different levels of the healthcare system (patient, provider, healthcare organization, and healthcare environment); most causes were not related to medical need. Participants also identified 24 unique consequences of fragmentation, of which 3 were desirable and 21 were undesirable. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study offer a granular roadmap for how to decrease healthcare fragmentation. The large number and severity of negative consequences (including medical errors, misdiagnosis, increased cost, and provider burnout) underscore the urgent need for interventions to address this problem directly.

Project description:Background:In Nigeria, Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) is the recommended first line antimalarial medicine for uncomplicated malaria. However, health care providers still continue the use of less efficacious medicines such as Sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and chloroquine. We therefore determined preference for ACT (PFA) and factors associated with PFA among healthcare providers (HCP) in Lokoja, North-Central Nigeria as well as assessed healthcare providers' knowledge of malaria case management. Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional study among physicians, nurses, pharmacists, community health officers (CHOs), community health extension workers (CHEWs) and, patent and proprietary medicine vendors (PPMVs). Interviewer-administered questionnaires were administered to collect data on respondents' characteristics, previously received malaria case management training and knowledge of malaria treatment. Knowledge scores ≥3 were categorised as good, maximum obtainable being 5. Results:Of the 404 respondents, 214 (53.0%) were males. Overall, 219 (54.2%) respondents who received malaria case management training included PPMVs: 79 (65.8%), CHEWs: 25 (64.1%), CHOs: 5 (55.6%), nurses: 72 (48.7%), physicians: 35 (47.3%) and pharmacists: 3 (23.1%). Overall, 202 (50.0%) providers including physicians: 69 (93.2%), CHO: 8 (88.9%), CHEWs: 33 (84.6%), pharmacists: 8 (61.5%), nurses: 64 (43.2%) and PPMVs: 20 (16.5%), had good knowledge of malaria treatment guidelines. Overall, preference for ACT among healthcare providers was 39.6%. Physicians: 50 (67.6%), pharmacists: 7 (59.3%) CHOs: 5 (55.6%), CHEWS: 16 (41.0%), nurses: 56 (37.8%) and PPMV: 24 (19.8%) had PFA. Receiving malaria case management training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]) = 2.3; CI = 1.4 - 3.7) and having good knowledge of malaria treatment (aOR = 4.0; CI = 2.4 - 6.7) were associated with PFA. Conclusions:Overall preference for ACT use was low among health care providers in this study. Preference for ACTs and proportion of health workers with good knowledge of malaria case management were even lower among PPMVs who had highest proportion of those who received malaria case management training. We recommend evaluation of current training quality, enhanced targeted training, follow-up supportive supervision of PPMVs and behavior change communication on ACT use.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to explore the access to, and perceived utility of, various simulation modalities by in-service healthcare providers in a resource-scarce setting. SETTING:Paediatric training workshops at a national paediatric conference in Nigeria. PARTICIPANTS:All 200 healthcare workers who attended the workshop sessions were eligible to participate. A total of 161 surveys were completed (response rate 81%). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:A paper-based 25-item cross-sectional survey on simulation-based training (SBT) was administered to a convenience sample of healthcare workers from secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities. RESULTS:Respondents were mostly 31-40 years of age (79, 49%) and women (127, 79%). Consultant physicians (26, 16%) and nurses (56, 35%) were in both general (98, 61%) and subspecialty (56, 35%) practice. Most had 5-10 years of experience (62, 37%) in a tertiary care setting (72, 43%). Exposure to SBT varied by profession with physicians more likely to be exposed to manikin-based (29, 30% physicians vs 12, 19% nurses, p<0.001) or online training (7, 7% physician vs 3, 5% nurses, p<0.05). Despite perceived barriers to SBT, respondents thought that SBT should be expanded for continuing education (84, 88% physician vs 39, 63% nurses, p<0.001), teaching (73, 76% physicians vs 16, 26% nurses, p<0.001) and research (65, 68% physicians vs 14, 23% nurses, p<0.001). If facilities were available, nearly all respondents (92, 98% physicians; 52, 96% nurses) would recommend the use of online simulation for their centre. CONCLUSIONS:The access of healthcare workers to SBT is limited in resource-scarce settings. While acknowledging the challenges, respondents identified many areas in which SBT may be useful, including skills acquisition, skills practice and communication training. Healthcare workers were open to the use of online SBT and expressed the need to expand SBT beyond the current scope for health professional training in Nigeria.