Community intervention to promote rational treatment of acute respiratory infection in rural Nepal.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a community education program about treatment of acute respiratory infection (ARI). METHODS: First, community case definitions for severe and mild ARI were developed. The intervention was then evaluated using a controlled before-and-after design. Household surveys collected data about ARI treatment in 20 clusters, each based around a school and health facility. Treatment indicators included percentages of cases attending health facilities and receiving antibiotics. The intervention consisted of an education program in schools culminating in street theater performances, discussions with mothers after performances and training for community leaders and drug retailers by paramedics. The intervention was conducted in mid-2003. Indicators were measured before the intervention in Nov/Dec 2002 and again in Dec 2003/Jan 2004. RESULTS: Two thousand and seven hundred and nineteen households were surveyed and 3654 under-fives were identified, of whom 377 had severe ARI. After implementing the intervention, health post (HP) attendance rose by 13% in under-fives with severe ARI and fell by 9% in under-fives with mild ARI (test of interaction, P = 0.01). Use of prescribed antibiotics increased in under-fives with severe ARI by 21% but only by 1% in under-fives with mild ARI (test of interaction, P = 0.38). Irrespective of ARI severity, the use of non-prescribed antibiotics dropped by 5% (P = 0.002), and consultation with female community health volunteers (FCHVs)and use of safe home remedies increased by 6.7% (P not estimated) and 5.7% (P = 0.008) respectively. CONCLUSION: The intervention was implemented using local structures and in difficult circumstances, yet had a moderate impact. Thus it has the potential to effect large scale changes in behaviour and merits replication elsewhere.

The effect of user fees on prescribing quality in rural Nepal: two controlled pre-post studies to compare a fee per drug unit vs. a fee per drug item.

OBJECTIVE: To compare prescribing quality with a fee per drug unit vs. a fee per drug item. METHODS: Prescribing data were collected prospectively over 10 years from 21 health facilities in two districts of rural eastern Nepal. In 1995, both districts charged a fee per drug item. By 2000, one district was charging a fee per drug unit, and the second district continued to charge a fee per drug item (control group). By 2002, the second district was also charging a fee per drug unit. These fee changes allowed two pre-post 'cohort' with control analyses to compare INRUD/WHO drug use indicators for a fee per drug unit vs. a fee per drug item. RESULTS: Charging a fee per drug unit increased the percentage of antibiotics prescribed in under-dosage by 11-12% (P = 0.02 and 0.02), decreased the percentage of patients prescribed injections by 4-6% (P = 0.002 and 0.02), reduced the units per drug item prescribed by 1.7 (P = 0.02 and 0.03), and decreased compliance with standard treatment guidelines by 11-15% (P = 0.02 and 0.06). CONCLUSION: A fee per unit was associated with prescription of fewer units of drugs and fewer expensive drugs (such as injections), resulting in significantly poorer compliance with standard treatment guidelines. This finding is of great concern for public health in countries where patients are charged a fee per unit of drug.