Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Dec 7;17(12):e0278602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278602

Assessment of the performance and challenges in the implementation of the test, treat and track (T3) strategy for malaria control among children under-five years in Ghana

Margaret Kweku 1, Joyce B Der 1,*, William K Blankson 1, Haruna M Salisu 1, Francis Arizie 1, Sorengmen A Ziema 1, Jonathan M Gmanyami 1, Fortress Y Aku 1, Martin Adjuik 1
Editor: Henk Schallig2
PMCID: PMC9728892  PMID: 36477687

Abstract

Background

The World Health Organization recommended the Test, Treat and Track (T3) strategy for malaria control that, every suspected malaria case should be tested prior to treatment with Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) and tracked. We assessed the performance and challenges in the implementation of T3 strategy among children under-five years in Volta and Oti Regions of Ghana.

Method

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried in 69 health facilities. Exit interviews were conducted for caregivers of children with fever using a semi-structured questionnaire. Clinicians were interviewed at the out-patient department in each facility. Descriptive statistics was conducted, Chi-square test and logistic regression were used to determine the associations between completion of T3 and independent variables.

Results

Most children, 818/900 (90.9%) were tested for malaria and 600/818 (73.4%) were positive for malaria parasitaemia using rapid diagnostic test. Of those testing positive for malaria, 530/600 (88.3%) received treatment with ACTs. Half, (109/218) of the children testing negative for malaria also received ACTs. Also, 67/82 (81.7%) of children not tested for malaria received ACTs. Only 408/900 (45.3%) children completed T3 with Community Health-based Planning Services (CHPS) compound having the highest completion rate 202/314 (64.3%). CHPS Compounds were 6.55 times more likely to complete T3 compared to the hospitals [(95% CI: 3.77, 11.35), p<0.001]. Health facilities with laboratory services were 2.08 times more likely to complete T3 [(95% CI: 1.55, 2.79), p<0.001] The main challenge identified was clinicians’ perception that RDTs do not give accurate results.

Conclusion

Testing fever cases for malaria before treatment and treating positive cases with ACTs was high. Treating negative cases and those not tested with ACTs was also high. Health facilities having laboratory services and facility being CHPS compounds were key predictors of completing T3. Clinician’s not trusting RDT results can affect the T3 strategy in malaria control. Periodic training/monitoring is required to sustain adherence to the strategy.

Introduction

Malaria is a complex disease that varies widely in epidemiology and clinical manifestations and remains the leading cause of death in the world [1]. Malaria diagnosis over the years was mainly based on signs and symptoms. Thus, malaria was mostly treated presumptively which led to overuse of anti-malarial drugs, unaccountability of resources and unnecessary suffering especially where fever was associated with other infections [2]. Malaria is still endemic in 91 nations and over 90% of all malaria deaths currently occur in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [3]. Two nations–the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria account for about 40% of global malaria mortality [4]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended several interventions which include the use of Long-Lasting Insecticide Treated bed Nets (LLIN), Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) and Larval control as well as chemoprophylaxis and the use of Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) as first line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in malaria endemic countries for the prevention and control of malaria over the past decades [5].

On World Malaria Day 2012, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan launched a new malaria control initiative called Test, Treat and Track (T3) [6]. The initiative seeks to focus the attention of policy-makers and donors on the importance of adopting WHO’s latest evidence-based recommendations on diagnostic testing, treatment and surveillance, and on updating existing malaria control and elimination strategies, as well as country-specific operational plans [7]. The main rational behind the implementation of T3 is that before malaria can be eliminated, there is the need to ensure every suspected malaria case is tested, every confirmed case is treated with a quality-assured antimalarial medicine and that the disease is tracked through timely and accurate surveillance systems [6].

The T3 strategy for malaria control recommends that every suspected malaria case should be tested prior to treatment. The testing could either be done by using rapid diagnostic test (RDT) or microscopy, and all diagnostic tools for malaria cases must be of quality with enough trained personnel across all levels of the health system to provide the service [2]. This is aimed at improving the quality of care and ensuring that antimalarial medicines are used rationally and correctly [2]. In Ghana, treatment of malaria is according to the national treatment guidelines where the first line antimalarials for uncomplicated malaria are Artesunate-Amodiaquine (AS-AQ) and Artemether-Lumefantrine (AL). Alternative ACTs or second line antimalarial for those unable to tolerate AS-AQ is Artemether-Lumefantrine (AL) or DihydroArtemisinin Piperaquine (DHAP). Severe malaria is treated with parenteral Artesunate (intravenous (IV)/Intramuscular (IM)) initially then revert to oral treatment as soon as patient’s condition permits. Treatment of malaria is provided with the necessary support therapy such as antipyretics for fever for uncomplicated malaria and IV fluids for severe malaria as and when appropriate [8].

RDTs for malaria provide an opportunity for improved point-of-care diagnosis and better disease management in malaria-endemic countries [9]. Nevertheless, fever cases are mostly equated to malaria and treated as such in some health facilities without parasitological diagnosis. In 2014, Baiden et al., revealed that the probability of fever that could be attributed to malaria was as high as 61% and 67% in Ghana and Kenya respectively [10]. Studies have shown that children under 5 years are the mostly the ones not tested before treatment [11].

Recent studies in Ghana have shown that a substantial proportion of febrile cases are still presumptively treated as malaria despite the availability of RDTs and the emphasis on testing and treatment based on test results with proportions ranging between 58.5%–91.2% [12, 13]. The cost-effectiveness of implementing test-based management of malaria hinges on health workers adhering to test-results and restricting ACTs to confirmed cases while looking for other causes of fever in the test-negative cases [10]. Similarly, the level of clinician’s adherence to the test of fever cases, negative test results, and tracking of malaria cases through a timely surveillance system are major problems that need attention [13].

A good performance of the T3 strategy for malaria is measured by being tested, treated with an antimalarial and asked to come for review. Thus, all the 3 Ts must be in place. Missing a “T” means the strategy was not well adhered to. Challenges faced by clinicians in implementing the T3 strategy include frequent RDT stock out and lack of diagnostic facilities as reported by studies in Ghana [12, 13]. This study assessed the performance of the T3 strategy implementation in the Volta and Oti regions. It determined the proportion of suspected malaria cases tested by clinicians prior to treatment and proportion of confirmed malaria cases that received treatment according to the T3 malaria policy. It also determined the challenges of the implementation of T3 strategy.

Materials and method

Study site description

The study was carried out in the Volta region prior to the region being split into Volta and Oti regions in 2018. The regions are two out of the sixteen administrative regions in Ghana with a total of 26 administrative municipalities/districts as shown in Fig 1. The regions stretch across all the ecological zones of the country namely: Coastal Savannah, Middle Forest and Northern/Sahel Savannah [14].

Fig 1. Map showing the three study municipalities/districts in the Volta and Oti regions.

Fig 1

The Volta and Oti regions have a total of 698 health facilities including 28 hospitals, 4 polyclinics, 154 health centres, 44 clinics, 14 maternity homes and 454 Community-Based Health Planning and Services (CHPS) compounds. The two regions recorded 2,294,337 outpatient attendance in 2017 [15].

In 2016, the region had the third highest (28%) malaria prevalence and the highest case fatality indicators in the region. The 2015 Volta regional prevalence of malaria among children aged 6–59 months were 36.6% and 25.2% for RDT and microscopy respectively [16]. There was an increment to 36.9% and 27.3% for RDT and microscopy respectively in 2017 [17].

Study population

The study had two different populations: (i) children under five years with their caregivers who reported to the health facilities with fever or history of fever and were managed by clinicians and (ii) clinicians rendering services at the various health facilities during the time of the study.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for children

Children aged less than 5 years who attended the Out-Patient Departments (OPDs) of selected health facilities with fever or history of fever and whose parent/guardian consented to participate in the study were included. Children who were seriously ill requiring hospital admission were excluded.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinicians

All clinicians who were assigned the duties of prescribing during the study period, were available and consented to participate were included in the study.

Study design

A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used for the study. From September to October 2017, data were collected from caregivers who visited any of the selected health facilities with their children presenting with fever or were diagnosed with malaria. Data were collected as they exited the health facility after they had been attended to by the clinicians. Information collected from the caregivers included whether the child was treated for malaria, whether the child was tested before treatment for malaria and whether they were asked to return for follow-up and when they were supposed to return. Clinicians at the health facilities were also interviewed to determine the factors that prevented them from adhering to the T3 strategy. All data were collected using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire.

Sample size determination

For the sample of children, according to Agandaa et al., [12], 42.5% (P) is the proportion of completion of Test, Treat and Track strategy for malaria case management in children under 5 years old in Bongo District, Ghana.

Using Open Epi version 3 Source calculator [18], the sample size was calculated as follows;

=Deff*N*p*(1p)d2z2*(N1)+p*(1p)OpenEpiversion3Sourcecalculator,

Where, Deff is the design effect, N is the finite population (360,000), p is the proportion (42.5%), d is the precision (0.05) and z is the z-value at the 95% confidence level (1.96).

The sample size was 751, calculated based on a prevalence of 42.5% of completion of T3 with a Population of 360,000 children under 5 years in the Volta and Oti regions, at the 95% confidence level, with a design effect of 2 and a precision of 5%. Adjusting for a non-response rate of 15%, we calculated the sample size to be 863.65 or approximately 864. However, 900 children were recruited. Also, a total of 69 clinicians were interviewed, thus one clinician from each facility.

Sampling method

The sampling was done in two stages:

  • Stage one (1): Selection of health facilities. One district was randomly selected by ballot from each of the three ecological zones. All hospitals, health centres and CHPS compounds in the selected districts were included in the study. A total of 69 health facilities [(Hospitals (2), Health centres (40) and CHPS compounds (27)] from three Municipalities/Districts (Keta, Hohoe and Nkwanta) were used in the study.

  • Stage two (2): Selection of participants. One clinician from each of the selected health facilities was included in this study, but in the case where there was more than one clinician in a health facility, a YES or NO balloting was employed in the selection. Study participants (children under-five years with their parents/guardian) were selected using a convenient sampling technique (that is they were recruited as they exited the health facility after accessing services until the sample size was obtained). The sample was proportionately apportioned to each of the health facilities included in the study. To select participants from these facilities, the number of participants that were selected was based on the number of children under-five years seen at the OPD per facility. This proportionate sampling was based on the sample size calculated for this study. A child was eligible to participate in this study, if a clinician wrote in his/her folder that he/she had malaria.

Data collection

The data was collected using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire. The Principal Investigator (PI) together with eight (8) other trained persons collected the data. Exit interviews were conducted when the patients had been attended to and were leaving the health facility. Interviews were conducted in the English language or in the local dialect (Ewe) in the case where respondents did not understand or speak English. Information collected included the background characteristics of children, whether the child was tested before treatment was given, whether the child was given an ACT and was asked to come back for review.

The clinicians were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Information collected on the clinicians included their background, training received on malaria case management, and training on the T3 strategy as well as the challenges that confronted them in the implementation of the strategy.

Definition of key terminologies

Clinician: Physician, Physician Assistant, State Registered Nurse, Enrolled Nurse or Community Health Officer who was assigned the roll of providing clinical care and was at post during the time of the study.

Test: Blood tested for malaria parasites using either microscopy or RDT.

Treat: Treatment given using approved ACTs (AS+AQ, AL or Dihydroartemisinin + Piperaquine (DHAP).

Track: Ask patient to return to the health facility for follow-up.

T3: Test, Treat and Track.

Data management and analysis

Data collected were checked by the PI for completeness before entry into Epi data version 3.1 and was exported to STATA version 15.1 for analysis. The results were presented in tables and graphs. The Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were used to determine the association between completion of T3 strategy and such variables as demographic factors and health service-related factors. Challenges associated with the implementation of the T3 strategy were also presented.

Ethical issues

Ethical clearance was obtained in May 2017 from the Ghana Health Service (GHS) Ethics Review Committee (ERC) (GHS-ERC) and the Dodowa Health Research Center (DHRC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) (DHRCIRB) with study approval numbers of GHS-ERC: 44/05/17 and DHRCIRB/25/05/17 respectively before the commencement of the study. Also, permission from the Municipal/District Health Directorates and the Health facilities was sought. A written informed consent was obtained from the (mother/guardian) of respondents as well as clinicians before commencement of the study.

Results

Distribution of background variables of children by level of health facility

A total of 900 children aged less than five years attending OPD with fever were surveyed from 69 health facilities comprising of 27 CHPS compounds, 40 health centres and 2 hospitals. Table 1 shows that, of the 900 children under 5 years enrolled, 314 (34.9%) were seen at the CHPS compound, 468 (52.0%) were seen at the health centre and 118 (13.1%) were seen at the hospital. The mean age of the children was 27.8 ± 15.6 months. Approximately half, 451 (50.1%) of the children were male.

Table 1. Distribution of background characteristics of children under 5 years and clinicians by level of health facility.

Variable CHPS Compound [N = 314] n (%) Health Center [N = 468] n (%) District Hospital [N = 118] n (%) Total [N = 900] n (%) Pearson Chi-square (χ2) p-value
Sex of child
Male 148 (47.1) 240 (51.3) 63 (53.4) 451 (50.1)
Female 166 (52.9) 230 (48.7) 55(46.6) 449 (49.9) 1.88 0.391
Mean age (in months) (SD) 27.8 (15.55)
Age groups (in months)
<12 45 (14.3) 90 (19.2) 23 (19.5) 158 (17.6)
12–23 66 (21.0) 107 (22.9) 1.9 (16.1) 192 (21.3)
24–35 63 (20.1) 94 (20.1) 25 (21.2) 182 (20.2)
36–47 68 (21.7) 92 (19.7) 26 (22.0) 186 (20.7)
48–59 72 (22.9) 85 (18.2) 25 (21.2) 182 (20.2) 7.62 0.471
Background characteristics of clinicians
N = 27 N = 40 N = 2 N = 69
Sex of clinician
Male 9 (33.3) 20 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 30 (43.5)
Female 18 (66.7) 20 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 39 (56.5) 1.86 0.395
Category of clinician
CHO/CHN 12 (44.4) 13 (32.5)) 0 (0.0) 25 (36.2)
Enrolled/Diploma Nurse 15 (55.6) 16 (40.0) 1 (50.0) 32 (46.4)
Physician Assistant/Doctor 0 (0.0) 11 (27.5) 1 (50.0) 12 (17.4) 10.50 0.033
Awareness of T3
Yes 24 (88.9) 33 (82.5) 2 (100.0) 59 (85.5) 0.88 0.644
No 3 (11.1) 7 (17.5) 0 (0.0) 10 (14.5)
Receive formal training on how to use RDT
Yes 17 (63.0) 19 (47.5) 2 (100.0) 38 (55.1)
No 10 (37.0) 21 (52.5) 0 (0.0) 31 (44.9) 3.24 0.198
Received formal training on malaria case management
Yes 20 (74.1) 25 (62.5) 2 (100.0) 47 (68.1)
No 7 (25.9) 15 (37.5) 0 (0.0) 22 (31.9) 1.96 0.376
Availability of laboratory facility or easy access to laboratory
Yes 6 (22.2) 21 (52.5) 2 (100.0) 29 (42.0)
No 21 (77.8) 19 (47.5) 0 (0.0) 40 (58.0) 8.91 0.012
Able to use RDT
Yes 26 (96.3) 40 (100.0) 2 (100.0) 68 (98.5)
No 1 (3.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) 1.58 0.454

CHO/CHN = Community Health Officer/Community Health Nurse, RDT = Rapid Diagnostic Test, ACT = Artemisinin Combination Therapy T3 = Test, Treat, Track, N = Number sampled, n = number of responses

A total of 69 clinicians were interviewed out of which 40 (58.0%) were from the health centre, 27 (39.1%) from CHPS compound and 2 (2.9%) from the Hospital. Over half, 39 (56.5%) of the clinicians were female. The most common category of clinicians was Enrolled/Diploma nurses 32 (46.4%) followed by Community Health Officer (CHO)/ Community Health Nurse (CHN) 25 (36.2%) and the least were Physician Assistant/Doctors 12 (17.4%).

Awareness and training on T3 strategy

Table 1 shows that out of the 69 clinicians, 59 (85.5%) of them were aware of the T3 strategy. Most, 68 (98.5%) of the clinicians knew how to conduct RDT, 47 (68.1%) had formal training on malaria case management and 38 (55.1%) had formal training on how to conduct RDT. Less than half, 29 (42.0%) of the clinicians said they had laboratory facilities available.

Testing and treatment of malaria cases

Table 2 shows that, 818 (90.9%) of the 900 children enrolled were tested for malaria. The CHPS compound tested 296/314 (94.3%) children, health centres 418/468 (89.3%) and the hospitals 104/118 (88.1%). Overall, the prevalence of malaria among children tested was 600/818 (73.4%) with the highest prevalence occurring among children who attended CHPS compounds 251/296 (84.8%), health centres 294/418 (70.3%) and least was the hospitals 55/104 (52.9%). Of those who tested positive for malaria, 530/600 (88.3%) received treatment with ACTs of which 247/251 (98.4%) were treated at the CHPS Compounds, 230/294 (78.2%) from health centres and 53/55 (96.4%) at the hospitals. Also, 109/218 (50.0%) of children who tested negative for malaria also were treated with ACTs. Again, 67/82 (81.7%) of children who were not tested for malaria were also treated with ACTs.

Table 2. Distribution of blood test carried out, test results and treatment given by level of health facility.

Variable CHPS Compound [N = 314]
n (%)
Health Centre [N = 468] n(%) Hospital [N 118]
n(%)
Total [N = 900] n (%) Pearson Chi-Square (χ2) p-value
Tested with RDT
Yes 296 (94.3) 418 (89.3) 104 (88.1) 818 (90.9) 6.81 0.033
No 18 (5.7) 50 (10.7) 14 (11.9) 82 (9.1)
Results of test N = 296 N = 418 N = 104 N = 818
Malaria positive 251(84.8) 294 (70.3) 55 (52.9) 600 (73.4) 44.1 <0.001
Test positive and treatment given
N = 251 N = 294 N = 55 N = 600
Positive Test & treated with ACT 247 (98.4) 230 (78.2) 53 (96.4) 530 (88.3)
Positive Test with no ACT treatment 4 (1.6) 64 (21.8) 2 (3.6) 70 (11.7) 57.27 <0.001
Test negative and treatment given
N = 45 N = 124 N = 49 N = 218
Negative Test & treated with ACT 21 (46.7) 69 (55.6) 19 (38.8) 109 (50.0)
Negative Test with no ACT treatment 24 (53.3) 55 (44.4) 30 (61.2) 109 (50.0) 4.25 0.119
No test and treatment given
N = 18 N = 50 N = 14 N = 82
No Test but treated with ACT 16 (88.9) 39 (78.0) 12 (85.7) 67 (81.7)
No Test and no treatment with ACT 2 (11.1) 11 (22.0) 2 (14.3) 15 (18.3) 1.23 0.540
Asked to bring child back for review
Yes 221 (70.4) 256 (54.7) 39 (33.1) 516 (57.3)
No 93 (29.6) 212 (45.3) 79 (66.9) 384 (42.7) 51.62 <0.001
Complete T3 by health facility
Not complete T3 112 (35.7) 287 (61.3) 93 (78.8) 492 (54.7)
Completed T3 202 (64.3) 181 (38.7) 25 (21.2) 408 (45.3) 81.86 <0.001

RDT = Rapid Diagnostic Test, ACT = Artemisinin Combination Therapy, T3 = Test, Treat, Track, N = Number sampled, n = number of responses

Tracking of malaria cases

Overall, 516/900 (57.3%) of the children were asked to return to the health facility for review (Table 2), with the highest proportion being those attending the CHPS compound, 221/314 (70.4%) (95% CI: 65.0%–75.4%) asked to return, health centre, 256/468 (54.7%) (95% CI: 50.1%–59.3%) and hospital, 39/118 (33.1%) (95% CI: 24.7%–42.3%).

Completion of T3 by health facility

Table 2 shows that, overall, 408/900 (45.3%) completed the T3 strategy and the highest completion proportion was the CHPS compounds, 202/314 (64.3%) (95% CI: 58.8%-69.6%) followed by the health centres, 181/468 (38.7%) (95% CI: 34.2%-43.3%) and the hospitals, 25/118 (21.2%) (95% CI: 14.2%-29.7%).

Associations between background characteristics of children, clinicians and the odds of completing T3

Our results in the multivariable regression analysis found that health centres and CHPS compounds were 2.39 and 6.79 times more likely to complete T3 as compared to hospitals [AOR = 2.39 (95% CI: 1.48, 3.87), p<0.001] and [AOR = 6.79 (95% CI: 4.12, 11.21), p<0.001] respectively. Clinicians who had training on the use of RDT to conduct malaria test were 1.48 times more likely to complete T3 [AOR = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.10, 2.00), p = 0.010]. Similarly, clinicians who had access to laboratory facilities were 2.08 times more likely to complete T3 [AOR = 2.08 (95% CI: 1.55, 2.79), p<0.001] (Table 3).

Table 3. Association between socio-demographic characteristics and other risk factors of study participants and the odds of completing T3.

Characteristics COR (95%CI) p-value AOR (95%CI) p-value
Sex of children
Male Ref. Ref.
Female 1.21 (0.92, 1.57) 0.162 1.17 (0.88, 1.54) 0.276
Age group of children (in months)
<12 Ref. Ref.
12–23 0.91(0.59, 1.39) 0.649 0.81 (0.52, 1.26) 0.348
24–35 1.32 (0.86, 2.03) 0.200 1.26 (0.80, 1.98) 0.312
36–47 1.07(0.70, 1.64) 0.768 0.97 (0.62, 1.52) 0.903
48–59 1.24 (0.81, 1.90) 0.327 1.12 (0.71, 1.76) 0.619
Health Facility
Hospital Ref. Ref.
Health Centre 2.35 (1.45, 3.79) <0.001 2.39(1.48, 3.87) <0.001
CHPS Compound 6.71(4.08, 11.04) <0.001 6.79(4.12, 11.21) <0.001
Clinician’s Sex
Male Ref. Ref.
Female 0.75 (0.58, 0.98) 0.032 0.96 (0.73, 1.47) 0.844
Category of clinician
CHO/CHN Ref. Ref.
Enrolled/Diploma nurse 1.32 (0.95, 1.83) 0.099 1.04 (0.73, 1.47) 0.844
Physician Assistant/Doctor 1.77 (1.24, 2.54) 0.002 1.33 (0.91, 1.94) 0.146
Availability of laboratory
No Ref. Ref.
Yes 2.35 (1.79, 3.07) <0.001 2.08 (1.55, 2.79) <0.001
Training on use of RDT
No Ref. Ref.
Yes 1.80 (1.35, 2.39) <0.001 1.48 (1.10, 2.00) 0.010

COR = Crude Odds Ratio, AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio, RDT = Rapid Diagnostic Test, CHPS = Community-Based Health Planning and Services, CHO = Community Health Officer, CHN = Community Health Nurse

Challenges confronting the T3 strategy

Clinicians’ negative perception that RDTs do not give accurate results 46 (66.7%), lack of diagnostic facilities 45 (65.2%), frequent RDT stock outs 41 (59.4%) and inadequate training on use of RDTs/malaria case management 40 (58.0%) were main challenges mentioned. Frequent ACTs stock outs 28 (40.6%) and patients resisting diagnostic testing 20 (29.0%) were also mentioned as challenges.

Discussion

The WHO’s T3 strategy for malaria control recommends that every suspected malaria case should be tested prior to treatment with an antimalarial drug [6]. The testing could either be done by using malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) or microscopy. This recommendation by the WHO seeks to put an end to the presumptive treatment of malaria which leads to drug wastage and under-treatment of other febrile illnesses and development of drug resistance. In addition, all malaria cases should be tracked in a surveillance system to be able to measure malaria prevalence and impact of malaria interventions to guide policy and practice [7].

Proportion of suspected malaria cases tested by clinicians before treatment

In theory, the availability of reliable easy-to-use tests such as RDTs should result in a switch from presumptive treatment based on signs and symptoms alone to parasite-based diagnosis and treatment based on test results [19]. Our study found a high overall test rate of 90.9% even though we did not achieve the 100% target set by WHO. However, our finding is far higher than the 38.8% reported by Nyandigisi and colleagues from Kenya, 26.4% by Osei-Kwakye et al., from Kintampo, Ghana and 43.8% by Abdelgader et al., in the Republic of Sudan [11, 20, 21]. This could be due to the fact that, the T3 strategy was launched in 2012 and the implementation started in 2013 however, these studies were conducted before the commencement of the T3 strategy implementation.

A similar study in the Ho Municipality of Ghana by Kankpetinge et al., reported a test rate of 58.5% [13], lower than the findings of this current study. The reason for the lower test rate could be that their study was conducted in May 2015 whilst this current study was conducted in September 2017, three and five years respectively after the commencement of the implementation of T3 strategy. According to the Ghana Health Service (GHS) annual report 2016 there was massive training of clinicians on the T3 strategy in Ghana in 2015 [22]. The higher test rate in this current study could be attributed to the improvement in clinician’s adherence to the T3 strategy as a result of the training.

Our study found the prevalence of malaria among children tested to be 73.4%. This is higher than what was reported in the Republic of Sudan [21] and in Ho, Ghana [13] who reported the prevalence of malaria to be 37.7% and 52.8% respectively. The high prevalence of malaria in our study could be attributed to the fact that, majority of the children with fever were tested and therefore malaria cases could not have been missed. In addition, the time data was collected could be a contributory factor to the prevalence of malaria since data was collected in September which the high transmission season.

Confirmed malaria cases receiving treatment according to the T3 policy

In this current study, a large proportion (88.3%) of the children who tested positive for malaria were treated with ACTs, however this is slightly lower than what was reported by Agandaa et al., (91.2%) in Bongo district [12] and 100% by Kankpetinge et al., in the Ho Municipality [13]. The reason for a lower treatment in this current study could be attributed to frequent ACTs stock outs, (40.6%) which was reported by clinicians as a challenge. The current study found that half, (50.0%) of the children who tested negative for malaria were also treated with ACT compared to 21.9% and 17% reported in other studies [13, 21]. The high treatment of negative test patients with ACT in this current study could be attributed to the fact that most, (66.7%) clinicians believed RDTs do not give accurate results. Also, in this study, 81.7% of those who were not tested were also treated with ACTs compared to whilst 52.0% and 10.2% reported in other studies [13, 21]. The high treatment rate of non-tested case with ACT in this current study could be attributed to the fact that there was a high rate (59.4%) of RDT stock out reported by clinicians.

Despite the fact that the expected target for treatment with ACT based on positive test results is 100%, the observation made in the Volta and Oti regions is an indication of an improvement which is in line with the observations made by Agandaa et al., in the Bongo district of Ghana (2016) Kankpetinge et al., in the Ho Municipality of Ghana (2015), Zurovac et al., in Kenya (2014) and Udoh et al., in Nigeria (2013) [12, 13, 23, 24]. Nonetheless, it is evident that the few cases presumptively treated must be re-examined to improve the performance of the T3 strategy of malaria control among children under-five in the regions and also early detect other conditions which may be responsible for febrile presentation of these children.

Tracking of children after treatment

The reason for tracking was that once malaria cases are being asked to come for review, cure rates and cure status of cases could be ascertained. Again, cases still harboring the malaria parasites after treatment could be duly managed and could also lead to the elimination of the parasites. Thiam et al., from Senegal found that the ability to track the confirmed cases and track the impact of antimalarial interventions through the widespread use of parasite-based diagnosis will enable malaria elimination to be seriously considered [25]. In this current study, more than half (57.3%) of the children tested were asked by clinicians to return for review compared to 38.5% reported by in Ho, Ghana [13].

Further, in this current study, CHPS compounds recorded the highest tracking rate (70.4%) compared to other facilities.. This could be attributed to the fact that CHPS compounds are in close proximity to the people than hospitals. This finding was comparable to tracking rate of 70.6% reported in Bongo district, Ghana for CHPS compounds compared to other health facilities [12].

Completion of T3

A good performance of the T3 strategy for malaria is measured by being tested, treated with an antimalarial and asked to come for review. Thus, all the 3 Ts must be in place. Missing a “T” means the strategy or policy was not well adhered to. This current study found that 45.3% of the children completed all the 3 Ts. This is closer to what was reported (42.5%) in the Bongo District of Ghana [12]. This can be attributed to the low tracking of cases where close to half of the children were not asked to come for review. This study found that CHPS compounds and health centres were 6.79 and 2.39 times more likely to complete T3 compared to hospitals which is due to the low tracking of cases in the hospitals.

Challenges associated with the implementation of the T3 strategy

The main challenge stated by clinicians to the successful implementation of the T3 policy was clinicians’ negative perception that RDTs do not give accurate results (66.7%) contrary to findings of Agandaa et al., in Bongo and Kankpetinge et al., in Ho where frequent RDT stock out was the major challenge faced by clinicians [12, 13]. Studies in Burkina Faso have shown that clinicians do not trust the results of RDTs as reported in our study [26, 27]. In Ghana the RDT kit mainly supplied to health facilities by the National Malaria Control Programme is the SD BIOLINE Malaria Ag P.F (HRP2/pLDH) manufactured by the Abbott Diagnostics used for the rapid qualitative detection of Histidine-rich Protein II (HRP-II) antigen and Lactose dehydrogenase (pLDH) from malaria Plasmodium falciparum. Studies have shown that this test kit has relatively good sensitivity/specificity compared to traditional testing methods like microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [28, 29]. Therefore, clinicians need to test with RDTs when available instead of assuming they don’t give accurate results.

Although data for this study was collected about 5 years ago, the findings are still relevant in informing interventions to improve adherence to the T3 strategy in health facilities in Ghana since to the best of our knowledge no specific intervention has been implemented in the regions the study was conducted to improve adherence to the strategy.

Limitations of the study

The limitation of the study was that, data could not be collected to determine seasonal trends hence the effects of seasonal variations of the incidence of malaria could not be determine because the study employed a cross-sectional study design. Even though exit interviews were conducted to collect data from the participants, there was the possibility of recall bias because their responses might have been influenced by the conditions of their children.

Conclusion

There has been improvement in testing before treatment and a reduction in presumptive treatment for malaria in the Volta and Oti regions of Ghana. Adherence to treatment with ACTs based on test results was very high, tracking of children tested and treated was moderate (57.3%) and completing T3 was low. Key predictors to completion of T3 were availability of laboratory services, training of clinicians to use RDTs, working at lower-level facilities such as CHPS compound and health centre. Clinicians’ negative perception that RDTs do not give accurate results is a challenge and this can affect the T3 strategy for malaria control.

Recommendations

In order to improve upon completeness of the T3 strategy and sustain the high coverage of testing and treatment with ACTs, the National Malaria Control Program (NMCP) in collaboration with the Regional Health Directorate and Medical store should ensure regular supply of ACTs and RDT to address the frequent ACT and RDT stock out. Clinicians should be trained and given periodic refresher trainings to test all fever cases with RTDs and not to presume they do not give accurate results. The GHS should ensure that health facilities are equipped with diagnostic facilities to increase compliance to T3 strategy. Targeted intervention in the form of monitoring and supervision, retraining of staff to address the differences in testing, treating and tracking of malaria cases at facility level should be implemented. There is the need to explore effectiveness of other means such as contacting patients by telephone or text messages or using contact persons in the communities to track malaria patients.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset. Minimal dataset underlying the results presented in this study.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr Felix Doe, Dr Laud Boateng and Miss Titiati and the staff of the Keta, Hohoe and Nkwanta South Municipal Health Directorate. We would like to thank the interviewers as well as the mothers and children who participated in the study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ndong IC, Van Reenen M, Boakye DA, Mbacham WF, Grobler AF. Trends in malaria admissions at the Mbakong Health Centre of the North West Region of Cameroon: a retrospective study. Malaria Journal. 2014; 13(1):328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mbuli CW, Waqo E, Owiti PO, Tweya H, Kizito W, Edwards JK, Takarinda KC, Ogutu O. Trends of reported outpatient malaria cases to assess the Test, Treat and Track (T3) policy in Kenya. East African Medical Journal. 2016; 93(10):3–9 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hemingway J, Shretta R, Wells TN, Bell D, Djimdé AA, Achee N, Qi G. Tools and strategies for malaria control and elimination: what do we need to achieve a grand convergence in malaria? PLoS Biology. 2016; 14(3):e1002380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.WHO. Global technical strategy for malaria 2016–2030. Geneva. 2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/176712/1/9789241564991_engpdf?ua=1 on 12th February, 2017.
  • 5.WHO. World Malaria Report. Geneva, Switzerland. 2012c.
  • 6.WHO. Global Malaria Programme T3: Test Treat Track initiative. Geneva, Switzerland. 2012a.
  • 7.WHO. Scaling up diagnostic testing, treatment and surveillance for malaria. Geneva, Switzerland. 2012b.
  • 8.Ministry of Health–Ghana Health. Guidelines for Case Management of Malaria in Ghana, 3rd Edition. 2014
  • 9.Comoé CC, Ouattara AF, Raso G, Tanner M, Utzinger J, Koudou BG. Willingness to use a rapid diagnostic test for malaria in a rural area of central Côte d’Ivoire. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12 (1):1089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Baiden F, Malm K, Bart-Plange C, Hodgson A, Chandramohan D, Webster J, Owusu-Agyei S. Shifting from presumptive to test-based management of malaria-technical basis and implications for malaria control in Ghana. Ghana medical journal. 2014;48(2):112–22 doi: 10.4314/gmj.v48i2.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nyandigisi A, Memusi D, Mbithi A, Ang’wa N, Shieshia M, Muturi A, Sudoi R, Githinji S, Juma E, Zurovac D. Malaria case-management following change of policy to universal parasitological diagnosis and targeted artemisinin-based combination therapy in Kenya. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6(9):e24781 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Agandaa SA, Kweku M, Agboli E, Takase M, Takramah W, Tarkang E, Gyapong J. Implementation and challenges of test, treat and track (T3) strategy for malaria case management in children under five years in the Bongo District, Ghana. Clin Res Trials. 2016; 2:235–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kankpetinge C, Kweku M, Baiden F, Agboli E, Akapoeh D, Takramah W, Tarkang E, Norman I, Binka FN. Clinicians’ Adherence to Implementation of Test, Treat and Track Strategy for Malaria Control among Children Under-five Years in Ho Municipality, Volta Region, Ghana. International Journal of TROPICAL DISEASE & Health. 2016;1–1 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ghana Statistical Service. Regional Analytical Report, Volta Region. Accra, Ghana. 2013.
  • 15.Ghana Health Service. The Health Sector in Ghana: Facts and Figures. Accra, Ghana. 2018. https://africaopendata.org/dataset/the-health-sector-in-ghana-facts-and-figures-2018/resource/0bcf9b54-3e35-4543-95cd-fd4de953edff
  • 16.Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), Ghana Health Service (GHS), and ICF International. Ghana Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Rockville, Maryland, USA: GSS, GHS, and ICF International. 2015
  • 17.Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP), National Public Health Reference Laboratory and ICF International. Ghana Malaria Indicator Survey: Key Indicators 2016. Rockville, Maryland, USA: GSS, GHS, and ICF International. 2017
  • 18.Open Epi version 3 Source calculator. https://www.openepi.com/Menu/OE_Menu.htm
  • 19.Bastiaens GJ, Bousema T, Leslie T. Scale-up of malaria rapid diagnostic tests and artemisinin-based combination therapy: challenges and perspectives in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Medicine. 2014; 11(1):e1001590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Osei-Kwakye K, Asante KP, Mahama E, Apanga S, Owusu R, Kwara E, Adjei G, Abokyi L, Yeetey E, Dosoo DK, Punguyire D. The benefits or otherwise of managing malaria cases with or without laboratory diagnosis: the experience in a district hospital in Ghana. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(3):e58107 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Abdelgader TM, Ibrahim AM, Elmardi KA, Githinji S, Zurovac D, Snow RW, Noor AM. Progress towards implementation of ACT malaria case-management in public health facilities in the Republic of Sudan: a cluster-sample survey. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1):11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ghana Health Service. Family Health Division Annual Report, 2016. Accra, Ghana. 2016.
  • 23.Zurovac D, Githinji S, Memusi D, Kigen S, Machini B, Muturi A, Otieno G, Snow RW, Nyandigisi A. Major improvements in the quality of malaria case-management under the “test and treat” policy in Kenya. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9 (3):e92782 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Udoh E, Oyo-ita A, Odey F, Effa E, Esu E, Oduwole O, Chibuzor M, Meremikwu M. Management of uncomplicated malaria in underfives in private and public health facilities in South-eastern Nigeria: a clinical audit of current practices. Malaria Research and Treatment. 2013. doi: 10.1155/2013/575080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thiam S, Thior M, Faye B, Ndiop M, Diouf ML, Diouf MB, Diallo I, Fall FB, Ndiaye JL, Albertini A, Lee E. Major reduction in anti-malarial drug consumption in Senegal after nation-wide introduction of malaria rapid diagnostic tests. PloS ONE. 2011; 6 (4):e18419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kiemde F, Bonko MDA, Tahita MC, Lompo P, Rouamba T, Tinto H, van Hensbroek MB, Mens PF, Schallig HDFH. Accuracy of a Plasmodium falciparum specific histidine-rich protein 2 rapid diagnostic test in the context of the presence of non-malaria fevers, prior anti-malarial use and seasonal malaria transmission. Malaria Journal. 2017; 16(1):294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bonko MDA, Kiemde F, Tahita MC, Lompo P, Some AM, Tinto H, van Hensbroek MB, Mens PF, Schallig HDFH. The effect of malaria rapid diagnostic tests results on antimicrobial prescription practices of health care workers in Burkina Faso. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. 2019; 18(1):5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tseroni M, Pervanidou D, Tserkezou P, Rachiotis G, Pinaka O, Baka A, Georgakopoulou T, Vakali A, Dionysopoulou M, Terzaki I, Marka A, Detsis M, Evlampidou Z, Mpimpa A, Vassalou E, Tsiodras S, Tsakris A, Kremastinou J, Hadjichristodoulou C; MALWEST Project. Field application of SD bioline malaria Ag Pf/Pan rapid diagnostic test for malaria in Greece. PLoS One. 2015; 10(3):e0120367 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kashosi TM, Mutuga JM, Byadunia DS, Mutendela JK, Mulenda B, Mubagwa K. Performance of SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan rapid test in the diagnosis of malaria in South-Kivu, DR Congo. Pan African Medical Journal. 2017; 27:216. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.216.11430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Henk Schallig

18 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-40765Assessment of the performance and challenges in the implementation of the test, treat and track (T3) strategy for malaria control among children under-five years in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Der,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. You are requested to address all points raised by the reviewers. it is also noted that samples were collected a considerable time ago. Please address this issue in your discussion. Also elaborate on the current validity of your observations

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Henk D. F. H. Schallig, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. . In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses an important issue in the implementation of T3 startegy of WHO for malaria. For me the most important finding was that Health Workers do not trust the RDTS. This has also been found in previous studies, for example :

1) The effect of malaria rapid diagnostic tests results on antimicrobial prescription practices of health care workers in Burkina Faso. Bonko MDA, et al. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2019 Jan 28;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12941-019-0304-2

2) Accuracy of a Plasmodium falciparum specific histidine-rich protein 2 rapid diagnostic test in the context of the presence of non-malaria fevers, prior anti-malarial use and seasonal malaria transmission.

Kiemde F, et al Malar J. 2017 Jul 20;16(1):294. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-1941-6

And these papers (or comparable ones should be mentioned in the introduction or discussion.

It is noted that the data were collected about 5 years ago. How valid are these nowadays? Why did it take so long to prepare a manuscript. Please explain.

It would be very useful to discuss the type of RDT(s) that have been used in the faciities for the diagnosis of malaria. Are these notorious in providing incorrect diagnosis?

Also elaborate on ACTs (and other treatments provided.

The figures are redundant and can be sumarised in the main body of the text

Reviewer #2: General comments:

As the title of the manuscript describe, the authors have assessed the performance and challenges in the implementation a strategy called T3 (test-treat-track) for the control of malaria among children under 5 years in Ghana.

No general comment to do.

Specific comments:

Abstract: Results:

Line39-40: “Most children, 818/900 (90.9%) were tested for malaria and 600/818 (73.4%) were positive for malaria parasitaemia.” Which test was used detect malaria parasitemia? RDT or microscopy? Authors need to specify.

Line 43: “ hildren completed T3 with CHPS compound “. Please give the explanation of this abbreviation.

Introduction

Line 63: “challenges of T3 strategy”. It the first time to use T3 in the main text. Please explain it.

General comment: 3 page for the introduction is too long. I will ask authors to summary the introduction 1 page and half maximum. Some paragraphs can be summarized in few lines to make it consistent. I encourage the authors to review the introduction.

Materials and methods

Study site description

Line 128-134 “the region are two ………. mountainous”. This section is not relevant for the reader. Maybe use a map to show the study site.

Line 137-139: Not relevant. Reader want information that could be helpful for the reader to understand your study and data.

General comment: There are more information that are not relevant for the ready. I will suggest the authors to summarize and give the relevant ones.

Study population

Line 146: “The second study “. Is it a cross-section survey or another study different to the main study? I think after enrolment of febrile children, cross-sectional survey were made to collect qualitative information. This should be clarify.

Study design

I note that no biological data has been collected. Only interview of healthcare workers or care givers.

Results

Prefer to not make comment.

Discussion

The discussion is made in 4 pages and half. In addition, In addition, the study design is not strong to make a solid analysis. Data collected are main based on information collected from care givers and healthcare workers. This has been noted by the authors and I think this is a major bias.

For me this paper cannot be accepted for publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 7;17(12):e0278602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278602.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Aug 2022

Reviewer 1

Comment: This paper addresses an important issue in the implementation of T3 strategy of WHO for malaria. For me the most important finding was that Health Workers do not trust the RDTS. This has also been found in previous studies, for example :

1) The effect of malaria rapid diagnostic tests results on antimicrobial prescription practices of health care workers in Burkina Faso. Bonko MDA, et al. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2019 Jan 28;18(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12941-019-0304-2

2) Accuracy of a Plasmodium falciparum specific histidine-rich protein 2 rapid diagnostic test in the context of the presence of non-malaria fevers, prior anti-malarial use and seasonal malaria transmission.

Kiemde F, et al Malar J. 2017 Jul 20;16(1):294. doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-1941-6

And these papers (or comparable ones should be mentioned in the introduction or discussion.

Response: Thank you for your comment and for suggesting these two important papers that had a similar challenge of clinicians not trusting the results of RDTs as found in our study.

As suggested we have now mentioned these two papers in our discussion. This can be found on lines 448-449 and reads as “Studies in Burkina Faso have shown that clinicians do not trust the results of RDTs as reported in our study [26, 27]”

Comment: It is noted that the data were collected about 5 years ago. How valid are these nowadays? Why did it take so long to prepare a manuscript. Please explain.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the data were collected 5 years ago but we believe that the findings are still valid since no major intervention has been implemented by the Ghana Malaria Control Programme to address the gaps identified in the regions the study was conducted.

The reason for which it took so long for the manuscript to be prepared was because the data collected was to be used for a manuscript writing workshop which was to be used as a learning process for students of the School of Public Health of the University of Health and Allied Sciences where the Principal Investigator is a Professor. However, the manuscript writing workshop could not come off due to some interruptions in the School’s academic calendar which was further worsened by the COVID 19 pandemic and Schools were closed down. The workshop could not be organized via zoom since most of these students lived in remote areas where internet connectivity was poor hence the delay in the manuscript preparation.

We have now included this in our discussion and it can be found on lines 459-462 and reads “Although data for this study was collected about 5 years ago, the findings are still relevant in informing interventions to improve adherence to the T3 strategy in health facilities in Ghana since to the best of our knowledge no specific intervention has been implemented in the regions the study was conducted to improve adherence to the strategy.”

Comment: It would be very useful to discuss the type of RDT(s) that have been used in the facilities for the diagnosis of malaria. Are these notorious in providing incorrect diagnosis?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have now included in our discussion the type of RDT kits used in the health facilities and mentioned studies that have evaluated this test kit and found it to have satisfactory agreement with traditional methods of testing like microscopy and PCR.

This revision is found on lines 449-455 and reads “In Ghana the RDT kit mainly supplied to health facilities by the National Malaria Control Programme is the SD BIOLINE Malaria Ag P.F (HRP2/pLDH) manufactured by the Abbott Diagnostics used for the rapid qualitative detection of Histidine-rich Protein II (HRP-II) antigen and Lactose dehydrogenase (pLDH) from malaria Plasmodium falciparum. Studies have shown that this test kit has relatively good sensitivity/specificity compared to traditional testing methods like microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [28, 29]. Therefore, clinicians need to test with RDTs when available instead of assuming they don’t give accurate results”

Comment: Also elaborate on ACTs (and other treatments provided.

Response: We have revised the background to include information on ACTs used in health facilities in Ghana according to the national malaria treatment guidelines. This can be found on lines 90-97.

Comment: The figures are redundant and can be sumarised in the main body of the text

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have removed the figures and summarized them in the main text.

Reviewer 2

Comment: As the title of the manuscript describe, the authors have assessed the performance and challenges in the implementation a strategy called T3 (test-treat-track) for the control of malaria among children under 5 years in Ghana.

No general comment to do.

Response: Thank you for your brief overview of the manuscript

Specific comments:

Comment: Abstract: Results:Line39-40: “Most children, 818/900 (90.9%) were tested for malaria and 600/818 (73.4%) were positive for malaria parasitaemia.” Which test was used detect malaria parasitemia? RDT or microscopy? Authors need to specify.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the results in the abstract to indicate the test that was used. This can be found on line 38-39 and reads as “Most children, 818/900 (90.9%) were tested for malaria and 600/818 (73.4%) were positive for malaria parasitaemia using rapid diagnostic test”

Comment: Line 43: “ Children completed T3 with CHPS compound “. Please give the explanation of this abbreviation.

Response: We have written this term now in full and the sentence now reads as “Only 408/900 (45.3%) children completed T3 with Community Health-based Planning Services (CHPS) compound having the highest completion rate 202/314 (64.3%)” This can be found on line 42.

Introduction

Comment: Line 63: “challenges of T3 strategy”. It the first time to use T3 in the main text. Please explain it.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Based on another comment, where you suggested that we revise the introduction to make it shorter, we have deleted the portion that had this statement.

Comment: General comment: 3 page for the introduction is too long. I will ask authors to summary the introduction 1 page and half maximum. Some paragraphs can be summarized in few lines to make it consistent. I encourage the authors to review the introduction.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the introduction and reduced it significantly.

Materials and methods

Comment: Study site description

Line 128-134 “the region are two ………. mountainous”. This section is not relevant for the reader. Maybe use a map to show the study site

Line 137-139: Not relevant. Reader want information that could be helpful for the reader to understand your study and data.

General comment: There are more information that are not relevant for the ready. I will suggest the authors to summarize and give the relevant ones.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the study area to take out most of the descriptive information and used a map to show the municipalities/districts in which the study was conducted. The map is labelled as Fig 1.

Comment: Study population

Line 146: “The second study “. Is it a cross-section survey or another study different to the main study? I think after enrolment of febrile children, cross-sectional survey were made to collect qualitative information. This should be clarify.

Response: The study was a cross-sectional study that involved two different populations. The first population was caregivers of children under 5 years with a history of fever who were interviewed to find out if they had been tested for and or treated for malaria. The second population was clinicians assigned the duties of prescribing during the study period and were available. They were interviewed to determine the challenges hindering the implementation of the T3 strategy in health facilities.

The study population in the manuscript has been revised to make it clearer. This can be found on lines 169-172 and reads “The study had two different populations: (i) children under five years with their caregivers who reported to the health facilities with fever or history of fever and were managed by clinicians and (ii) clinicians rendering services at the various health facilities during the time of the study”

Comment: Study design

I note that no biological data has been collected. Only interview of healthcare workers or care givers.

Response: Thank you for this observation. One of the objectives of the study was to assess the implementation of the T3 strategy as part of routine care in health facilities. That is why we interviewed care givers of children under 5 years who had accessed routine care at the health facilities to find out if the T3 strategy was followed. The use of exit interviews made it difficult to collect biological data such as verifying the test result written in the folder of the child with what was recorded in the OPD or laboratory register. The other objective was to determine the challenges faced by clinicians in the implementation of the T3 strategy in health facilities, hence there was no need for biological data to answer this objective.

Comment: Results

Prefer to not make comment.

Response: Thank you

Comment: Discussion

The discussion is made in 4 pages and half. In addition, In addition, the study design is not strong to make a solid analysis. Data collected are main based on information collected from care givers and healthcare workers. This has been noted by the authors and I think this is a major bias.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have revised the discussion to shorten the length.

However, we politely disagree with the author that our study design was not strong to make solid analysis. The study design used enabled us to answer all the objectives of the study and our findings are relevant to the Ghana National Malaria Control Programme in identifying aspects of the T3 strategy that needs improvement.

We did state in our limitations that the use of cross-sectional study design made it impossible to determine seasonal variations of malaria but findings from this study are very relevant as stated above.

Comment: For me this paper cannot be accepted for publication.

Response: Thank you, we appreciate your comment but we believe the revisions we have made to the manuscript based on the valuable comments you have given has improved the quality of the manuscript and it can be considered for publication

Academic Editor

It is also noted that samples were collected a considerable time ago. Please address this issue in your discussion. Also elaborate on the current validity of your observations.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that the data was collected 5 years ago. In response to an earlier comment by Reviewer 1 above, we have explained this point and included it in the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

This can be found on lines 459-462 and reads “Although data for this study was collected about 5 years ago, the findings are still relevant in informing interventions to improve adherence to the T3 strategy in health facilities in Ghana since to the best of our knowledge no specific intervention has been implemented in the regions the study was conducted to improve adherence to the strategy.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Henk Schallig

28 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-40765R1Assessment of the performance and challenges in the implementation of the test, treat and track (T3) strategy for malaria control among children under-five years in GhanaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Der,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The authors must address (also in line with PLOS ONE policy) issues related to access to data (preferably open access) and ethics (statement, date of review, date of approval, protocol number, reviewing board etc.). This is important to include otherwise we can not further accpet the paper. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 12 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Henk Schallig, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think that the authors have suffiicently addressed my concerns. However, to be in line with PLOS ONE policy, there must be statements on access to data (now only a minimal data set has been made available) and ethics should be addressed.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 7;17(12):e0278602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278602.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Nov 2022

Academic Editor

Comment: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have reviewed our reference list and updated reference 8 which was incomplete. We have also updated the URL for reference 15 which initially was inaccurate. These changes can be found on page 25, line 450 and page 26, line 479. We found none of our papers cited to have been retracted.

Reviewer 1

Comment: I think that the authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns. However, to be in line with PLOS ONE policy, there must be statements on access to data (now only a minimal data set has been made available) and ethics should be addressed.

Response: Thank you accepting the revisions we have made based on the comments you provided to improve the manuscript.

Access to data: we have provided the minimum dataset as a supporting information which is one of the acceptable data sharing methods for Plos One as per their data availability requirements. The data set provided contains all that is required to replicate all the study findings reported in the manuscript. We added a data availability statement under the data availability section of the online submission portal and the statement reads as “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files”.

Although the preferred option is to deposit the data in a data repository, unfortunately our institution has no data repository for us to deposit our dataset. Also, this study did not receive any funding so we are unable to pay for the data to be deposited in a public data repository.

Ethics: we have a sub section titled ethical issues under the methods section of our manuscript where we have stated the ethics review boards that approved the study and the ethics approval numbers. We have revised the section to include the date of review and it reads as “Ethical clearance was obtained in May 2017 from the Ghana Health Service (GHS) Ethics Review Committee (ERC) (GHS-ERC) and the Dodowa Health Research Center (DHRC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) (DHRCIRB) with study approval numbers of GHS-ERC: 44/05/17 and DHRCIRB/25/05/17 respectively before the commencement of the study. Also, permission from the Municipal/District Health Directorates and the Health facilities was sought. A written informed consent was obtained from the (mother/guardian) of respondents as well as clinicians before commencement of the study”. This can be found on page 11, lines 216-223 of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2

Comment: No comment

Response: Thank you for your comments that helped improve the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Henk Schallig

21 Nov 2022

Assessment of the performance and challenges in the implementation of the test, treat and track (T3) strategy for malaria control among children under-five years in Ghana

PONE-D-21-40765R2

Dear Dr. Der,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Henk Schallig, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Henk Schallig

28 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-40765R2

Assessment of the performance and challenges in the implementation of the test, treat and track (T3) strategy for malaria control among children under-five years in Ghana

Dear Dr. Der:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Henk Schallig

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Dataset. Minimal dataset underlying the results presented in this study.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES