Objective The experiences of frontline healthcare professionals are essential in identifying strategies to mitigate the disruption to healthcare services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of TB and HIV professionals in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). Between May 12 and August 6, 2020, we collected qualitative and quantitative data using an online survey in 11 languages. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to analyse responses. Findings 669 respondents from 64 countries completed the survey. Over 40% stated that it was either impossible or much harder for TB and HIV patients to reach healthcare facilities since COVID-19. The most common barriers reported to affect patients were: fear of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2, transport disruptions and movement restrictions. 37% and 28% of responses about TB and HIV stated that healthcare provider access to facilities was also severely impacted. Strategies to address reduced transport needs and costs–including proactive coordination between the health and transport sector and cards that facilitate lower cost or easier travel—were presented in qualitative responses. Access to non-medical support for patients, such as food supplementation or counselling, was severely disrupted according to 36% and 31% of HIV and TB respondents respectively; qualitative data suggested that the need for such services was exacerbated. Conclusion Patients and healthcare providers across numerous LMIC faced substantial challenges in accessing healthcare facilities, and non-medical support for patients was particularly impacted. Synthesising recommendations of frontline professionals should be prioritised for informing policymakers and healthcare service delivery organisations.
BackgroundGlobal attention to antimicrobial resistance has increased interest in tackling the widespread inappropriate dispensing of antibiotics by informal, for-profit healthcare providers (HCPs). We provide new evidence on an understudied group of informal HCPs: invisible medicine sellers (IMS) who operate without any marked facility. We investigated factors that influence community decisions on which HCPs to purchase medicines from, focusing on reasons for using IMS, and compared different HCPs’ knowledge of antibiotic use.MethodsWe conducted community focus group discussions (FGDs) in seven purposively selected villages representing high and low informal HCPs use in two peri-urban districts in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Using information from the FGDs to identify HCPs that sell medicines, we interviewed 35 participants: 21 HCPs (including five IMS) and 14 key informants, including government HCPs and village leaders. We adopted an interpretative approach and conducted a thematic analysis.ResultsCommunity members typically knew of several formal and informal HCPs selling medicines nearby, and IMS were common, as were doctors that sell medicines covertly. Two factors were most salient in influencing the choice of HCP for medicine purchasing. The first was trust in the effectiveness of medicines provided, judged by the speed of symptomatic relief. This pushed HCPs to provide several medicines, including antibiotics, at the first consultation. The second was the convenience offered by IMS and other informal HCPs: supplying medicines when other facilities are closed, accepting delayed payments, providing incomplete courses of medication and selling human antibiotics for animal use.ConclusionThis first study focusing on IMS indicates that it is important, but challenging, for public health agencies to engage with them to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics. Although public health facilities must fill some gaps that informal HCPs are currently addressing, such as access to medicines at night, reducing demand for unnecessary antibiotics is also critical.
Background: Healthcare providers' (HCPs) professionalism refers to their commitment and ability to respond to the health needs of the communities they serve and to act in the best interest of patients. Despite attention to increasing the number of HCPs in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC), the quality of professional education delivered to HCPs and their resulting professionalism has been neglected. The Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) seeks to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics by urging patients to access antibiotics only through qualified HCPs, on the premise that qualified HCPs will act as more responsible and competent gatekeepers of access to antibiotics than unqualified HCPs. Methods: We investigate whether weaknesses in HCP professionalism result in boundaries between qualified HCPs and unqualified providers being blurred, and how these weaknesses impact inappropriate provision of antibiotics by HCPs in two LMIC with increasing AMR-Pakistan and Cambodia. We conducted 85 in-depth interviews with HCPs, policymakers, and pharmaceutical industry representatives. Our thematic analysis was based on a conceptual framework of four components of professionalism and focused on identifying recurring findings in both countries.Results: Despite many cultural and sociodemographic differences between Cambodia and Pakistan, there was a consistent finding that the behaviour of many qualified HCPs did not reflect their professional education. Our analysis identified five areas in which strengthening HCP education could enhance professionalism and reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics: updating curricula to better cover the need for appropriate use of antibiotics; imparting stronger communication skills to manage patient demand for medications; inculcating essential professional ethics; building skills required for effective collaboration between doctors, pharmacists, and lay HCPs; and ensuring access to (unbiased) continuing medical education.
Providers without formal training deliver healthcare and antibiotics across rural India, but little is known about the antibiotics that they stock. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of such informal providers (IPs) in two districts of West Bengal, and assessed the availability of the antibiotics, as well as their sales volumes, retail prices, percentage markups for IPs and affordability. Of the 196 IPs that stocked antibiotics, 85% stocked tablets, 74% stocked syrups/suspensions/drops and 18% stocked injections. Across all the IPs, 42 antibiotic active ingredients were stocked, which comprised 278 branded generics from 74 manufacturers. The top five active ingredients that were stocked were amoxicillin potassium clavulanate (52% of the IPs), cefixime (39%), amoxicillin (33%), azithromycin (25%) and ciprofloxacin (21%). By the WHO’s AWaRe classification, 71% of the IPs stocked an ACCESS antibiotic and 84% stocked a WATCH antibiotic. The median prices were in line with the government ceiling prices, but with substantial variation between the lowest and highest priced brands. The most affordable among the top five tablets were ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, cefixime and amoxicillin (US$ 0.8, 0.9, 1.9 and 1.9 per course), and the most affordable among the syrups/suspensions/drops were azithromycin and ofloxacin (US$ 1.7 and 4.5 per course, respectively), which are mostly WATCH antibiotics. IPs are a key source of healthcare and antibiotics in rural communities; practical interventions that target IPs need to balance restricting WATCH antibiotics and expanding the basket of affordable ACCESS antibiotics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.