Search

Background/aims The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the use of personal protective equipment for those involved in trachoma survey grading and trichiasis surgery. We sought to determine which configuration of a face shield would be less likely to impact grading accuracy and ability to conduct trichiasis surgery. The research also included assessment of comfort, ease of cleaning and robustness.Methods There were three research phases. In phase 1, assessment of four potential face shield configurations was undertaken with principal trachoma graders and trichiasis surgeon trainers to decide which two options should undergo further testing. In phase 2, clarity of vision and comfort (in a classroom environment) of the two configurations were assessed compared with no face shield (control), while grading trachomatous inflammation—follicular (TF). The second phase also included the assessment of impact of the configurations while performing trichiasis surgery using a training model. In phase 3, face shield ease of use was evaluated during routine surgical programmes.Results In phase 2, 124 trachoma graders and 28 trichiasis surgeons evaluated the 2 face shield configurations selected in phase 1. TF agreement was high (kappa=0.83 and 0.82) for both configurations compared with not wearing a face shield. Comfort was reported as good by 51% and 32% of graders using the two configurations. Trichiasis skill scores were similar for both configurations.Conclusion The face shield configuration that includes a cut-out for mounting the 2.5× magnifying loupes does not appear to impact the ability or comfort of trachoma graders or trichiasis surgeons to carry out their work.

BackgroundAlthough trachoma causes more cases of preventable blindness than any other infectious disease, a combination of strategies is reducing its global prevalence. As a district moves toward eliminating trachoma as a public health problem, national programs conduct trachoma impact surveys (TIS) to assess whether to stop preventative interventions and trachoma surveillance surveys (TSS) to determine whether the prevalence of active trachoma has rebounded after interventions have halted. In some contexts, programs also conduct trachomatous trichiasis (TT)-only surveys. A few costing studies of trachoma prevalence surveys exist, but none examine TIS, TSS, or TT-only surveys.Methodology/principal findingsWe assessed the incremental financial cost to the national program of TIS, TSS, and TT-only surveys, which are standardized cluster-sampled prevalence surveys. We conducted a retrospective review of expenditures and grant disbursements for TIS and TSS in 322 evaluation units in 11 countries between 2011 and 2018. We also assessed the costs of three pilot and five standard TT-only surveys in four countries between 2017 and 2018. The median cost of TIS and TSS was $8,298 per evaluation unit [interquartile range (IQR): $6,532-$10,111, 2017 USD]. Based on a linear regression with bootstrapped confidence intervals, after controlling for country, costs per survey did not change significantly over time but did decline by $83 per survey implemented in a single round (95% CI: -$108 --$63). Of total costs, 80% went to survey fieldwork; of that, 58% went towards per diems and 38% towards travel. TT-only surveys cost a median of $9,707 (IQR: $8,537-$11,635); within a given country, they cost slightly more (106% [IQR: 94%-136%]) than TIS and TSS.Conclusions/significanceThe World Health Organization requires trachoma prevalence estimates for validating the elimination of trachoma as a public health problem. This study will help programs improve their planning as they assemble resources for that effort.

BACKGROUND:While some evidence supports the beneficial effects of integrating neglected tropical disease (NTD) programs to optimize coverage and reduce costs, there is minimal information regarding when or how to effectively operationalize program integration. The lack of systematic analyses of integration experiences and of integration processes may act as an impediment to achieving more effective NTD programming. We aimed to learn about the experiences of NTD stakeholders and their perceptions of integration. METHODOLOGY:We evaluated differences in the definitions, roles, perceived effectiveness, and implementation experiences of integrated NTD programs among a variety of NTD stakeholder groups, including multilateral organizations, funding partners, implementation partners, national Ministry of Health (MOH) teams, district MOH teams, volunteer rural health workers, and community members participating in NTD campaigns. Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted. Coding of themes involved a mix of applying in-vivo open coding and a priori thematic coding from a start list. FINDINGS:In total, 41 interviews were conducted. Salient themes varied by stakeholder, however dominant themes on integration included: significant variations in definitions, differential effectiveness of specific integrated NTD activities, community member perceptions of NTD programs, the influence of funders, perceived facilitators, perceived barriers, and the effects of integration on health system strength. In general, stakeholder groups provided unique perspectives, rather than contrarian points of view, on the same topics. The stakeholders identified more advantages to integration than disadvantages, however there are a number of both unique facilitators and challenges to integration from the perspective of each stakeholder group. CONCLUSIONS:Qualitative data suggest several structural, process, and technical opportunities that could be addressed to promote more effective and efficient integrated NTD elimination programs. We highlight a set of ten recommendations that may address stakeholder concerns and perceptions regarding these key opportunities. For example, public health stakeholders should embrace a broader perspective of community-based health needs, including and beyond NTDs, and available platforms for addressing those needs.