Abstract

Author:
Sani Ochepo, Nelson Jehosephat Nwankwo, Jennifer Ladukun, Oluwatobiloba Morakinyo, Ajibade Theophilus, Emeka Okafor, Delafrida Ukaga, Samson Enemona Okoliko

Doi: 10.26480/jhcdc.02.2024.45.56

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Malaria poses significant public health challenge in Nigeria, particularly in Lagos State, with high morbidity and mortality rates. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential for effective management, and Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (MRDT) kits are crucial in resource-limited settings. However, the attitudes and practices of community pharmacists and Patent and Proprietary Medicine Vendors (PPMVs) toward various MRDT brands in Lagos are underexplored. This study aims to understanding their perceptions which is vital for improving malaria control efforts. Methods: This study surveyed 205 community pharmacists and PPMVs in Lagos State, Nigeria, involved in the IntegratE project, using systematic sampling from 811 providers. A questionnaire evaluated their perceptions of various malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (MRDT) brands, focusing on accuracy, ease of use, confidence in recommendations, and overall satisfaction. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 27, utilizing frequencies, proportions, and Chi-square tests, with significance set at 0.05. Results: The SD Bioline Malaria Antigen Test received the highest positive feedback among MRDTs, with 51.2% favorable responses, particularly from professionals aged 46-55 (23.9%) and over 55 (9.8%). Despite this, over 59% rated its accuracy, as well as that of CareStart, as low. First Response and Paracheck also had high low-accuracy ratings, averaging 60% and 56%, respectively. SD Bioline was considered the most user-friendly (49.8%), especially by Tier-1 providers (39.5%). Views on cost-effectiveness varied, with 56.6% finding SD Bioline not cost-effective, though 17.1% saw it as extremely cost-effective. First Response had higher cost-effectiveness score of 4.64. SD Bioline was the most available test across all provider tiers, particularly in Tier-1 (35.6%). They reported frequent procurement challenges (39% occasionally, 12.2% often) but had the highest overall satisfaction (57.9%). Conclusions: Perceptions of MRDTs among Lagos healthcare professionals are diverse and significantly influenced by age and professional tier. SD Bioline is perceived favorably in terms of user-friendliness and reputation but faces challenges regarding perceived accuracy and cost-effectiveness. These insights suggest a need for targeted strategies by manufacturers and policymakers to address these perceptions, particularly focusing on enhancing accuracy and cost-effectiveness while ensuring widespread availability and ease of use to optimize the adoption of MRDTs in clinical practice. Trial registration: The study protocol was adequately reviewed, and the safety guideline satisfy the conditions of NIMR-IRB policies regarding experiment that use human subjects. Therefore, the registration number NIMR – IRB/24/012 was assigned.