It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In Uganda, health system challenges limit access to good quality healthcare and contribute to slow progress on malaria control. We developed a complex intervention (PRIME), which was designed to improve quality of care for malaria at public health centres. Responding to calls for increased transparency, we describe the PRIME intervention's design process, rationale, and final content and reflect on the choices and challenges encountered during the design of this complex intervention. To develop the intervention, we followed a multistep approach, including the following: 1) formative research to identify intervention target areas and objectives; 2) prioritization of intervention components; 3) review of relevant evidence; 4) development of intervention components; 5) piloting and refinement of workshop modules; and 6) consolidation of the PRIME intervention theories of change to articulate why and how the intervention was hypothesized to produce desired outcomes. We aimed to develop an intervention that was evidence-based, grounded in theory, and appropriate for the study context; could be evaluated within a randomized controlled trial; and had the potential to be scaled up sustainably. The process of developing the PRIME intervention package was lengthy and dynamic. The final intervention package consisted of four components: 1) training in fever case management and use of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (mRDTs); 2) workshops in health centre management; 3) workshops in patient-centred services; and 4) provision of mRDTs and antimalarials when stocks ran low. The slow and iterative process of intervention design contrasted with the continually shifting study context. We highlight the considerations and choices made at each design stage, discussing elements we included and why, as well as those that were ultimately excluded. Reflection on and reporting of ‘behind the scenes’ accounts of intervention design may improve the design, assessment, and generalizability of complex interventions and their evaluations.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Medical Statistics London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
2 Department of Clinical Research London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration Kampala, Uganda
3 Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration Kampala, Uganda
4 Infectious Diseases Research Collaboration Kampala, Uganda; School of Medicine Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda
5 Institute of Health and Society University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
6 Department of Global Health & Development London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK