Tiwari A, Mieras L, Dhakal K, Arif M, Dandel S, Richardus J H
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Office Na 2219, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Leprosy Relief, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Sep 29;17(1):684. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2611-7.
Leprosy has a wide range of clinical and socio-economic consequences. India, Indonesia and Nepal contribute significantly to the global leprosy burden. After integration, the health systems are pivotal in leprosy service delivery. The Leprosy Post Exposure Prophylaxis (LPEP) program is ongoing to investigate the feasibility of providing single dose rifampicin (SDR) as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to the contacts of leprosy cases in various health systems. We aim to compare national leprosy control programs, and adapted LPEP strategies in India, Nepal and Indonesia. The purpose is to establish a baseline of the health system's situation and document the subsequent adjustment of LPEP, which will provide the context for interpreting the LPEP results in future.
The study followed the multiple-case study design with single units of analysis. The data collection methods were direct observation, in-depth interviews and desk review. The study was divided into two phases, i.e. review of national leprosy programs and description of the LPEP program. The comparative analysis was performed using the WHO health system frameworks (2007).
In all countries leprosy services including contact tracing is integrated into the health systems. The LPEP program is fully integrated into the established national leprosy programs, with SDR and increased documentation, which need major additions to standard procedures. PEP administration was widely perceived as well manageable, but the additional LPEP data collection was reported to increase workload in the first year.
The findings of our study led to the recommendation that field-based leprosy research programs should keep health systems in focus. The national leprosy programs are diverse in terms of organizational hierarchy, human resource quantity and capacity. We conclude that PEP can be integrated into different health systems without major structural and personal changes, but provisions are necessary for the additional monitoring requirements.
麻风病会产生广泛的临床和社会经济后果。印度、印度尼西亚和尼泊尔对全球麻风病负担的贡献巨大。整合后,卫生系统在麻风病服务提供中起着关键作用。麻风病暴露后预防(LPEP)项目正在进行,以调查在各种卫生系统中为麻风病病例的接触者提供单剂量利福平(SDR)作为暴露后预防(PEP)的可行性。我们旨在比较印度、尼泊尔和印度尼西亚的国家麻风病控制项目以及调整后的LPEP策略。目的是建立卫生系统状况的基线,并记录LPEP随后的调整情况,这将为未来解释LPEP结果提供背景信息。
该研究采用单分析单元的多案例研究设计。数据收集方法包括直接观察、深入访谈和案头审查。该研究分为两个阶段,即国家麻风病项目审查和LPEP项目描述。使用世界卫生组织卫生系统框架(2007年)进行比较分析。
在所有国家,包括接触者追踪在内的麻风病服务都已纳入卫生系统。LPEP项目已完全纳入既定的国家麻风病项目,采用了SDR并增加了记录,这需要对标准程序进行重大补充。PEP管理被广泛认为易于管理,但据报告,额外的LPEP数据收集在第一年增加了工作量。
我们的研究结果建议,以实地为基础的麻风病研究项目应关注卫生系统。国家麻风病项目在组织层级、人力资源数量和能力方面各不相同。我们得出结论,PEP可以在不进行重大结构和人员变动的情况下纳入不同的卫生系统,但需要为额外的监测要求做出安排。