What happens when the test is negative: Evaluating adherence to malaria diagnostic algorithms among under-five children in the Northern zone of Volta Region, Ghana
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: In Ghana, the Ministry of Health (MOH-GH) have recommended that every suspected malaria case is tested and treatment given should be based on test results. However, several patients are still given antimalarial drugs without confirmation of malaria. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of under-five children who received diagnosis of malaria from clinicians even when the test was negative for malaria.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was used which involved two randomly selected government-owned hospitals in the Northern zone of Volta region in Ghana. For each hospital, 439 under-five children participated in the study. Adherence to the malaria test results was based on the mRDT and expert microscopy test results in the selected hospitals.
Results: Of 878 eligible children screened, 615 (70.1%) tested negative for malaria. Out of the negative test results, 299 (48.6%) were with RDT and 316 (51.4%) with microcopy. 25 (8.4%) and 67 (21.2%) of the RDT and microscopy negative test results were still diagnosed with malaria and treated with antimalarial drugs respectively.
Conclusion and recommendation: Despite the institution of the guidelines for malaria case management, some clinicians still prescribe antimalarial drugs to children under five years with negative test results. There is need for enhanced training for health workers on adherence to malaria test results.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2020 D´Gmanyami JM, et al.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Licensing and protecting the author rights is the central aim and core of the publishing business. Peertechz dedicates itself in making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others while maintaining consistency with the rules of copyright. Peertechz licensing terms are formulated to facilitate reuse of the manuscripts published in journals to take maximum advantage of Open Access publication and for the purpose of disseminating knowledge.
We support 'libre' open access, which defines Open Access in true terms as free of charge online access along with usage rights. The usage rights are granted through the use of specific Creative Commons license.
Peertechz accomplice with- [CC BY 4.0]
Explanation
'CC' stands for Creative Commons license. 'BY' symbolizes that users have provided attribution to the creator that the published manuscripts can be used or shared. This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author.
Please take in notification that Creative Commons user licenses are non-revocable. We recommend authors to check if their funding body requires a specific license.
With this license, the authors are allowed that after publishing with Peertechz, they can share their research by posting a free draft copy of their article to any repository or website.
'CC BY' license observance:
|
License Name |
Permission to read and download |
Permission to display in a repository |
Permission to translate |
Commercial uses of manuscript |
|
CC BY 4.0 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
The authors please note that Creative Commons license is focused on making creative works available for discovery and reuse. Creative Commons licenses provide an alternative to standard copyrights, allowing authors to specify ways that their works can be used without having to grant permission for each individual request. Others who want to reserve all of their rights under copyright law should not use CC licenses.
WHO (2018) Malaria key facts. Link: https://bit.ly/2zrSVDL
Burchett HED, Leurent B, Baiden F, Baltzell K, Björkman A, et al. (2017) Improving prescribing practices with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs): synthesis of 10 studies to explore reasons for variation in malaria RDT uptake and adherence. BMJ Open 7: e012973. Link: https://bit.ly/2S8avTN
Nankabirwa J, Zurovac D, Njogu JN, Rwakimari JB, Counihan H, et al. (2009). Malaria misdiagnosis in Uganda – implications for policy change. Malaria Journal 8: 66. Link: https://bit.ly/3cMuoHS
USAID (2014) President ’ S Malaria Initiative Ghana Malaria Operational Plan FY 2014. Link: https://bit.ly/3aDPZkg
Manyando C, Njunju EM, Chileshe J, Siziya S, Shiff C (2014b) Rapid diagnostic tests for malaria and health workers’ adherence to test results at health facilities in Zambia. Malaria Journal 13: 166. Link: https://bit.ly/2KA2O4y
Chinkhumba J, Skarbinski J, Chilima B, Campbell C, Ewing V, et al. (2010b) Comparatorfield performance and adherence to test results of four malaria rapid diagnostic tests among febrile patients more than five years of age in Blantyre, Malawi. Malaria Journal 9: 209. Link: https://bit.ly/35buUNe
Ansah Evelyn K, Narh-Bana S, Epokor M, Akanpigbiam S, Quartey AA, et al. (2010) Rapid testing for malaria in settings where microscopy is available and peripheral clinics where only presumptive treatment is available: a randomised controlled trial in Ghana. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 340: c930. Link: https://bit.ly/2xOFPQN
Asiimwe C, Kyabayinze DJ, Kyalisiima Z, Nabakooza J, Bajabaite M, et al. (2012a) Early experiences on the feasibility, acceptability, and use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests at peripheral health centres in Uganda-insights into some barriers and facilitators. Implementation Science 7: 5. https://bit.ly/3bCtfCH
Mokuolu OA, Ajumobi OO, Ntadom GN, Adedoyin OT, Roberts AA, et al. (2018) Provider and patient perceptions of malaria rapid diagnostic test use in Nigeria: a cross-sectional evaluation. Malaria Journal 17: 200. Link: https://bit.ly/3bIqgZC