Provider perspectives on service delivery modifications to maintain access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative results from a PrEP implementation project in Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an essential prevention strategy being scaled up for priority populations in Kenya, including for HIV serodiscordant couples. The COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges to PrEP rollout. We conducted a qualitative study of PrEP providers to understand how clinics adjusted PrEP delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Since 2017, the Partners Scale-Up Project has integrated PrEP into 25 HIV clinics in Central and Western Kenya. We conducted qualitative interviews with 40 purposively sampled clinic personnel. We interviewed personnel once during the first pandemic wave (May-Aug 2020) and again after some decline in COVID-19 rates (Nov-Jan 2021). We analysed data using inductive memo-writing and summarized data by themes along the PrEP delivery cascade, guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptation and Modifications (FRAME). RESULTS: We interviewed 27 clinical officers, five nurses, four health records and information officers, and four counsellors from Central (n = 20) and Western (n = 20) Kenya. About half (n = 19) were female, with a median age of 32 (IQR: 29-34) and 2.3 years of experience delivering PrEP (IQR: 2-3). All participants reported clinic changes in PrEP demand creation and service delivery during the pandemic. Modifications occurred during PrEP implementation and sustainment phases, were partly reactive to the pandemic and also facilitated by interim Ministry of Health guidance on PrEP delivery during COVID, and were made by PrEP delivery teams, clients and clinic managers. Commonly reported modifications included dispensing multiple-month PrEP refills, intensifying phone-based client engagement and collaborating with other HIV clinics to ensure that clients with prolonged stays in other regions could continue to access PrEP. Some clinics also adopted practices to streamline visits, such as within clinical-room PrEP dispensing, pre-packing PrEP and task-shifting. Most providers liked these changes and hoped they would continue after the pandemic subsides. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 served as a catalyst for PrEP delivery innovations in Kenya. HIV clinics successfully and rapidly adapted their PrEP demand creation, refill and retention strategies to promote PrEP uptake and effective use. These modified implementation strategies highlight opportunities to streamline the delivery of PrEP, as well as other HIV and chronic care services, and strengthen engagement with populations post-pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence in Malawi Based on Data from Survey of Communities and Health Workers in 5 High-Burden Districts, October 2020.

To determine early COVID-19 burden in Malawi, we conducted a multistage cluster survey in 5 districts. During October-December 2020, we recruited 5,010 community members (median age 32 years, interquartile range 21-43 years) and 1,021 health facility staff (HFS) (median age 35 years, interquartile range 28-43 years). Real-time PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence was 0.3% (95% CI 0.2%-0.5%) among community and 0.5% (95% CI 0.1%-1.2%) among HFS participants; seroprevalence was 7.8% (95% CI 6.3%-9.6%) among community and 9.7% (95% CI 6.4%-14.5%) among HFS participants. Most seropositive community (84.7%) and HFS (76.0%) participants were asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was higher among urban community (12.6% vs. 3.1%) and HFS (14.5% vs. 7.4%) than among rural community participants. Cumulative infection findings 113-fold higher from this survey than national statistics (486,771 vs. 4,319) and predominantly asymptomatic infections highlight a need to identify alternative surveillance approaches and predictors of severe disease to inform national response.

A one-stop shop model for improved efficiency of pre-exposure prophylaxis delivery in public clinics in western Kenya: a mixed methods implementation science study.

INTRODUCTION: In public clinics in Kenya, separate, sequential delivery of the component services of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) (e.g. HIV testing, counselling, and dispensing) creates long wait times that hinder clients' ability and desire to access and continue PrEP. We conducted a mixed methods study in four public clinics in western Kenya to identify strategies for operationalizing a one-stop shop (OSS) model and evaluate whether this model could improve client wait time and care acceptability among clients and providers without negatively impacting uptake or continuation. METHODS: From January 2020 through November 2020, we collected and analysed 47 time-and-motion observations using Mann-Whitney U tests, 29 provider and client interviews, 68 technical assistance reports, and clinic flow maps from intervention clinics. We used controlled interrupted time series (cITS) to compare trends in PrEP initiation and on-time returns from a 12-month pre-intervention period (January-December 2019) to an 8-month post-period (January-November 2020, excluding a 3-month COVID-19 wash-out period) at intervention and control clinics. RESULTS: From the pre- to post-period, median client wait time at intervention clinics dropped significantly from 31 to 6 minutes (p = 0.02), while median provider contact time remained around 23 minutes (p = 0.4). Intervention clinics achieved efficiency gains by moving PrEP delivery to lower volume departments, moving steps closer together (e.g. relocating supplies; cross-training and task-shifting), and differentiating clients based on the subset of services needed. Clients and providers found the OSS model highly acceptable and additionally identified increased privacy, reduced stigma, and higher quality client-provider interactions as benefits of the model. From the pre- to post-period, average monthly initiations at intervention and control clinics increased by 6 and 2.3, respectively, and percent of expected follow-up visits occurring on time decreased by 18% and 26%, respectively; cITS analysis of PrEP initiations (n = 1227) and follow-up visits (n = 2696) revealed no significant difference between intervention and control clinics in terms of trends in PrEP initiation and on-time returns (all p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An OSS model significantly improved client wait time and care acceptability without negatively impacting initiations or continuations, thus highlighting opportunities to improve the efficiency of PrEP delivery efficiency and client-centredness.

Comparing COVID-19 physical distancing policies: results from a physical distancing intensity coding framework for Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, Ukraine, and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the differences in timing and composition of physical distancing policies is important to evaluate the early global response to COVID-19. A physical distancing intensity monitoring framework comprising 16 domains was recently published to compare physical distancing approaches across 12 U.S. States. We applied this framework to a diverse set of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Botswana, India, Jamaica, Mozambique, Namibia, and Ukraine) to test the appropriateness of this framework in the global context and to compare the policy responses in these LMICs with a sample of U.S. States during the first 100-days of the pandemic. RESULTS: The LMICs in our sample adopted wide ranging physical distancing policies. The highest peak daily physical distancing intensity during this period was: Botswana (4.60); India (4.40); Ukraine (4.40); Namibia (4.20); Mozambique (3.87), and Jamaica (3.80). The number of days each country stayed at peak policy intensity ranged from 12-days (Jamaica) to more than 67-days (Mozambique). We found some key similarities and differences, including substantial differences in whether and how countries expressly required certain groups to stay at home. Despite the much higher number of cases in the US, the physical distancing responses in our LMIC sample were generally more intense than in the U.S. States, but results vary depending on the U.S. State. The peak policy intensity for the U.S. 12-state average was 3.84, which would place it lower than every LMIC in this sample except Jamaica. The LMIC sample countries also reached peak physical distancing intensity earlier in outbreak progression compared to the U.S. states sample. The easing of physical distancing policies in the LMIC sample did not discernably correlate with change in COVID-19 incidence. CONCLUSIONS: This physical distancing intensity framework was appropriate for the LMIC context with only minor adaptations. This framework may be useful for ongoing monitoring of physical distancing policy approaches and for use in effectiveness analyses. This analysis helps to highlight the differing paths taken by the countries in this sample and may provide lessons to other countries regarding options for structuring physical distancing policies in response to COVID-19 and future outbreaks.

Measuring for Success: Evaluating Leadership Training Programs for Sustainable Impact.

Background: In an era of global health security challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there is greater need for strong leadership. Over the past decades, significant investments have been made in global health leadership development programs by governments and philanthropic organizations to address this need. Evaluating the societal impact of these programs remains challenging, despite consensus on the importance of public health leadership. Objective: This article identifies the gaps and highlights the critical role of monitoring and evaluation approaches in assessing the impact of global health leadership programs. Importantly, we also propose the theory of change (TOC) as a common framework and identify a set of tools and indicators that leadership programs can adapt and use. Methods: We carried out an informal review of major global health leadership programs, including a literature review on leadership program evaluation approaches. Current practices in assessing the short- to long-term outcomes of leadership training programs were explored and synthesized. We also examined use of program theory frameworks, such as theory of change to guide the evaluation strategy. We find the TOC approach can be enhanced by integrating evaluation-specific frameworks and establishing broad stakeholder buy-in. We highlight measurement challenges, proposed outcome indicators and evaluation methodologies, and outline the future direction for such efforts. Findings: Most evaluation of current leadership programs is focused on short-term individual-level outcomes, while reports on long-term societal impact were limited. Reciprocal impacts on and benefits for the "host" organizations were not included in evaluation metrics. Most programs had program logic or result chains, but with no well-articulated program theories. Conclusion: Key stakeholders involved in leadership training programs benefit from the evidence of rigorous program evaluations to inform decisions that address barriers in fostering global health leadership and improving population health outcomes. Insight into reciprocal change in host organizations is important. Evaluation of global health leadership training must go beyond the individual trainee and encompass organizational and community-level impacts. Documentation of long-lasting organizational and societal impacts is essential for donors to appreciate the return on their investment. Key Takeaways: Evaluation plays an important role in understanding how leadership development takes place and how it contributes to improving public health outcomes.Making the case for investments in leadership development programs requires robust evidence from monitoring and evaluation strategies that link investments beyond the individual-level to longer-term societal impacts.The first critical step towards a strategy for success is for leadership programs to clearly build, articulate, share, and use their program theories or theories of change.Theories of change help identify the pathways (and potential tensions) through which leadership development programs effect change at the individual, organizational and community levels.Evaluation methods that examine outcomes of leadership programs should be multi-method, multi-level, and where possible include counterfactual outcomes.Allocation of funds to evaluate on-going and long-lasting societal impact of leadership programs should be a routine practice.