Stakeholder perspectives on the demand and supply factors driving substandard and falsified blood pressure lowering medications in Nigeria: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Although substandard and falsified (SF) blood pressure (BP) lowering medications are a global problem, qualitative research exploring factors driving this in Nigeria has not been reported. This study provides information on factors driving demand for and supply of low-quality BP lowering medications in Nigeria and potential strategies to address these factors. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional qualitative study. Between August 2020 and September 2020, we conducted 11 in-depth interviews and 7 focus group discussions with administrators of health facilities, major manufacturers and distributors of BP lowering medications, pharmacists, drug regulators, patients and primary care physicians purposively sampled from the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. Data were analysed using directed content analysis, with the aid of Dedoose. RESULTS: We found that demand for SF BP lowering medications in Nigeria was driven by high out-of-pocket expenditure and stockouts of quality-assured BP lowering medications. Supply of low-quality BP lowering medications was driven by limited in-country manufacturing capacity, non-adherence to good manufacturing and distribution practices, under-resourced drug regulatory systems, ineffective healthcare facility operations, poor distribution practices, limited number of trained pharmacists and the COVID-19 pandemic which led to stockouts. Central medicine store procurement procedures, active pharmaceutical ingredient quality check and availability of trained pharmacists were existing strategies perceived to lower the risk of supply and demand of SF BP lowering medications. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that demand for and supply of SF BP lowering medications in Nigeria are driven by multi-level, interrelated factors. Multi-pronged strategies need to target stakeholders and systems involved in drug production, distribution, prescription, consumption, regulation and pricing.

Applying systems thinking to identify enablers and challenges to scale-up interventions for hypertension and diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a longitudinal mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly in low-and middle-income countries, where the greatest burden lies. Yet, there is little research concerning the specific issues involved in scaling up NCD interventions targeting low-resource settings. We propose to examine this gap in up to 27 collaborative projects, which were funded by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) 2019 Scale Up Call, reflecting a total funding investment of approximately US$50 million. These projects represent diverse countries, contexts and adopt varied approaches and study designs to scale-up complex, evidence-based interventions to improve hypertension and diabetes outcomes. A systematic inquiry of these projects will provide necessary scientific insights into the enablers and challenges in the scale up of complex NCD interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will apply systems thinking (a holistic approach to analyse the inter-relationship between constituent parts of scaleup interventions and the context in which the interventions are implemented) and adopt a longitudinal mixed-methods study design to explore the planning and early implementation phases of scale up projects. Data will be gathered at three time periods, namely, at planning (TP), initiation of implementation (T0) and 1-year postinitiation (T1). We will extract project-related data from secondary documents at TP and conduct multistakeholder qualitative interviews to gather data at T0 and T1. We will undertake descriptive statistical analysis of TP data and analyse T0 and T1 data using inductive thematic coding. The data extraction tool and interview guides were developed based on a literature review of scale-up frameworks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The current protocol was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC number 23482). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and more broadly through the GACD network.

Using implementation science to mitigate worsening health inequities in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the threat of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) enduring in the United States, effectively and equitably implementing testing, tracing, and self-isolation as key prevention and detection strategies remain critical to safely re-opening communities. As testing and tracing capacities increase, frameworks are needed to inform design and delivery to ensure their effective implementation and equitable distribution, and to strengthen community engagement in slowing and eventually stopping Covid-19 transmission. In this commentary, we highlight opportunities for integrating implementation research into planned and employed strategies in the United States to accelerate reach and effectiveness of interventions to more safely relax social distancing policies and open economies, schools, and other institutions. Implementation strategies, such as adapting evidence-based interventions based on contextual factors, promoting community engagement, and providing data audit and feedback on implementation outcomes, can support the translation of policies on testing, tracing, social distancing, and public mask use into reality. These data can demonstrate how interventions are put into practice and where adaptation in policy or practice is needed to respond to the needs of specific communities and socially vulnerable populations. Incorporating implementation research into Covid-19 policy design and translation into practice is urgently needed to mitigate the worsening health inequities in the pandemic toll and response. Applying rigorous implementation research frameworks and evaluation systems to the implementation of evidence-based interventions which are adapted to contextual factors can promote effective and equitable pandemic response and accelerate learning both among local stakeholders as well as between states to further inform their varied experiences and responses to the pandemic.