埃塞俄比亚风湿性心脏病二级预防使用苄星青霉素G的可接受性和实施挑战:一项定性研究

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":"埃塞俄比亚风湿性心脏病二级预防使用苄星青霉素G的可接受性和实施挑战:一项定性研究","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:每月肌内注射苄星青霉素G (BPG)仍然是急性风湿热和风湿性心脏病(RHD)二级预防的基础。成功提供BPG的障碍可能取决于患者或服务的提供。目的:本研究的目的是从医疗保健提供者(HCPs)的角度探讨BPG治疗RHD的可接受性和实施挑战。方法:在埃塞俄比亚的四家公立医院进行了一项使用半结构化访谈指南的描述性定性研究。招募至少有1年提供RHD二级预防经验的医生和护士。访谈录音,逐字抄录,并翻译成英文进行分析,采用框架法专题分析。确定的行为因素被映射到可接受性(TFA)和能力、机会、动机-行为(COM-B)模型的理论框架中。结果:对22名HCPs进行了访谈(平均年龄39岁,护士占55%)。对BPG使用和可接受性的见解分为四个主要主题,涉及:(1)个体因素(例如,对过敏反应的恐惧),(2)卫生系统障碍(例如,BPG短缺),(3)患者/护理人员的看法(例如,对注射剂的依赖,对治疗结果的过高期望),以及(4)产品(例如,注射疼痛,针头堵塞)。结论:HCPs确定了促进因素和障碍,这些因素突出了BPG作为埃塞俄比亚RHD二级预防的复杂性。基于这些数据,我们建议RHD控制项目应该(1)提供跨学科的培训和教育项目,以支持BPG的安全和适合环境的交付;(2)改善卫生设施的资源,以促进安全的药物交付;(3)建立一个全面的系统,审核BPG注射后的严重不良反应,以产生可靠的药物警戒数据,并考虑其他方法来提供BPG,包括获得改进的配方(例如:预填充注射器中的BPG悬浮液配方)。重点:-主要障碍包括(a)卫生保健提供者由于担心注射相关的严重不良事件以及事件发生后的潜在影响而对给予苄星青霉素G (BPG)产生抵制,(b)社区和卫生保健提供者对疾病及其治疗的认识不足,(c)缺乏管理不良事件的资源,以及(d)注射疼痛。-关键的推动因素包括:(a) BPG的优越治疗效果和(b)利多卡因/镇痛药的联合使用以减少注射疼痛。-解决已确定挑战的建议包括:(a)改进关于RHD诊断、疾病进展和治疗的培训/教育,(b)改善获得支持性资源的机会,(c)积极监测和报告不良反应,以及(d)鼓励提供/获得全球补贴的预充式注射器中的BPG悬浮液配方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptability and Implementation Challenges of Benzathine Penicillin G Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Heart Disease in Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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