ABSTRACT
Plasmodium vivax remains a challenge for malaria elimination since it forms dormant liver stages (hypnozoites) that can reactivate after initial infection. 8-aminoquinolone drugs kill hypnozoites but can cause severe hemolysis in individuals with Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. The STANDARD G6PD test (Biosensor) is a novel point-of-care diagnostic capable of identifying G6PD deficiency prior to treatment. In 2021, Cambodia implemented the Biosensor to facilitate radical cure treatment for vivax malaria. To assess the Biosensor's implementation after its national rollout, a mixed-methods study was conducted in eight districts across three provinces in Cambodia. Interviews, focus group discussions, and observations explored stakeholders' experiences with G6PD testing and factors influencing its implementation. Quantitative data illustrative of test implementation were gathered from routine surveillance forms and key proportions derived. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. The main challenge to implementing G6PD testing was that only 49.2% (437/888) of eligible patients reached health centers for G6PD testing following malaria diagnosis by community health workers. Factors influencing this included road conditions and long distances to the health center, compounded by the cost of seeking further care and patients' perceptions of vivax malaria and its treatment. 93.9% (790/841) of eligible vivax malaria patients who successfully completed referral (429/434) and directly presented to the health center (360/407) were G6PD tested. Key enabling factors included the test's acceptability among health workers and their understanding of the rationale for testing. Only 36.5% (443/1213) of eligible vivax episodes appropriately received primaquine. 70.5% (165/234) of female patients and all children under 20 kilograms never received primaquine. Our findings suggest that access to radical cure requires robust infrastructure and income security, which would likely improve referral rates to health centers enabling access. Bringing treatment closer to patients, through community health workers and nuanced community engagement, would improve access to curative treatment of vivax malaria.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Productivity losses are often included in costing studies and economic evaluations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of disease. Global guidance on estimating productivity losses is sparse, especially for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) where informal and unpaid work remains dominant. This study aims to describe current practices for valuing productivity losses in LMICs. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of studies published before April 2022 using three databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. We included any costing or economic evaluation study conducted in a LMIC that provided methodological details on how the monetary value for productivity losses was estimated. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 281 articles were included. While most studies did not specify the overall approach used to measure and value productivity losses (58%), the human capital approach was the most frequently used approach to measure productivity losses when this was clearly stated (39%). The most common methods to estimate a monetary value for productivity losses were market wages (51%), self-reported wages (28%) and macroeconomic measures (15%). CONCLUSION: Reporting standards for productivity losses in LMIC settings have room for improvement. While market wages were the most frequently used method to estimate the monetary value of productivity losses, this relies on context-specific data availability. Until a consensus is reached on if, when and how to include productivity losses in costing and economic evaluation studies, future studies could include a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of different methods for estimating the monetary value of productivity losses.
