Title |
Private sector malaria RDT initiative in Nigeria: lessons from an end-of-project stakeholder engagement meeting
|
---|---|
Published in |
Malaria Journal, February 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12936-018-2222-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Babatunde Odugbemi, Chijioke Ezeudu, Anyiekere Ekanem, Maxwell Kolawole, Idowu Akanmu, Aderemi Olawole, Nkabono Nglass, Chinwe Nze, Edward Idenu, Bala Mohammed Audu, Godwin Ntadom, Wondimagegnehu Alemu, Rex Mpazanje, Jane Cunningham, Augustine Akubue, Tolu Arowolo, Seye Babatunde |
Abstract |
The malaria rapid diagnosis testing (RDT) landscape is rapidly evolving in health care delivery in Nigeria with many stakeholders playing or having potential for critical roles. A recent UNITAID grant supported a pilot project on the deployment of quality-assured RDTs among formal and informal private service outlets in three states in Nigeria. This paper describes findings from a series of stakeholder engagement meetings held at the conclusion of the project. The agreed meeting structure was a combination of plenary presentations, structured facilitated discussions, and nominal group techniques to achieve consensus. Rapporteurs recorded the meeting proceeding and summaries of the major areas of discussion and consensus points through a retrospective thematic analysis of the submitted meeting reports. Key findings indicate that private providers were confident in the use of RDTs for malaria diagnosis and believed it has improved the quality of their services. However, concerns were raised about continued access to quality-assured RDT kits. Going forward, stakeholders recommended increasing client-driven demand, and continuous training and supervision of providers through integration with existing monitoring and supervision mechanisms. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
Nigeria | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 15% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 13% |
Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
Other | 8 | 17% |
Unknown | 13 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 25% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
Other | 8 | 17% |
Unknown | 15 | 31% |