Acceptability and Implementation Challenges of Benzathine Penicillin G Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Heart Disease in Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Global Heart Pub Date : 2025-01-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/gh.1393
Eshetie Melese Birru, Kevin T Batty, Laurens Manning, Stephanie L Enkel, Brioni R Moore
{"title":"Acceptability and Implementation Challenges of Benzathine Penicillin G Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Heart Disease in Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Eshetie Melese Birru, Kevin T Batty, Laurens Manning, Stephanie L Enkel, Brioni R Moore","doi":"10.5334/gh.1393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Monthly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) remain the cornerstone of secondary prophylaxis for acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). The barriers to successful delivery of BPG may be patient- or service-delivery-dependent.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the present study was to explore the perceived acceptability and implementation challenges of BPG treatment for RHD, from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interview guides was conducted in four public hospitals in Ethiopia. Physicians and nurses who had at least 1 year of experience in delivering RHD secondary prophylaxis were recruited. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English for analysis using framework method thematic analysis. Identified behavioral factors were mapped onto a theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA), and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Twenty-two interviews were conducted with HCPs (mean age 39 years, 55% nurses). Insights into BPG use and acceptability were categorized into four major themes related to: (1) individual factors (e.g., fear of anaphylactic reaction), (2) health system barriers (e.g., BPG shortage), (3) patient/caregiver perceptions (e.g., reliance on injectables, over expectation of treatment outcomes), and (4) product (e.g., injection pain, needle blockage).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HCPs identified facilitators and barriers which highlight the complexities associated with BPG as secondary prophylaxis for RHD in Ethiopia. Based on these data, we suggest RHD control programs should (1) provide cross-disciplinary training and education programs to support safe and context-appropriate delivery of BPG (2) improve resourcing of health facilities to facilitate safe drug delivery, (3) establish a comprehensive system for auditing severe adverse reactions post-BPG injection to generate robust pharmacovigilance data, and consider alternative approaches to BPG delivery including access to improved formulations (e.g., BPG suspension formulations in pre-filled syringes).</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>- Key barriers included (a) resistance from healthcare providers to administer benzathine penicillin G (BPG) due to their concerns about injection-related severe adverse events, and potential repercussions should an event occur, (b) poor community and healthcare provider awareness of the disease and its treatment, (c) lack of resources to manage adverse events, and (d) injection pain.- Key enablers included (a) perceived superior treatment benefits of BPG and (b) co-administration of lidocaine/analgesics to reduce injection pain.- Recommendations to address identified challenges include (a) improved training/education on RHD diagnosis, disease progression, and treatment, (b) improved access to supportive resources, (c) active adverse reaction monitoring and reporting, and (d) encouraging the provision/access of globally subsidized BPG suspension formulations in pre-filled syringes.</p>","PeriodicalId":56018,"journal":{"name":"Global Heart","volume":"20 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11784522/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.1393","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Monthly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) remain the cornerstone of secondary prophylaxis for acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). The barriers to successful delivery of BPG may be patient- or service-delivery-dependent.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to explore the perceived acceptability and implementation challenges of BPG treatment for RHD, from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs).

Methodology: A descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interview guides was conducted in four public hospitals in Ethiopia. Physicians and nurses who had at least 1 year of experience in delivering RHD secondary prophylaxis were recruited. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English for analysis using framework method thematic analysis. Identified behavioral factors were mapped onto a theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA), and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model.

Result: Twenty-two interviews were conducted with HCPs (mean age 39 years, 55% nurses). Insights into BPG use and acceptability were categorized into four major themes related to: (1) individual factors (e.g., fear of anaphylactic reaction), (2) health system barriers (e.g., BPG shortage), (3) patient/caregiver perceptions (e.g., reliance on injectables, over expectation of treatment outcomes), and (4) product (e.g., injection pain, needle blockage).

Conclusions: HCPs identified facilitators and barriers which highlight the complexities associated with BPG as secondary prophylaxis for RHD in Ethiopia. Based on these data, we suggest RHD control programs should (1) provide cross-disciplinary training and education programs to support safe and context-appropriate delivery of BPG (2) improve resourcing of health facilities to facilitate safe drug delivery, (3) establish a comprehensive system for auditing severe adverse reactions post-BPG injection to generate robust pharmacovigilance data, and consider alternative approaches to BPG delivery including access to improved formulations (e.g., BPG suspension formulations in pre-filled syringes).

Highlights: - Key barriers included (a) resistance from healthcare providers to administer benzathine penicillin G (BPG) due to their concerns about injection-related severe adverse events, and potential repercussions should an event occur, (b) poor community and healthcare provider awareness of the disease and its treatment, (c) lack of resources to manage adverse events, and (d) injection pain.- Key enablers included (a) perceived superior treatment benefits of BPG and (b) co-administration of lidocaine/analgesics to reduce injection pain.- Recommendations to address identified challenges include (a) improved training/education on RHD diagnosis, disease progression, and treatment, (b) improved access to supportive resources, (c) active adverse reaction monitoring and reporting, and (d) encouraging the provision/access of globally subsidized BPG suspension formulations in pre-filled syringes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Heart
Global Heart Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
77
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Heart offers a forum for dialogue and education on research, developments, trends, solutions and public health programs related to the prevention and control of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) worldwide, with a special focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Manuscripts should address not only the extent or epidemiology of the problem, but also describe interventions to effectively control and prevent CVDs and the underlying factors. The emphasis should be on approaches applicable in settings with limited resources. Economic evaluations of successful interventions are particularly welcome. We will also consider negative findings if important. While reports of hospital or clinic-based treatments are not excluded, particularly if they have broad implications for cost-effective disease control or prevention, we give priority to papers addressing community-based activities. We encourage submissions on cardiovascular surveillance and health policies, professional education, ethical issues and technological innovations related to prevention. Global Heart is particularly interested in publishing data from updated national or regional demographic health surveys, World Health Organization or Global Burden of Disease data, large clinical disease databases or registries. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses on globally relevant topics are welcome. We will also consider clinical research that has special relevance to LMICs, e.g. using validated instruments to assess health-related quality-of-life in patients from LMICs, innovative diagnostic-therapeutic applications, real-world effectiveness clinical trials, research methods (innovative methodologic papers, with emphasis on low-cost research methods or novel application of methods in low resource settings), and papers pertaining to cardiovascular health promotion and policy (quantitative evaluation of health programs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信