Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: Senegal

✪ Inequity in the face of success: understanding geographic and wealth-based equity in success of facility-based delivery for under-5 mortality reduction in six countries

Authors:

Jovial Thomas Ntawukuriryayo, Amelia VanderZanden, Alemayehu Amberbir, Alula Teklu, Fauzia Akhter Huda, Mahesh Maskey, Mohamadou Sall, Patricia J. Garcia, Raj Kumar Subedi, Felix Sayinzoga, Lisa R. Hirschhorn & Agnes Binagwaho

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: February 2024

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Pediatrics

Abstract:

Background

Between 2000–2015, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) implemented evidence-based interventions (EBIs) known to reduce under-5 mortality (U5M). Even among LMICs successful in reducing U5M, this drop was unequal subnationally, with varying success in EBI implementation. Building on mixed methods multi-case studies of six LMICs (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nepal, Peru, Rwanda, and Senegal) leading in U5M reduction, we describe geographic and wealth-based equity in facility-based delivery (FBD), a critical EBI to reduce neonatal mortality which requires a trusted and functional health system, and compare the implementation strategies and contextual factors which influenced success or challenges within and across the countries.

Methods

To obtain equity gaps in FBD coverage and changes in absolute geographic and wealth-based equity between 2000–2015, we calculated the difference between the highest and lowest FBD coverage across subnational regions and in the FBD coverage between the richest and poorest wealth quintiles. We extracted and compared contextual factors and implementation strategies associated with reduced or remaining inequities from the country case studies.

Results

The absolute geographic and wealth-based equity gaps decreased in three countries, with greatest drops in Rwanda – decreasing from 50 to 5% across subnational regions and from 43 to 13% across wealth quintiles. The largest increases were seen in Bangladesh – from 10 to 32% across geography – and in Ethiopia – from 22 to 58% across wealth quintiles. Facilitators to reducing equity gaps across the six countries included leadership commitment and culture of data use; in some countries, community or maternal and child health insurance was also an important factor (Rwanda and Peru). Barriers across all the countries included geography, while country-specific barriers included low female empowerment subnationally (Bangladesh) and cultural beliefs (Ethiopia). Successful strategies included building on community health worker (CHW) programs, with country-specific adaptation of pre-existing CHW programs (Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Senegal) and cultural adaptation of delivery protocols (Peru). Reducing delivery costs was successful in Senegal, and partially successful in Nepal and Ethiopia.

Conclusion

Variable success in reducing inequity in FBD coverage among countries successful in reducing U5M underscores the importance of measuring not just coverage but also equity. Learning from FBD interventions shows the need to prioritize equity in access and uptake of EBIs for the poor and in remote areas by adapting the strategies to local context.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Implementation science and stigma reduction interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Authors:

Christopher G. Kemp, Brooke A. Jarrett, Churl-Su Kwon, Lanxin Song, Nathalie Jetté, Jaime C. Sapag, Judith Bass, Laura Murray, Deepa Rao & Stefan Baral

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: February 2019

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Medicine

Abstract:

Background

Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR).

Results

A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven.

Conclusion

Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

BACK TO THE LIBRARY