Oral Rehydration Solution Coverage Research Articles

Oral rehydration solution coverage in under 5 children with diarrhea: a tri-country, subnational, cross-sectional comparative analysis of two demographic health surveys cycles

BackgroundMore than 3 million children under 5 years in developing countries die from dehydration due to diarrhea, a preventable and treatable disease. We conducted a comparative analysis of two Demographic Health Survey (DHS) cycles to examine changes in ORS coverage in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi. These surveys are cross-sectional conducted on a representative sample of the non-institutionalized individuals.MethodsThe sample is drawn using a stratified two-stage cluster sampling design with census enumeration areas, typically, selected first as primary sampling units (PSUs) and then a fixed number of households from each PSU. We examined national and sub-regional prevalence of ORS use during a recent episode of diarrhea (within 2 weeks of survey) using DHSs for 2007–2010 (1st Period), and 2013–2016 (2nd Period). Weighted proportions of ORS were obtained and multivariable- design-adjusted logistic regression analysis was used to obtain Odds Ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and weighted proportions of ORS coverage.ResultsCrude ORS coverage increased from 21.0% (95% CI: 17.4–24.9) in 1st Period to 40.5% (36.5–44.6) in 2nd Period in Zimbabwe; increased from 60.8% (56.1–65.3) to 64.7% (61.8–67.5) in Zambia; and decreased from 72.3% (68.4–75.9) to 64.6% (60.9–68.1) in Malawi. The rates of change in coverage among provinces in Zimbabwe ranged from 10.3% over the three cycles (approximately 10 years) in Midlands to 44.2% in Matabeleland South; in Zambia from − 9.5% in Eastern Province to 24.4% in Luapula; and in Malawi from − 16.5% in the Northern Province to − 3.2% in Southern Province. The aORs for ORS use was 3.95(2.66–5.86) for Zimbabwe, 2.83 (2.35–3.40) for Zambia, and, 0.71(0.59–0.87) for Malawi.ConclusionORS coverage increased in Zimbabwe, stagnated in Zambia, but declined in Malawi. Monitoring national and province-level trends of ORS use illuminates geographic inequalities and helps identify priority areas for targeting resource allocation.. Provision of safe drinking-water, adequate sanitation and hygiene will help reduce the causes and the incidence of diarrhea. Health policies to strengthen access to appropriate treatments such as vaccines for rotavirus and cholera and promoting use of ORS to reduce the burden of diarrhea should be developed and implemented.

Strong community-based health systems and national governance predict improvement in coverage of oral rehydration solution (ORS): a multilevel longitudinal model.

Diarrheal disease remains a leading cause of child death globally, especially in low and middle-income countries. Use of oral rehydration solution (ORS) for treatment of diarrhea in children, a very cost-effective intervention, remains below 50% in many countries. Here we use a multi-level longitudinal model to reveal important predictors of ORS use at the national level. The findings suggest that increasing government effectiveness along with increased implementation and affordability of community-based health programs can lead to substantial increases in ORS use. Key informant interviews with national health leaders in countries that significantly improved ORS coverage support these quantitative findings.

Developing a scorecard to assess global progress in scaling up diarrhea control tools: a qualitative study of academic leaders and implementers.

BackgroundIn 2010, diarrhea caused 0.75 million child deaths, accounting for nearly 12% of all under-five mortality worldwide. Many evidence-based interventions can reduce diarrhea mortality, including oral rehydration solution (ORS), zinc, and improved sanitation. Yet global coverage levels of such interventions remain low. A new scorecard of diarrhea control, showing how different countries are performing in their control efforts, could draw greater attention to the low coverage levels of proven interventions.MethodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 21 experts, purposively sampled for their relevant academic or implementation expertise, to explore their views on (a) the value of a scorecard of global diarrhea control and (b) which indicators should be included in such a scorecard. We then conducted a ranking exercise in which we compiled a list of all 49 indicators suggested by the experts, sent the list to the 21 experts, and asked them to choose 10 indicators that they would include and 10 that they would exclude from such a scorecard. Finally, we created a “prototype” scorecard based on the 9 highest-ranked indicators.ResultsKey themes that emerged from coding the interview transcripts were: a scorecard could facilitate country comparisons; it could help to identify best practices, set priorities, and spur donor action; and it could help with goal-setting and accountability in diarrhea control. The nine highest ranking indicators, in descending order, were ORS coverage, rotavirus vaccine coverage, zinc coverage, diarrhea-specific mortality rate, diarrhea prevalence, proportion of population with access to improved sanitation, proportion with access to improved drinking water, exclusive breastfeeding coverage, and measles vaccine coverage.ConclusionA new scorecard of global diarrhea control could help track progress, focus prevention and treatment efforts on the most effective interventions, establish transparency and accountability, and alert donors and ministries of health to inadequacies in diarrhea control efforts.

Scaling up access to oral rehydration solution for diarrhea: Learning from historical experience in low- and high-performing countries.

AimThis paper aims to identify factors that systematically predict why some countries that have tried to scale up oral rehydration solution (ORS) have succeeded, and others have not.MethodsWe examined ORS coverage over time, across countries, and through case studies. We conducted expert interviews and literature and data searches to better understand the history of ORS scale–up efforts and why they failed or succeeded in nine countries. We used qualitative, pairwise (or three–country) comparisons of geographically or otherwise similar countries that had different outcomes in terms of ORS scale–up. An algorithm was developed which scored country performance across key supply, demand and financing activities to quantitatively assess the scale–up efforts in each country.ResultsThe vast majority of countries have neither particularly low nor encouragingly high ORS use rates. We observed three clearly identifiable contrasts between countries that achieved and sustained high ORS coverage and those that did not. Key partners across sectors have critical roles to play to effectively address supply– and demand–side barriers. Efforts must synchronize demand generation, private provider outreach and public sector work. Many donor funds are either suspended or redirected in the event of political instability, exacerbating the health challenges faced by countries in these contexts. We found little information on the cost of scale–up efforts.ConclusionsWe identified a number of characteristics of successful ORS scale–up programs, including involvement of a broad range of key players, addressing supply and demand generation together, and working with both public and private sectors. Dedicated efforts are needed to launch and sustain success, including monitoring and evaluation plans to track program costs and impacts. These case studies were designed to inform programmatic decision–making; thus, rigorous academic methods to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate country ORS scale–up programs might yield additional, critical insights and confirm our conclusions.