Malaria case-management under artemether-lumefantrine treatment policy in Uganda

• Published in: Malaria Journal
• Main Authors: Ssekitooleko James, Nankabirwa Joan, Tibenderana James K, Zurovac Dejan, Njogu Julius N, Rwakimari John B, Meek Sylvia, Talisuna Ambrose, Snow Robert W
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2008
• Subjects: Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Infectious and parasitic diseases; RC109-216; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-7-181; https://doaj.org/article/b99de09c6a6d4e7ba936365293e34c7e

Abstract Background Case-management with artemether-lumefantrine (AL) is one of the key strategies to control malaria in many African countries. Yet, the reports on translation of AL implementation activities into clinical practice are scarce. Here the quality of AL case-management is reported from Uganda; approximately one year after AL replaced combination of chloroquine and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (CQ+SP) as recommended first line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. Methods A cross-sectional survey, using a range of quality of care assessment tools, was undertaken at all government and private-not-for-profit facilities in four Ugandan districts. Main outcome measures were AL prescribing, dispensing and counseling practices in comparison with national guidelines, and factors influencing health workers decision to 1) treat for malaria, and 2) prescribe AL. Results 195 facilities, 232 health workers and 1,763 outpatient consultations were evaluated. Of 1,200 patients who needed treatment with AL according to guidelines, AL was prescribed for 60%, CQ+SP for 14%, quinine for 4%, CQ for 3%, other antimalarials for 3%, and 16% of patients had no antimalarial drug prescribed. AL was prescribed in the correct dose for 95% of patients. Only three out of seven AL counseling and dispensing tasks were performed for more than 50% of patients. Patients were more likely to be treated for malaria if they presented with main complaint of fever (OR = 5.22; 95% CI: 3.61–7.54) and if they were seen by supervised health workers (OR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.06–2.50); however less likely if they were treated by more qualified health workers (OR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40–0.93) and presented with skin problem (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15–0.55). AL was more likely prescribed if the appropriate weight-specific AL pack was in stock (OR = 6.15; 95% CI: 3.43–11.05) and when CQ was absent (OR = 2.16; 95% CI: 1.09–4.28). Routine AL implementation activities were not associated with better performance. Conclusion Although the use of AL was predominant ...