MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386688300 · doi:10.1186/s41256-023-00324-z

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests in community pharmacies in Rwanda: availability, knowledge of community pharmacists, advantages, and disadvantages of licensing their use

2023· article· en· W4386688300 on OpenAlexaff
Amon Nsengimana, Joyce Isimbi, Theogene Uwizeyimana, Emmanuel Biracyaza, Jean Claude Hategekimana, Charles Uwambajimana, Olivia Gwira, Védaste Kagisha, Domina Asingizwe, A. A. Adedeji, Jean Baptiste Nyandwi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Research and Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyMedicinePublic healthMalariaFamily medicineEnvironmental healthTest (biology)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Presumptive treatment of malaria is often practiced in community pharmacies across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).To address this issue, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests (m-RDTs) be used in these settings, as they are used in the public sector. However, their use remains unlicensed in the community pharmacies in Rwanda. This can lessen their availability and foster presumptive treatment. Therefore, this study investigated the availability of m-RDTs, knowledge of community pharmacists on the use of m-RDTs, and explored Pharmacists’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of licensing the use of m-RDTs in community pharmacies. Methods This was a cross-sectional study among 200 licensed community pharmacists who were purposefully sampled nationwide from 11th February to 12th April 2022. Data was collected using an online data collection instrument composed of open-ended and closed-ended questions. Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between the availability of m-RDTs and independent variables of interest. Content analysis was used for qualitative data. Results Although 59% were consulted by clients requesting to purchase m-RDTs, only 27% of the participants had m-RDTs in stock, 66.5% had no training on the use of m-RDTs, and 18.5% were not at all familiar with using the m-RDTs. Most of the participants (91.5%) agreed that licensing the use of m-RDTs in community pharmacies could promote the rational use of antimalarials. The chi-square test indicated that being requested to sell m-RDTs (x 2 = 6.95, p = 0.008), being requested to perform m-RDTs (x 2 = 5.39, p = 0.02),familiarity using m-RDTs (x 2 = 17.24, p = 0.002), availability of a nurse in the Pharmacy (x 2 = 11.68, p < 0.001), and location of the pharmacy (x 2 = 9.13, p = 0.048) were all significantly associated with the availability of m-RDTs in the pharmacy. Conclusions The availability of m-RDTs remains low in community pharmacies in Rwanda, and less training is provided to community pharmacists regarding the use of m-RDTs. Nevertheless, community pharmacists had positive perceptions of the advantages of licensing the use of m-RDTs. Thus, licensing the use of m-RDTs is believed to be the first step toward promoting the rational use of antimalarial medicines in Rwanda.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health Research and PolicySame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207