Search

BACKGROUND: In Madagascar, the districts of Antsirabe II, Faratsiho and Antsiranana I have relatively low malaria incidence rates and have been selected by the National Malaria Control Programme for pilot elimination strategies. The districts have residual transmission despite increasing coverage and quality of malaria services. This study sought to identify priority subpopulations at highest risk for malaria and collect information on intervention preferences and methods that will inform subnational tailoring of malaria service delivery. METHODS: This mixed methods study employed (i) a quantitative malaria risk factor assessment in Antsirabe II and Faratsiho comprising a test-negative frequency matched case-control study and a qualitative risk factor assessment in Antsiranana I; and (ii) a qualitative formative assessment in all three districts. For the case-control study, a mixed effects logistic regression was used with age, sex and district included as fixed effects and health facility included as a random effect. The qualitative risk factor assessment used semi-structured interview guides and key informant interviews. For the qualitative formative assessment in the three districts, a summary report was generated following semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with high-risk populations (HRPs) and stakeholders. RESULTS: In Antsirabe II and Faratsiho districts, rice agriculture workers, outdoor/manual workers, particularly miners, and those with jobs that required travel or overnight stays, especially itinerant vendors, had higher odds of malaria infection compared to other (non-rice) agricultural workers. In Antsiranana I, respondents identified non-rice farmers, mobile vendors, and students as HRPs. Risk factors among these groups included overnight stays and travel patterns combined with a lack of malaria prevention tools. HRPs reported treatment cost and distance to the health facility as barriers to care and expressed interest in presumptive treatment and involvement of gatekeepers or people who have influence over intervention access or participation. CONCLUSIONS: The study results illustrate the value of in-depth assessments of risk behaviours, access to services and prevention tools, surveillance and prevention strategies, and the involvement of gatekeepers in shaping subnational tailoring to reach previously unreached populations and address residual transmission in elimination settings.

Abstract Background In Madagascar, the districts of Antsirabe II, Faratsiho and Antsiranana I have relatively low malaria incidence rates and have been selected by the National Malaria Control Programme for pilot elimination strategies. The districts have residual transmission despite increasing coverage and quality of malaria services. This study sought to identify priority subpopulations at highest risk for malaria and collect information on intervention preferences and methods that will inform subnational tailoring of malaria service delivery. Methods This mixed methods study employed (i) a quantitative malaria risk factor assessment in Antsirabe II and Faratsiho comprising a test-negative frequency matched case–control study and a qualitative risk factor assessment in Antsiranana I; and (ii) a qualitative formative assessment in all three districts. For the case–control study, a mixed effects logistic regression was used with age, sex and district included as fixed effects and health facility included as a random effect. The qualitative risk factor assessment used semi-structured interview guides and key informant interviews. For the qualitative formative assessment in the three districts, a summary report was generated following semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with high-risk populations (HRPs) and stakeholders. Results In Antsirabe II and Faratsiho districts, rice agriculture workers, outdoor/manual workers, particularly miners, and those with jobs that required travel or overnight stays, especially itinerant vendors, had higher odds of malaria infection compared to other (non-rice) agricultural workers. In Antsiranana I, respondents identified non-rice farmers, mobile vendors, and students as HRPs. Risk factors among these groups included overnight stays and travel patterns combined with a lack of malaria prevention tools. HRPs reported treatment cost and distance to the health facility as barriers to care and expressed interest in presumptive treatment and involvement of gatekeepers or people who have influence over intervention access or participation. Conclusions The study results illustrate the value of in-depth assessments of risk behaviours, access to services and prevention tools, surveillance and prevention strategies, and the involvement of gatekeepers in shaping subnational tailoring to reach previously unreached populations and address residual transmission in elimination settings.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antiretroviral therapy (ART) has the potential to change the lives of people living with HIV (PLWH). To ensure equitable access to new treatment modalities, we examined the feasibility and acceptability of administering Cabotegravir Rilpivirine Long Acting (CAB/RPV LA) to individuals who experience challenging social determinants of health (SDoH) and struggle with adherence to traditional oral ART. Quantitative and qualitative data were used to assess feasibility of utilizing ART at alternative clinic. Data were collected on individuals eligible to receive CAB/RPV LA at an alternative street-based clinic and on individuals receiving CAB/RPV LA at a traditional HIV clinic. After 6 months, participants were interviewed about their experience. Providers involved in the implementation were also interviewed about their experiences. Only one participant (out of 5) who received CAB/RPV LA at the alternative clinic received consistent treatment, whereas 17 out of 18 participants receiving CAB/RPV LA at the traditional clinic site were adherent. Participants and providers believed that LAI had potential for making treatment adherence easier, but identified several barriers, including discrepancies between patients' desires and their lifestyles, impact of LAI on interactions with the medical system, risk of resistance accompanying sub-optimal adherence, and need for a very high level of resources. While LAI has major potential benefits for high-risk patients, these benefits must be balanced with the complexities of implementation. Despite challenges that impacted study outcomes, improving treatment outcomes for PLWH requires addressing SDoH and substance use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]