Despite efforts to improve access to and quality of care for newborns, the first month after birth remains the most dangerous period of life. Given high neonatal mortality in low-income countries, saving newborn lives is a key priority for global and national health policy agendas. However, little is known about how these policies resonate with local understandings, experiences and household priorities. In this qualitative study we examined families' decision making and health-care-seeking in Butajira, Ethiopia. Data were collected through observation in hospital, in-depth interviews (41), and focus group discussions (7) with family members, health-care workers, and community members (October–November 2015). Transcripts and field notes were analyzed inductively using qualitative content analysis. Findings indicate that newborn health was not always the family's priority. Local perceptions of newborns as not yet useful members of the household alongside costly health-care services delayed decision making and care-seeking. While sickness was recognized as dangerous for the ill newborn, seeking health-care could be harmful for the economic survival of the family. In a resource-constrained setting, families' focused on productive assets in order to minimize long-term risks, and waited before seeking newborn health-care services. Until the baby had survived the first vulnerable weeks and months of life, the unknown newborn was not yet seen as a social person by the community. Personhood evolved progressively as the baby became a part of the family. A newborn death was surrounded by silence, and families received minimal support from traditional financial associations, iddirs. Decisions regarding health-care were contingent upon families' understandings of newborns and their resource-constrained circumstances. Improving newborn health involves recognizing why families choose to (not) seek health-care, and their actual opportunities and constraints in making such decisions. The everyday realities of vulnerable newborns must be at the center of global and national policy discussions and local implementation.
Keywords: EthiopiaNewborn healthHealth-care-seekingDecision makingPersonhoodPovertyQualitative research
We outline CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting standards, an extension to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement that aims to improve the reporting of intervention effects in randomised trials where health equity is relevant. Health inequities are unfair differences in health that can be avoided by reasonable action. We defined a randomised trial where health equity is relevant as one that assesses effects on health equity by evaluating an intervention focused on people experiencing social disadvantage or by exploring the difference in the effect of the intervention between two groups (or as a gradient across more than two groups) experiencing different levels of social disadvantage, or both. We held a consensus meeting with diverse potential users from high, middle, and low income countries, including knowledge users such as patients and methodologists. We discussed evidence for each proposed extension item from empirical studies, reviews, key informant interviews, and an online survey, aiming to improve clarity of reporting without imposing undue burden on authors. The new guidance contains equity extensions to 16 items from CONSORT 2010 plus one new item on research ethics reporting, with examples of good practice and a brief explanation and elaboration for each. Widespread uptake of this guidance for the reporting of trials where health equity is relevant will make it easier for decision makers to find and use evidence from randomised trials to reduce unfair inequalities in health.
BACKGROUND: While recognizing the recent remarkable achievement in the global malaria reduction, the disease remains a challenge to the malaria endemic countries in Africa. Beyond the huge health consequence of malaria, policymakers need to be informed about the economic burden of the disease to the households. However, evidence on the economic burden of malaria in Ethiopia is scanty. The aims of this study were to estimate the economic burden of malaria episode and to identify predictors of cost variability to the rural households.
METHODS:A prospective costing approach from a household perspective was employed. A total of 190 malaria patients were enrolled to the study from three health centers and nine health posts in Adami Tullu district in south-central Ethiopia, in 2015. Primary data were collected on expenditures due to malaria, forgone working days because of illness, socioeconomic and demographic situation, and households' assets. Quantile regression was applied to predict factors associated with the cost variation. Socioeconomic related inequality was measured using concentration index and concentration curve.
RESULTS: The median cost of malaria per episode to the household was USD 5.06 (IQR: 2.98-8.10). The direct cost accounted for 39%, while the indirect counterpart accounted for 61%. The history of malaria in the last six months and the level of the facility visited in the health system predominantly influenced the direct cost. The indirect cost was mainly influenced by the availability of antimalarial drugs in the health facility. The concentration curve and the concentration index for direct cost indicate significant pro-rich inequality. Plasmodium falciparum is significantly more costly for households compared to Plasmodium vivax.
CONCLUSION:The economic burden of malaria to the rural households in Ethiopia was substantial-mainly to the poor-indicating that reducing malaria burden could contribute to the poverty reduction as well.