scholarly journals Evaluation of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a Community-delivered Integrated Malaria Elimination (CIME) model in Myanmar: protocol for an open stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e050400
Author(s):  
Win Han Oo ◽  
Aung Thi ◽  
Win Htike ◽  
Paul A Agius ◽  
Julia C Cutts ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn the Greater Mekong Subregion, community health workers, known as malaria volunteers, have played a key role in reducing malaria in the control phase, providing essential malaria services in areas with limited formal healthcare. However, the motivation and social role of malaria volunteers, and testing rates, have declined with decreasing malaria burden and reorientation of malaria programmes from control to elimination. Provision of additional interventions for common health concerns could help sustain the effectiveness of volunteers and maintain malaria testing rates required for malaria elimination accreditation by the WHO.Methods and analysisThe Community-delivered Integrated Malaria Elimination (CIME) volunteer model, integrating interventions for malaria, dengue, tuberculosis, childhood diarrhoea and malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT)-negative fever, was developed based on global evidence and extensive stakeholder consultations. An open stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial, randomised at the volunteer level, will be conducted over 6 months to evaluate the effectiveness of the CIME model in Myanmar. One hundred and forty Integrated Community Malaria Volunteers (ICMVs, current model of care) providing malaria services in 140 villages will be retrained as CIME volunteers (intervention). These 140 ICMVs/villages will be grouped into 10 blocks of 14 villages, with blocks transitioned from control (ICMV) to intervention states (CIME), fortnightly, in random order, following a 1-week training and transition period. The primary outcome of the trial is blood examination rate determined by the number of malaria RDTs performed weekly. Difference in rates will be estimated across village intervention and control states using a generalised linear mixed modelling analytical approach with maximum likelihood estimation.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by Institutional Review Board, Myanmar Department of Medical Research (Ethics/DMR/2020/111) and Alfred Hospital Ethics Review Committee, Australia (241/20). Findings will be disseminated in peer-review journals, conferences and regional, national and local stakeholder meetings.Trial registration numberNCT04695886

Author(s):  
Vicki Flenady ◽  
Glen Gardener ◽  
David Ellwood ◽  
Michael Coory ◽  
Megan Weller ◽  
...  

Objective The My Baby’s Movements (MBM) trial aimed to evaluate the impact on stillbirth rates of a multifaceted awareness package (MBM intervention). Design Stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting Twenty-seven maternity hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Population Women with a singleton pregnancy without major fetal anomaly ≥28 weeks’ gestation from August 2016-May 2019. Methods The MBM intervention was implemented at randomly assigned time points with sequential introduction into 8 clusters of 3-5 hospitals at four-monthly intervals. The stillbirth rate was compared in the control and intervention periods. Generalised linear mixed models controlled for calendar time, clustering, and hospital effects. Outcome Measures Stillbirth at ≥28 weeks’ gestation. Results There were 304,853 births with 290,219 meeting inclusion criteria: 150,079 in control and 140,140 in intervention periods. The stillbirth rate during the intervention was lower than the control period (2.2/1000 births versus 2.4, odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI] 0.78-1.06, p=0.22). The decrease was larger across calendar time with 2.7/1000 in the first 18 months versus 2.0/1000 in the last 18 months (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.86; p≤0.01). Following adjustment, stillbirth rates between the control and intervention periods were not significantly different: (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93-1.50; p=0.18). No increase in secondary outcomes, including obstetric intervention or adverse neonatal outcome, was evident. Conclusion The MBM intervention did not reduce stillbirths beyond the downward trend over time, suggesting hospitals may have implemented best practice in DFM management outside their randomisation schedule. The role of interventions for raising awareness of DFM remains unclear


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document