RESULTS: A total of 36 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Numerous stakeholders were identified as involved in the intersectoral actions to defeat malaria amongst MMPs. Almost all studies discussed the involvement of Ministry of Health/Public Health (MOH/MOPH). The most frequently assessed intervention among the studies that were included was the coverage and utilization of insecticide-treated nets as personal protective measures (40.5%), followed by the intervention of early diagnoses and treatment of malaria (33.3%), the surveillance and response activities (13.9%) and the behaviour change communication (8.3%). There is a dearth of information on how these stakeholders shared roles and responsibilities for implementation, and about the channels of communication between-and-within the partners and with the MOH/MOPH. Despite limited details in the studies, the intermediate outcomes showed some evidence that the intersectoral collaborations contributed to improvement in knowledge about malaria, initiation and promotion of bed nets utilization, increased access to diagnosis and treatment in a surveillance context and contributed towards a reduction in malaria transmission. Overall, a high proportion of the targeted MMPs was equipped with correct knowledge about malaria transmission (70%, 95% CI 57-83%). Interventions targeting the use of bed nets utilization were two times more likely to reduce malaria incidence amongst the targeted MMPs (summary OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.43-2.6) than the non-users. The various intersectoral actions were often more vertically organized and not fully integrated in a systemic way within a given country or sub-national administrative setting.
CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that interventions supported by the multiple stakeholders had a significant impact on the reduction of malaria transmission amongst the targeted MMPs. Well-designed studies from different countries are recommended to robustly assess the role of intersectoral interventions targeted to MMPs and their impact on the reduction of transmission.
METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled parallel-group study, where 372 randomly selected antenatal care attendees were randomly assigned to one of either two groups after collecting baseline data. The intervention group then received a four-hour health education intervention in Hausa language, which was developed based on the IMB model, while the control group received a similarly designed health education on breastfeeding. Follow up data were then collected from the participants at a first (2 months post-intervention) and second (4 months post-intervention) follow up, and at the end of their pregnancies.
RESULTS: For both groups, reported ITN use had increased from baseline (Intervention: Often-14.0%, Almost always-9.1; Control: Often-12.4%; Almost always 16.1%) to the time of second follow up (Intervention: Often -28.10%, Almost always-24.5; Control: Often-17.2%; Almost always 19.5%). Reported IPTp uptake at second follow up was also higher for the intervention group (Intervention: Two doses-59.0%, Three doses 22.3%; Control group: Two doses-48.4%, Three doses-7.0%). The drop in the haematocrit levels was greater for the control group (32.42% to 30.63%) compared to the intervention group (33.09% to 31.93%). The Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis revealed that the intervention had significantly improved reported ITN use, reported IPTp uptake, and haematocrit levels, but had no significant effect on the incidence of reported malaria diagnosis or babies' birth weights.
CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was effective in improving ITN use, IPTp uptake, and haematocrit levels. It is, therefore, recommended for the modules to be adopted and incorporated into the routine antenatal care programmes in health centres with predominantly Hausa speaking clients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, PACTR201610001823405. Registered 26 October 2016, www.pactr.org .
MAIN BODY: Recent successes in malaria control and elimination have reduced the global malaria burden, but these gains are fragile and progress has stalled in the past 5 years. Withdrawing successful interventions often results in rapid malaria resurgence, primarily threatening vulnerable young children and pregnant women. Malaria programmes are being affected in many ways by COVID-19. For prevention of malaria, insecticide-treated nets need regular renewal, but distribution campaigns have been delayed or cancelled. For detection and treatment of malaria, individuals may stop attending health facilities, out of fear of exposure to COVID-19, or because they cannot afford transport, and health care workers require additional resources to protect themselves from COVID-19. Supplies of diagnostics and drugs are being interrupted, which is compounded by production of substandard and falsified medicines and diagnostics. These disruptions are predicted to double the number of young African children dying of malaria in the coming year and may impact efforts to control the spread of drug resistance. Using examples from successful malaria control and elimination campaigns, we propose strategies to re-establish malaria control activities and maintain elimination efforts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is likely to be a long-term challenge. All sectors of society, including governments, donors, private sector and civil society organisations, have crucial roles to play to prevent malaria resurgence. Sparse resources must be allocated efficiently to ensure integrated health care systems that can sustain control activities against COVID-19 as well as malaria and other priority infectious diseases.
CONCLUSION: As we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial that other major killers such as malaria are not ignored. History tells us that if we do, the consequences will be dire, particularly in vulnerable populations.