Abstract

BackgroundAffecting mother and child, malaria during pregnancy (MiP) provokes a double morbidity and mortality burden. Within a package of interventions to prevent MiP in endemic areas, the WHO currently recommends intermittent preventive treatment (IPTp). Concerns about anti-malarial resistance have however prompted interest in intermittent screening and treating (IST) as an alternative approach to IPTp. IST involves screening for malaria infection at scheduled antenatal care (ANC) clinic visits and treating malaria cases. In light of the need to comprehensively evaluate new interventions prior to roll out, this article explores the acceptability of IST with artemether-lumefantrine (AL) compared to IPTp with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) and in Upper East Region, northern Ghana.MethodsData were collected alongside an open-label, randomized, controlled trial of IST-AL and IPTp-SP in Kassena-Nankana District. Thirty pregnant women enrolled in the clinical trial participated in six focus group discussions. Ten in-depth interviews were carried out with clinical trial staff. Observations were also made at the health facilities where the clinical trial took place.ResultsTrial participants were generally willing to endure the discomfort of the finger prick necessary for a rapid diagnostic test for malaria and this reflected a wider demand for diagnostic techniques. Reports of side effects were however linked to both trial anti-malarials. Direct complaints about SP were particularly severe with regard to women’s experience of vomiting. Although the follow-up treatment doses of AL for IST were not supervised, based on blister inspection and questioning trial, staff were confident about participants’ adherence to the treatment course. One case of partial adherence to the AL treatment course was reported.ConclusionDespite the discomfort of the finger prick required to perform the intermittent malaria screening, trial participants generally expressed more positive sentiments towards IST-AL than IPTp-SP. Nonetheless, questions remain about adherence to a multiple dose anti-malarial regimen during pregnancy, particularly in endemic areas where MiP is often non-symptomatic. Any implementation of IST must be accompanied by appropriate health messages on adherence and the necessary training for health staff regarding case management.

Highlights

  • Affecting mother and child, malaria during pregnancy (MiP) provokes a double morbidity and mortality burden

  • To explore the acceptability of intermittent screening and treating (IST) compared to IPTp-SP in Upper East Region, northeastern Ghana, this study describes and analyses the attitudes and behaviours of pregnant women related to these interventions when delivered as part of a clinical trial

  • Screening for malaria The rapid diagnostic test (RDT) used to diagnose malaria amongst trial participants entailed blood samples being drawn via finger prick

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Malaria during pregnancy (MiP) provokes a double morbidity and mortality burden. Malaria during pregnancy (MiP) is a major global health concern [1,2] It provokes a double burden of morbidity and mortality because it affects both mother and child, in endemic regions of sub-Saharan Africa [1]. It compounds or provokes maternal anaemia, which, when severe, increases the risk of maternal death and it has been estimated that, globally, malaria-related anaemia causes around 10,000 maternal deaths each year [3]. Increasing resistance poses questions about its continued efficacy [7], sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is currently used for IPTp in many sub-Saharan African countries [8]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call