The social dimensions of community delivery of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

INTRODUCTION

Intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulphadoxine pyrimethamine (IPTp) is a key malaria prevention strategy in sub-Saharan African countries. We conducted an anthropological study as part of a project aiming to evaluate a community-based approach to the delivery of IPTp (C-IPTp) through community health workers (CHWs) in four countries (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, Mozambique and Nigeria), to understand the social context in order to identify key factors that could influence C-IPTp acceptability.

METHODS

A total of 796 in-depth interviews and 265 focus group discussions were undertaken between 2018 and 2021 in the four countries with pregnant women, women of reproductive age, traditional and facility-based healthcare providers, community leaders, and relatives of pregnant women. These were combined with direct observations (388) including both community-based and facility-based IPTp delivery. Grounded theory guided the overall study design and data collection, and data were analysed following a combination of content and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A series of key factors were found to influence acceptability, delivery and uptake of C-IPTp in project countries. Cross-cutting findings include the alignment of the strategy with existing social norms surrounding pregnancy and maternal health-seeking practices, the active involvement of influential and trusted actors in implementation activities, existing and sustained trust in CHWs, the influence of husbands and other relatives in pregnant women's care-seeking decision-making, the working conditions of CHWs, pregnant women's perceptions of SP for IPTp and persistent barriers to facility-based antenatal care access.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide evidence on the reported acceptability of C-IPTp among a wide range of actors, as well as the barriers and facilitators for delivery and uptake of the intervention. Overall, C-IPTp was accepted by the targeted communities, supporting the public health value of community-based interventions, although the barriers identified should be examined if large-scale implementation of the intervention is considered.

Reactive, self-administered malaria treatment against asymptomatic malaria infection: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial in The Gambia

BACKGROUND

Selectively targeting and treating malaria-infected individuals may further decrease parasite carriage in low-burden settings. Using a trans-disciplinary approach, a reactive treatment strategy to reduce Plasmodium falciparum prevalence in participating communities was co-developed and tested.

METHODS

This is a 2-arm, open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving villages in Central Gambia during the 2017 and 2018 malaria transmission season. Villages were randomized in a 1:1 ratio using a minimizing algorithm. In the intervention arm, trained village health workers delivered a full course of pre-packed dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to all residents of compounds where clinical cases were reported while in the control arm, compound residents were screened for infection at the time of the index case reporting. All index cases were treated following national guidelines. The primary endpoint was malaria prevalence, determined by molecular methods, at the end of the intervention period.

RESULTS

The trial was carried out in 50 villages: 34 in 2017 and 16 additional villages in 2018. At the end of the 2018 transmission season, malaria prevalence was 0.8% (16/1924, range 0-4%) and 1.1% (20/1814, range 0-17%) in the intervention and control arms, respectively. The odds of malaria infection were 29% lower in the intervention than in the control arm after adjustment for age (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.27-1.84, p = 0.48). Adherence to treatment was high, with 98% (964/979) of those treated completing the 3-day treatment. Over the course of the study, only 37 villages, 20 in the intervention and 17 in the control arm, reported at least one clinical case. The distribution of clinical cases by month in both transmission seasons was similar and the odds of new clinical malaria cases during the trial period did not vary between arms (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57-1.91, p = 0.893). All adverse events were classified as mild to moderate and resolved completely.

CONCLUSION

The systematic and timely administration of an anti-malarial treatment to residents of compounds with confirmed malaria cases did not significantly decrease malaria prevalence and incidence in communities where malaria prevalence was already low. Treatment coverage and adherence was very high. Results were strongly influenced by the lower-than-expected malaria prevalence, and by no clinical cases in villages with asymptomatic malaria-infected individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02878200. Registered 25 August 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02878200 .