‘They care rudely!’: Resourcing and relational health system factors that influence retention in care for people living with HIV in Zambia

listen audio

Study Justification:
This study aimed to understand how the Zambian health system, including both tangible components (hardware) and work practices/behavior (software), influenced decisions to disengage from HIV care among patients in Zambia. The study was conducted to address the issue of many HIV-positive Zambians disengaging from care despite access to free antiretroviral therapy (ART). By identifying the factors that contribute to disengagement, the study aimed to provide insights for improving the resourcing and relational health system factors to enhance retention in care for people living with HIV in Zambia.
Study Highlights:
The study identified several key factors that influenced patients’ decisions to disengage from HIV care in Zambia. These factors included inadequate infrastructure to protect privacy, long distances to health facilities, chronic understaffing leading to increased wait times, delayed opening times, file mismanagement, drug rationing, inflexibility in visit schedules, and negative experiences with healthcare workers (HCWs) such as rudeness, tardiness, and carelessness with details and confidentiality. However, the study also found that many patients preferred ART over alternative treatments due to its perceived efficacy, cost-free availability, and clinical monitoring.
Study Recommendations:
Based on the findings, the study recommends the following improvements to enhance retention in care for people living with HIV in Zambia:
1. Improve physical resourcing and structuring of HIV services, including infrastructure to protect privacy and reduce distances to health facilities.
2. Address chronic understaffing to reduce wait times and improve access to care.
3. Enhance HCWs’ work practices and clinical decisions through preservice and inservice training and mentorship programs, focusing on providing patient-centered care and flexibility to meet patients’ varying needs and circumstances.
Key Role Players:
To address the study recommendations, key role players needed include:
1. Zambian Ministry of Health: Responsible for policy development and implementation of healthcare services.
2. Healthcare facility administrators: Responsible for managing and improving the infrastructure and staffing of health facilities.
3. Healthcare workers: Including clinical officers, nurses, pharmacy technologists, data associates, and environmental and health technologists. They need training and mentorship to provide patient-centered care and improve work practices.
4. Peer educators: Engaged as data collectors to help trace and recruit patients lost from HIV care.
5. Research assistants: Collect data for the study, including conducting interviews and focus group discussions.
Cost Items for Planning Recommendations:
While the study does not provide actual cost estimates, the following cost items should be considered in planning the recommendations:
1. Infrastructure improvements: Budget for constructing or renovating health facilities to improve privacy and accessibility.
2. Staffing: Allocate funds for hiring and retaining additional healthcare workers to address chronic understaffing.
3. Training and mentorship programs: Budget for developing and implementing preservice and inservice training programs for healthcare workers.
4. Research and data collection: Allocate funds for research assistants, data collection tools, and data management.
5. Monitoring and evaluation: Set aside resources for monitoring and evaluating the implementation and impact of the recommendations.
Please note that the above information is a summary of the study and its recommendations. For more detailed information, please refer to the publication in BMJ Global Health, Volume 3, No. 5, Year 2018.

The strength of evidence for this abstract is 7 out of 10.
The evidence in the abstract is based on a qualitative study conducted in 2015. The study used in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and direct observations to understand how health system factors influenced decisions to disengage from HIV care in Zambia. The study provides detailed information on the hardware and software factors that influenced patients’ disengagement, including inadequate infrastructure, distance to health facilities, understaffing, delayed opening times, file mismanagement, drug rationing, and HCWs’ behavior. The study suggests the need for improved physical resourcing, training, and mentorship programs for HCWs. However, the abstract does not provide information on the sample size, representativeness of the participants, or the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the abstract does not mention any limitations of the study or potential biases. To improve the evidence, future studies could include a larger sample size, diverse participants, and address potential biases and limitations.

Introduction Despite access to free antiretroviral therapy (ART), many HIV-positive Zambians disengage from HIV care. We sought to understand how Zambian health system ‘hardware’ (tangible components) and ‘software’ (work practices and behaviour) influenced decisions to disengage from care among ‘lost-to-follow-up’ patients traced by a larger study on their current health status. Methods We purposively selected 12 facilities, from 4 provinces. Indepth interviews were conducted with 69 patients across four categories: engaged in HIV care, disengaged from care, transferred to another facility and next of kin if deceased. We also conducted 24 focus group discussions with 158 lay and professional healthcare workers (HCWs). These data were triangulated against two consecutive days of observation conducted in each facility. We conducted iterative multilevel analysis using inductive and deductive reasoning. results Health system ‘hardware’ factors influencing patients’ disengagement included inadequate infrastructure to protect privacy; distance to health facilities which costs patients time and money; and chronic understaffing which increased wait times. Health system ‘software’ factors related to HCWs’ work practices and clinical decisions, including delayed opening times, file mismanagement, drug rationing and inflexibility in visit schedules, increased wait times, number of clinic visits, and frustrated access to care. While patients considered HCWs as ‘mentors’ and trusted sources of information, many also described them as rude, tardy, careless with details and confidentiality, and favouring relatives. Nonetheless, unlike previously reported, many patients preferred ART over alternative treatment (eg, traditional medicine) for its perceived efficacy, cost-free availability and accompanying clinical monitoring. Conclusion Findings demonstrate the dynamic effect of health system ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ factors on decisions to disengage. Our findings suggest a need for improved: physical resourcing and structuring of HIV services, preservice and inservice HCWs and management training and mentorship programmes to encourage HCWs to provide ‘patient-centered’ care and exercise ‘flexibility’ to meet patients’ varying needs and circumstances.

This qualitative study was conducted in 2015 and was nested within a larger quantitative study exploring rates and reasons for disengagement.39 It aimed to understand, from Zambian patients’ and HCWs’ perspectives, how care within the health system influenced engagement and disengagement from long-term HIV care and treatment. In our framework, the health system includes the formal system, as well as the patients and the larger community. The qualitative study was conducted in 12 clinics, selected from 4 Zambian provinces—Lusaka, Southern, Eastern and Western provinces. These settings comprise multilingual ethnic groups, with Bemba and Nyanja the most widely spoken local languages in Lusaka Province, Tonga in Southern Province, chi-Nyanga in Eastern Province and Lozi in Western Province. The socioeconomic status and housing conditions of residents in these different locations are mixed, but predominantly poor. Site selection was achieved in three phases. First, a random sample of 31 health facilities stratified to ensure rural and urban facilities from each of the four provinces were selected. Second, from this larger sample, eight health centres—one urban, and one rural for each of the four provinces—were purposively selected based on facility characteristics, location and patient load. We considered urban health centres and level 1 hospitals interchangeable for the purpose of the qualitative study since they are often of similar size and operating capacity and are located in more comparable socioeconomic and geographical environments. After completing the first round of data collection at these eight facilities, an additional four facilities (one per province) were purposively selected to conduct follow-up focus group discussions (FGDs) that tested the initial findings and probed emerging and unclear issues. Selection was made based on the nature of the issues we sought clarification about—for example, in two provinces rural facilities were selected as clarification and testing of findings related predominantly to these aspects; in the other two provinces, urban facilities were selected. The 12 clinics all provided outpatient health services, and all the urban facilities additionally provided some inpatient services. Other services shared by the 12 facilities included maternal and child health department (MCH), tuberculosis treatment department (TB corner), HIV or antiretroviral department (ART clinic), and laboratory and environmental health team (EHT) depending on location and resourcing. The professional HCWs working in the clinics predominantly included clinical officers, nurses, pharmacy technologists, data associates, and environmental and health technologists. In the ART department, the professional HCWs provided counselling, testing, clinical consultations and drug distribution. By comparison, lay HCWs were responsible for HIV testing and counselling, health education, patient navigation and file retrieval, but may also sometimes substitute for professional HCWs and carry out designated clinical tasks such as blood pressure measurements. We conducted 69 indepth interviews (IDIs) with patients from the following categories: (1) currently in HIV care at the clinic where they initiated HIV care (‘in care’); (2) disengaged from care; (3) in HIV care after transfer to a different clinic; and (4) next of kin for deceased patients. Among the in care, transferred, disengaged and dead categories, male and female representation was almost equal (male=29/female=31). Geographical representation was also similar, although with slightly higher participation among rural residents (n=38, 55%) (table 1). Sex and location of interview and FGD participants FGD, focus group discussion; NoK, next of kin. Twenty-four FGDs with a total of 158 participants were conducted with urban and rural lay and professional HCWs to understand their perceived role in patients’ care engagement decisions (table 2). FGDs were separated between lay and professional health workers but were mixed sex. Number of FGD participants by cadre and location FGD, focus group discussion; HCW, healthcare worker. Direct observations at health facilities were undertaken to clarify the operational context of care. The ‘in-care’ patients were recruited from the files of patients present on a study-visit day using a simple random sampling method. The categories of ‘lost’ patients were recruited during the study tracing exercise with the help of peer educators who were engaged as data collectors of patients lost from HIV care. From each of the categories of ‘lost’ patient (disengaged, transferred and next of kin to dead) traced by the main study, research assistants (RAs) asked participants if they would be willing to take part in a follow-up interview until two participants were recruited from each facility. A balance between male and female participants was sought, although due to pragmatic considerations not always achieved. No patient sampled from the ‘in-care’ patients refused to participate. No patient sampled from the ‘lost’ traced category declined to participate in the interviews after full information was provided by the tracers. Four Zambian RAs with competence in local languages spoken in the study sites were recruited to collect data. Their recruitment considered previous experience in health-related research. They underwent a 5-day training covering human subjects’ protection, familiarisation with the study’s aim and the study tools, and best-practice approaches to qualitative research data collection. The IDI questionnaire guide was designed in English and translated into the four main local languages used in the study sites, namely Nyanja, Lozi, Bemba and Tonga. IDIs lasted between 40 and 120 min and were conducted in the participant’s choice of language. We asked patients about their personal experiences while accessing care. We included questions on caregiver attitudes, information availability and sociocultural aspects, and how they affected the interviewee’s perceptions and choices in seeking care. Interview questions were all open-ended to enable RAs to probe for causal mechanisms influencing patients’ engagement in care. The RAs took down summarised field notes that included any non-verbal expressions they observed. For the deceased, we interviewed a close family member or friend to understand both the sequence of events that led up to death, as well as the families’ perception of the dead patient’s experiences in care and their own role in this process. In each of the 12 facilities, the recruitment of FGD participants was achieved by issuing open invitations to all HCWs at the facility to attend one of two FGD sessions. Participants were then enrolled on a first come first served basis. The FGDs for lay and professional staff were separated to enable lay staff to speak freely without the fear of interference from their supervisors. The FGD guide explored the patient–HCW interaction to understand the relationship between HCWs’ perceptions and patients’ own description of experiences accessing care. The questions were open-ended to enable the facilitator to probe emerging themes, and field notes containing contextual details and non-verbal observations were taken by the RAs to aid in the interpretation and analysis of the data. FGDs took between 1 hour and 3.5 hours. The main language used in the FGDs with professional HCWs was English, but facilitators allowed the use of local language in discussions. All the FGDs were conducted at the health facilities. The RAs documented direct observations of healthcare facilities’ operations as field notes that were then formalised into research memos. Direct observations took place in the original eight health facilities for two consecutive ART clinic days and lasted between 8 and 10 hours. The process began with the RA introducing themselves to the person in charge of the facility. The RA would then proceed to sit in a certain department (eg, TB corner, laboratory, pharmacy (where one existed) and clinician rooms) and write down their observations on the research guide. The guide included sections on operational features, intraprovider relations, patient–provider relations and their context. Data from observations helped build a picture of typical workflows and human interactions that drive health centre operations and that influence patients’ experience and decisions related to care-seeking. Audio recordings, transcribed scripts and observation memos were saved using a unique identification method and saved on password-protected computers. All audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and simultaneously translated into English (for interviews in local language). A two-stage approach to quality checking was undertaken. In the first stage, the RAs quality-checked their own scripts and in the second stage the first author quality-checked all the scripts. Anonymised transcriptions, observation memos and notes were imported into QSR NVivo. Inductive methods were used to code the data40 41 by the first and last author. Coding was an iterative process that categorised related codes and subcodes and stratified them by study sites and participant engagement status for further exploration and interpretation of the findings. Arrangement of themes according to a conceptual framework (the hardware/software model) was subsequently used to help further refine, organise and reflect on the findings. Draft findings and interpretations were circulated for review to all the study investigators and the Study Advisory Committee. Written informed consent for participating in the study was sought and granted by all the interviewees who agreed to participate in the study. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, the interviews were conducted in a private environment either at a home or health facility with only the RA and the interviewee present. Permission to record interviews was sought from all the study participants.

N/A

Based on the provided information, it seems that the study focused on understanding the factors that influence engagement and disengagement from long-term HIV care and treatment in Zambia. The study identified several health system “hardware” and “software” factors that influenced patients’ decisions to disengage from care. These factors included inadequate infrastructure to protect privacy, distance to health facilities, chronic understaffing, delayed opening times, file mismanagement, drug rationing, inflexibility in visit schedules, and negative experiences with healthcare workers (HCWs) such as rudeness, tardiness, and carelessness with details and confidentiality.

To improve access to maternal health, some potential innovations based on the findings of this study could include:

1. Improving infrastructure: Enhancing the physical resourcing and structuring of maternal health services to ensure privacy and create a comfortable and welcoming environment for pregnant women seeking care.

2. Addressing geographical barriers: Implementing strategies to reduce the distance and cost barriers faced by pregnant women in accessing maternal health services. This could include establishing satellite clinics or mobile health units in remote areas, providing transportation assistance, or utilizing telemedicine for remote consultations.

3. Strengthening healthcare workforce: Investing in preservice and inservice training programs for HCWs to improve their communication skills, empathy, and patient-centered care. This could involve training HCWs on respectful and culturally sensitive care, confidentiality, and the importance of building trust with patients.

4. Enhancing health system efficiency: Implementing measures to reduce wait times and improve the management of patient files and drug supply. This could involve streamlining administrative processes, implementing electronic health records, and ensuring an adequate supply of essential maternal health medications and equipment.

5. Promoting community engagement: Engaging the community in maternal health initiatives and promoting community-based support networks. This could involve community health workers or peer educators who can provide information, support, and guidance to pregnant women, as well as advocate for their needs within the health system.

It is important to note that these recommendations are based on the findings of the study in the context of HIV care in Zambia. Adapting and implementing these innovations specifically for maternal health would require further research and contextual considerations.
AI Innovations Description
Based on the information provided, the recommendation to improve access to maternal health would be to address the health system “hardware” and “software” factors that influence engagement and disengagement from care. This includes improving physical resourcing and structuring of maternal health services, as well as providing preservice and inservice training and mentorship programs for healthcare workers (HCWs) to encourage patient-centered care and flexibility in meeting patients’ varying needs and circumstances.

Specifically, the following actions can be taken:

1. Improve infrastructure: Ensure that health facilities have adequate infrastructure to protect privacy and provide a comfortable environment for maternal health services. This may involve creating separate spaces for consultations, examinations, and counseling, as well as ensuring the availability of necessary equipment and supplies.

2. Reduce distance barriers: Address the issue of distance to health facilities by improving transportation options and providing financial support for transportation costs. This can help pregnant women overcome the challenges of accessing care due to long travel distances and associated costs.

3. Increase staffing levels: Address chronic understaffing in health facilities by recruiting and training more healthcare workers, particularly those specialized in maternal health. This can help reduce wait times and ensure that pregnant women receive timely and quality care.

4. Improve work practices and clinical decisions: Address issues related to healthcare workers’ work practices and clinical decisions that may affect access to maternal health services. This includes addressing delayed opening times, file mismanagement, drug rationing, and inflexibility in visit schedules. Training and mentorship programs can help healthcare workers provide patient-centered care and make informed clinical decisions.

5. Enhance communication and professionalism: Improve communication and professionalism among healthcare workers to ensure respectful and supportive interactions with pregnant women. This includes addressing issues of rudeness, tardiness, carelessness with details and confidentiality, and favoritism. Training programs can help healthcare workers develop effective communication skills and foster a positive and trusting relationship with pregnant women.

By addressing these recommendations, it is expected that access to maternal health services will be improved, leading to better health outcomes for pregnant women and their babies.
AI Innovations Methodology
Based on the provided description, the study focuses on understanding how health system factors influence engagement and disengagement from long-term HIV care and treatment in Zambia. The study identifies both “hardware” factors (such as inadequate infrastructure, distance to health facilities, and understaffing) and “software” factors (such as work practices and behavior of healthcare workers) that impact patients’ decisions to disengage from care.

To improve access to maternal health, the following innovations and recommendations can be considered:

1. Improve infrastructure: Enhance the physical resourcing and structuring of maternal health services by investing in the construction and renovation of healthcare facilities. This includes ensuring adequate space for privacy during consultations and providing necessary equipment and supplies for maternal health care.

2. Increase accessibility: Address the issue of distance to health facilities by establishing more maternal health clinics in rural and remote areas. This can be achieved through mobile clinics, telemedicine, or community-based healthcare services. Additionally, transportation services can be provided to pregnant women to facilitate their access to healthcare facilities.

3. Strengthen healthcare workforce: Address chronic understaffing by recruiting and training more healthcare professionals, including doctors, nurses, midwives, and community health workers. This will help reduce wait times and ensure that pregnant women receive timely and quality care.

4. Improve work practices and behavior: Implement training and mentorship programs for healthcare workers to promote patient-centered care and flexibility in meeting the varying needs and circumstances of pregnant women. This includes addressing issues of rudeness, tardiness, and carelessness with details and confidentiality, as described in the study.

To simulate the impact of these recommendations on improving access to maternal health, a methodology can be developed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Here is a brief outline of a possible methodology:

1. Baseline data collection: Collect data on the current state of maternal health access, including factors such as infrastructure, distance to health facilities, staffing levels, and healthcare workers’ behavior. This can be done through surveys, interviews, and observations.

2. Model development: Develop a simulation model that incorporates the identified factors and their interrelationships. This can be a system dynamics model or an agent-based model, depending on the complexity of the system and available data.

3. Scenario development: Define different scenarios based on the recommended innovations and recommendations. For example, simulate the impact of improving infrastructure, increasing accessibility, strengthening the healthcare workforce, and improving work practices and behavior.

4. Data input and calibration: Input the relevant data into the simulation model and calibrate the model to match the baseline data. This ensures that the model accurately represents the current state of maternal health access.

5. Simulation runs: Run the simulation model for each scenario to simulate the impact of the recommended innovations on improving access to maternal health. This can include measuring indicators such as the number of pregnant women accessing care, wait times, and patient satisfaction.

6. Analysis and interpretation: Analyze the simulation results to understand the potential impact of the recommended innovations. Compare the different scenarios to identify the most effective strategies for improving access to maternal health.

7. Sensitivity analysis: Conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the simulation results and identify key factors that influence the outcomes. This helps in understanding the uncertainties and potential limitations of the recommended innovations.

8. Policy implications: Based on the simulation results, provide recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders on the most effective strategies for improving access to maternal health. This can include prioritizing certain innovations, allocating resources, and implementing targeted interventions.

It is important to note that the methodology outlined above is a general framework and can be customized based on the specific context and available data. Additionally, stakeholder engagement and collaboration are crucial throughout the process to ensure the relevance and feasibility of the recommendations.

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Email