BackgroundIncreasing access to and targeting of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is a key component of malaria control programmes. To maximize efficacy of ACT and ensure adequate treatment outcomes, patient and caregiver adherence to treatment guidelines is essential. This review summarizes the current evidence base on ACT adherence, including definitions, measurement methods, and associated factors.MethodsA systematic search of the published literature was undertaken in November 2012 and updated in April 2013. Bibliographies of manuscripts were also searched and additional references identified. Studies were included if they involved at least one form of ACT and reported an adherence measurement.ResultsThe search yielded 1,412 records, 37 of which were found to measure adherence to ACT. Methods to measure adherence focused on self-report, pill counts and bioassays with varying definitions for adherence. Most studies only reported whether medication regimens were completed, but did not assess how the treatment was taken by the patient (i.e. timing, frequency and dose). Adherence data were available for four different ACT formulations: artemether-lumefantrine (AL) (range 39-100%), amodiaquine plus artesunate (AQ + AS) (range 48-94%), artesunate plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (AS + SP) (range 39-75%) and artesunate plus mefloquine (AS + MQ) (range 77-95%). Association between demographic factors, such as age, gender, education and socio-economic status and adherence to ACT regimens was not consistent. Some evidence of positive association between adherence and patient age, caregiver education levels, drug preferences, health worker instructions, patient/caregiver knowledge and drug packaging were also observed.ConclusionsThis review highlights the weak evidence base on ACT adherence. Results suggest that ACT adherence levels varied substantially between study populations, but comparison between studies was challenging due to differences in study design, definitions, and methods used to measure adherence. Standardising methodologies for both self-report and bioassays used for evaluating adherence of different formulations across diverse contexts would improve the evidence base on ACT adherence and effectiveness; namely, specific and measurable definitions for adherence are needed for both methodologies. Additionally, further studies of the individual factors and barriers associated with non-adherence to ACT are needed in order to make informed policy choices and to improve the delivery of effective malaria treatment.

This meeting report presents the key findings and discussion points of a 1-day meeting entitled ‘Fake anti-malarials: start with the facts’ held on 28th May 2015, in Geneva, Switzerland, to disseminate the findings of the artemisinin combination therapy consortium’s drug quality programme. The teams purchased over 10,000 samples, using representative sampling approaches, from six malaria endemic countries: Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Island), Cambodia, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania. Laboratory analyses of these samples showed that falsified anti-malarials (<8 %) were found in just two of the countries, whilst substandard artemisinin-based combinations were present in all six countries and, artemisinin-based monotherapy tablets are still available in some places despite the fact that the WHO has urged regulatory authorities in malaria-endemic countries to take measures to halt the production and marketing of these oral monotherapies since 2007. This report summarizes the presentations that reviewed the public health impact of falsified and substandard drugs, sampling strategies, techniques for drug quality analysis, approaches to strengthen health systems capacity for the surveillance of drug quality, and the ensuing discussion points from the dissemination meeting.

No abstract

BackgroundPatient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors.MethodsElectronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies assessing the impact of patient feedback on medical performance published in the English language between 2006-2016. Impact was defined as a measured change in behaviour using Barr’s (2000) adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level evaluation model. Papers were quality appraised, thematically analysed and synthesised using a narrative approach.ResultsFrom 1,269 initial studies, 20 articles were included (qualitative (n=8); observational (n=6); systematic review (n=3); mixed methodology (n=1); randomised control trial (n=1); and longitudinal (n=1) design). One article identified change at an organisational level (Kirkpatrick level 4); six reported a measured change in behaviour (Kirkpatrick level 3b); 12 identified self-reported change or intention to change (Kirkpatrick level 3a), and one identified knowledge or skill acquisition (Kirkpatrick level 2). No study identified a change at the highest level, an improvement in the health and wellbeing of patients. The main factors found to influence the impact of patient feedback were: specificity; perceived credibility; congruence with physician self-perceptions and performance expectations; presence of facilitation and reflection; and inclusion of narrative comments. The quality of feedback facilitation and local professional cultures also appeared integral to positive behaviour change.ConclusionPatient feedback can have an impact on medical performance. However, actionable change is influenced by several contextual factors and cannot simply be guaranteed. Patient feedback is likely to be more influential if it is specific, collected through credible methods and contains narrative information. Data obtained should be fed back in a way that facilitates reflective discussion and encourages the formulation of actionable behaviour change. A supportive cultural understanding of patient feedback and its intended purpose is also essential for its effective use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1277-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesThis study explores the barriers and facilitators that impact on the motivation of practitioners to participate in a quality improvement collaborative.DesignA qualitative and formative evaluation using a participatory approach, the researcher-in-residence model which embraces the concept of ‘coproducing’ knowledge between researchers and practitioners using a range of research methods such as participant observation, interviews and documentary analysis. The design, creation and application of newly generated evidence are facilitated by the researcher through negotiation and compromise with team members.ParticipantsSenior and middle managers, doctors and nurses.SettingTwo hospitals in Southeast England participating in a Patient Safety Improvement Collaborative and the facilitator (host) of the collaborative, based in Central London.ResultsThe evaluation has revealed facilitators and barriers to motivation categorised under two main themes: (1) inherent motivation and (2) factors that influence motivation, interorganisational and intraorganisational features as well as external factors. Facilitators included collaborative ‘champions,’ individuals who drove the quality improvement agenda at a local level, raising awareness and inspiring colleagues. The collaborative itself acted as a facilitator, promoting shared learning as well as building motivation for participation. A key barrier was the lack of board engagement in the participating National Health Service organisations which may have affected motivation among front-line staff.ConclusionsCollaboratives maybe an important way of engaging practitioners in quality improvement initiatives. This study highlights that despite a challenging healthcare environment in the UK, there remains motivation among individuals to participate in quality improvement programmes as they recognise that improvement approaches may facilitate positive change in local clinical processes and systems. Collaboratives can harness this individual motivation to facilitate spread and adoption of improvement methodology and build engagement across their membership.

Little is known about the quality of antibiotics despite being in high demand globally. Thirty five samples (27 brands) of the antibiotics amoxicillin (N = 20; 16 brands) and co-trimoxazole (N = 15; 11 brands), manufactured in six countries (China, Ghana, India, Ireland, Nigeria, and United Kingdom), were purchased in Ghana, Nigeria, and the United Kingdom. Their quality was assessed using German Pharma Health Fund (GPHF) MiniLab® as the screening tool—two capsules of amoxicillin (10%) and two tablets of co-trimoxazole (20%) failed the thin-layer chromatography (TLC) test. Definitive drug quality was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography–photodiode array detection (HPLC-PDA) for content of the stated active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and bioavailability was determined with in vitro dissolution testing. All the samples of amoxicillin complied with U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) tolerance limits, but 60% tablets of co-trimoxazole (purchased in Ghana and Nigeria) did not. There was disparity in the results obtained for co-trimoxazole and amoxicillin samples using the MiniLab® TLC tests. This highlights the need to invest in techniques such as HPLC-PDA and dissolution testing alongside the screening tests for assessing drug quality.

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) continues to develop as a central policy agenda in health care. The patient voice is seen as relevant, informative and can drive service improvement. However, critical exploration of PPI's role within monitoring and informing medical performance processes remains limited. Objective To explore and evaluate the contribution of PPI in medical performance processes to understand its extent, purpose and process. Search strategy The electronic databases PubMed, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were systematically searched for studies published between 2004 and 2018. Inclusion criteria Studies involving doctors and patients and all forms of patient input (eg, patient feedback) associated with medical performance were included. Data extraction and synthesis Using an inductive approach to analysis and synthesis, a coding framework was developed which was structured around three key themes: issues that shape PPI in medical performance processes; mechanisms for PPI; and the potential impacts of PPI on medical performance processes. Main results From 4772 studies, 48 articles (from 10 countries) met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that the extent of PPI in medical performance processes globally is highly variable and is primarily achieved through providing patient feedback or complaints. The emerging evidence suggests that PPI can encourage improvements in the quality of patient care, enable professional development and promote professionalism. Discussion and conclusions Developing more innovative methods of PPI beyond patient feedback and complaints may help revolutionize the practice of PPI into a collaborative partnership, facilitating the development of proactive relationships between the medical profession, patients and the public.

This paper contributes to the literature on ethics in Participatory Research by looking at the Researcher-in-Residence model and its application within health services research in three East London boroughs. The Researcher-in-Residence is embedded in the organisation to enable knowledge mobilisation and knowledge coproduction. Whereas negotiation of different types of expertise to coproduce evidence might raise issues of power differentials, the embedded nature of the role also requires careful negotiating of relationships. As the researcher is immersed in the context under evaluation, the boundaries between the researcher and the participants’ everyday working life can become blurred. The paper explores these ethical issues and suggests that, whereas the requirements of ethics committees, based on an ethics of principle, at times fail to offer appropriate guidelines for this methodological approach, an ethics of care based on relationships can offer a complementary framework to address some of the thorny challenges that emerge from everyday practice in participatory research.