Background
An essential means to control malaria is diagnosing suspected patients with a confirmatory test, treatment of malaria confirmed cases, and proper case registration (track). In 2011, the Ministry of Health launched a country-wide malaria Test, Treat and Track policy. We assessed implementation of the malaria Test, Treat and Track policy in Gulu district, Uganda.
Methods
This was a cross sectional study conducted in 8 health facilities in Gulu district. We abstracted data from out-patient and laboratory register from January 2019 to December, 2019. We used a chi-square test to assess differences between levels of categorical variables. We considered a p-value of less 0.05 as cut off for statistical significance. We used Bland-Altman correlation analysis to quantify the numerical consistency between the aggregated malaria cases in out-patient registers, laboratory registers, and District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2) records for Gulu district. We used logistic regression to assess factors associated with the proportion of cases suspected, tested, confirmed and treated.
Results
The proportion of suspected malaria cases that were tested for malaria was 99.8%, and the proportion of confirmed malaria cases that were treated with antimalarials was 99.9%. There was a poor correlation 0.558(95%CI = 0.319–0.797), when the number of malaria cases recorded in out-patient department (OPD) registers were compared with the number of malaria cases reported in DHIS2 and substantial correlation 0.99(95%CI = 0.997-1.000), when malaria cases recorded in laboratory register were compared to malaria cases reported in DHIS2. There was a significant statistical difference in the proportion of confirmed malaria cases treated with antimalarials across different levels of health facilities − 0.015(95%CI=-0.027-0.003) (p < 0.016) and when health facilities were disaggregated by their location, 0.020(95%CI = 0.020 − 0.013) (p < 0.004).
Conclusion
Substantial compliance was observed in testing and treatment of malaria cases. However, malaria data reported in DHIS2 was not consistent with data recorded in HMIS registers at health facilities. There is a need to conduct capacity-building on malaria data management and integrated supportive supervision, as well as develop standard operating procedures for routine data management activities.