Anti-malarial prescription practices among outpatients with laboratory-confirmed malaria in the setting of a health facility-based sentinel site surveillance system in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most African countries have adopted artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria. The World Health Organization now recommends limiting anti-malarial treatment to those with a positive malaria test result. Limited data exist on how these policies have affected ACT prescription practices. METHODS: Data were collected from all outpatients presenting to six public health facilities in Uganda as part of a sentinel site malaria surveillance programme. Training in case management, encouragement of laboratory-based diagnosis of malaria, and regular feedback were provided. Data for this report include patients with laboratory confirmed malaria who were prescribed anti-malarial therapy over a two-year period. Patient visits were analysed in two groups: those considered ACT candidates (defined as uncomplicated malaria with no referral for admission in patients ≥ 4 months of age and ≥ 5 kg in weight) and those who may not have been ACT candidates. Associations between variables of interest and failure to prescribe ACT to patients who were ACT candidates were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 51,355 patient visits were included in the analysis and 46,265 (90.1%) were classified as ACT candidates. In the ACT candidate group, 94.5% were correctly prescribed ACT. Artemether-lumefantrine made up 97.3% of ACT prescribed. There were significant differences across the sites in the proportion of patients for whom there was a failure to prescribe ACT, ranging from 3.0-9.3%. Young children and woman of childbearing age had higher odds of failure to receive an ACT prescription. Among patients who may not have been ACT candidates, the proportion prescribed quinine versus ACT differed based on if the patient had severe malaria or was referred for admission (93.4% vs 6.5%) or was below age or weight cutoffs for ACT (41.4% vs 57.2%). CONCLUSIONS: High rates of compliance with recommended ACT use can be achieved in resource-limited settings. The unique health facility-based malaria surveillance system operating at these clinical sites may provide a framework for improving appropriate ACT use at other sites in sub-Saharan Africa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".