BackgroundDiarrheal disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among children under five. Although oral rehydration solution (ORS) has tremendous therapeutic benefits, coverage of and demand for this product have remained low in many developing countries. This study surveyed caregivers and health care providers in India and Kenya to gather information about perceptions and use of various diarrhea treatments, assess reasons for low ORS use, and identify opportunities for expanding ORS use.MethodsThe project team conducted two rounds of semi–structured, quantitative surveys with more than 2000 caregivers in India and Kenya in 2012. A complementary survey covered more than 500 pharmacy staff and health care workers in both countries. In Kenya, the team also surveyed rural pharmacies to gather pricing and sales data.ResultsAlthough caregivers generally had very positive perceptions of ORS, they typically ranked antibiotics ahead of ORS as the strongest medicine for diarrhea (in India 62% ranked antibiotics first and 23% ranked ORS first, n = 404; in Kenya results were 55% and 29%, n = 401). Many caregivers had misconceptions about the purpose and effectiveness of various treatments. For example, most caregivers who gave ORS at last episode expected it to stop their child’s diarrhea (65% in India, n = 190; 73% in Kenya, n = 154). There were noteworthy differences between India and Kenya in the selection and sourcing of treatments. Much of the money spent by families during the last episode of diarrhea was for inappropriate treatments. This was especially true in India, where rural households typically spent US$ 2.29 (median for the 79% of rural households that paid for health care services or treatments, n = 199) with most of this going to pay fees of private health workers and/or for antibiotics.ConclusionsCaregivers’ primary treatment goal is to stop diarrhea, and many believe that antibiotics or ORS will accomplish this goal. Inappropriate treatment – and especially overuse of antibiotics – is common. Satisfaction with ORS is high, but dosing is a challenge for caregivers. The results provide valuable insight into treatment behaviors and suggest significant opportunities to enhance use of ORS in developing countries.

Background: Knowledge about the travel-associated risks of hepatitis A and B, and the extent of pre-travel health-advice being sought may vary between countries.Methods: An online survey was undertaken to assess the awareness, advice-seeking behaviour, rates of vaccination against hepatitis A and B and adherence rates in Australia, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the UK and Canada between August and October 2014. Individuals aged 18–65 years were screened for eligibility based on: travel to hepatitis A and B endemic countries within the past 3 years, awareness of hepatitis A, and/or combined hepatitis A&B vaccines; awareness of their self-reported vaccination status and if vaccinated, vaccination within the last 3 years. Awareness and receipt of the vaccines, sources of advice, reasons for non-vaccination, adherence to recommended doses and the value of immunization reminders were analysed.Results: Of 27 386 screened travellers, 19 817 (72%) were aware of monovalent hepatitis A or combined A&B vaccines. Of these 13 857 (70%) had sought advice from a healthcare provider (HCP) regarding combined hepatitis A&B or monovalent hepatitis A vaccination, and 9328 (67%) were vaccinated. Of 5225 individuals eligible for the main survey (recently vaccinated = 3576; unvaccinated = 1649), 27% (841/3111) and 37% (174/465) of vaccinated travellers had adhered to the 3-dose combined hepatitis A&B or 2-dose monovalent hepatitis A vaccination schedules, respectively. Of travellers partially vaccinated against combined hepatitis A&B or hepatitis A, 84% and 61%, respectively, believed that they had received the recommended number of doses.Conclusions: HCPs remain the main source of pre-travel health advice. The majority of travellers who received monovalent hepatitis A or combined hepatitis A&B vaccines did not complete the recommended course. These findings highlight the need for further training of HCPs and the provision of reminder services to improve traveller awareness and adherence to vaccination schedules.

BackgroundMore than 500 000 young children die from dehydration caused by severe diarrhea each year, globally. Although routine use of oral rehydration solution (ORS) could prevent almost all of these deaths, ORS utilization remains low in many low–income countries. Previous research has suggested that misperceptions among caregivers may be an obstacle to wider use of ORS.MethodsTo better understand the extent of ORS utilization and the reasons for use or non–use in low–resource settings, the project team conducted a semi–structured, quantitative survey of 400 caregivers in Burkina Faso in 2014. All caregivers had a child below the age of five who had diarrhea lasting 2 days or more in the previous 2 months.ResultsAlthough more than 80% of caregivers were aware of ORS, less than half reported using it to treat their child’s diarrhea. Replacing fluids lost due to diarrhea was considered a low priority by most caregivers, and many said they considered antibiotics more effective for treating diarrhea. Users and non–users of ORS held substantially different perceptions of the product, though all caregivers tended to follow recommendations of health care workers. A significant proportion of users reported difficulty in getting a child to drink ORS. Costs and access to ORS were not found to be significant barriers to use.ConclusionsMisperceptions among caregivers and health workers contribute to low utilization of ORS. Better caregiver understanding of diarrheal disease and the importance of rehydration, as well as increased recommendation by health workers, will help to increase ORS utilization. Improving product presentation and taste will also help to increase use.

BackgroundIn 2004, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised their recommendations for management of acute diarrhea in children to include zinc treatment as well as oral rehydration solution (ORS). Little is known about how caregivers in low–resource settings perceive and use zinc treatment.MethodsUsing a semi–structured quantitative survey, we interviewed Kenyan caregivers who had used zinc to treat children aged 6–60 months with an episode of diarrhea during the previous 6 months. The survey asked about experience using zinc, compliance with course and dosing regimens, and the attributes of zinc compared with other treatments. We surveyed a quota sample of 100 women from several communities where zinc treatment was available, primarily through public sector providers.ResultsThe mean duration of the reference diarrhea episode was 5.3 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.7–5.9). Eighty–two respondents had used zinc tablets, and 18 had given zinc syrup. Among those who used tablets, 62% reported giving zinc for fewer than the recommended 10 days, with a mean of 6.8 days (95% CI 6.1–7.4 days), and 50% said they had been instructed to give zinc for 5 days or less. Also, only 55% gave the correct daily dose. When asked about other treatments, 64% of the respondents reported using antibiotics, 59% ORS, and 56% a homemade remedy. Among the zinc tablet users, 55% provided zinc as the 3rd or 4th treatment for the reference episode. Also, 75% of respondents reported receiving the zinc treatment free of charge. Caregivers reported a very high level of satisfaction with zinc treatment, with 88% indicating that zinc (either in tablet or syrup form) was their most preferred treatment.ConclusionsDespite the potential benefits of zinc for children with acute diarrhea in low–resource settings, treatment regimens remain unwieldy and unrealistic, perhaps unnecessarily. Furthermore, the availability of zinc is limited primarily to public–sector providers. Increasing access to this treatment beyond the public clinic or hospital may accelerate uptake and sustained use.

BackgroundExtensive global experience shows that rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) through vaccination is effective and well tolerated, yet many travellers opt not to be vaccinated when travelling to rabies-endemic countries. Previous research has identified several factors influencing the choices travellers make to reduce the risk of rabies, including cost, time constraint and perspective on the importance of vaccination. The objectives of this study were to assess travellers’ awareness of rabies and advice-seeking attitudes and to evaluate travel clinics practices regarding rabies pre-travel advice.MethodsWe surveyed individuals aged 18–65 years residing in the UK, Germany, Canada and Sweden who had travelled to rabies-endemic countries between 2013 and 2016 and defined this as the rabies visit-risk sample. The first 850 respondents from the visit-risk sample who had undertaken pre-defined at-risk activities (e.g. contact with animals during the trip) completed an additional 15-min online questionnaire and were included in the activity-risk subsample. We also interviewed travel clinic personnel using a 25-min online or phone questionnaire.ResultsThe visit-risk sample included 4678 individuals. Many sought pre-travel health information online (33%) or talked to a family doctor (24%). Within the activity-risk subsample, 83% of travellers were aware of at least a few basic facts about rabies, and 84% could identify at least one correct rabies prevention measure; 49% were aware of a rabies vaccine, however, only 8% reported receiving PrEP vaccination within the past 3 years. Among 180 travel clinic respondents, 21% reported recommending PrEP against rabies to all travellers to rabies-endemic countries. Travel clinics estimated that 81% of travellers complete their travel vaccination schedules and reported sending reminders by e-mails (38%), text (38%), phone calls (37%) or by using vaccination cards (37%).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that although travellers had frequently heard of rabies, awareness of the risks of this serious infectious disease was relatively low.