Browsing by Author "Tabana, Hanani"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The acceptability of three vaccine injections given to infants during a single clinic visit in South Africa
    (BioMed Central, 2016) Tabana, Hanani; Dudley, Lilian; Knight, Stephen; Cameron, Neil; Mahomed, Hassan; Goliath, Charlyn; Eggers, Rudolf; Wiysonge, Charles S.
    ENGLISH SUMMARY : Background: The Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) has increased the number of antigens and injections administered at one visit. There are concerns that more injections at a single immunisation visit could decrease vaccination coverage. We assessed the acceptability and acceptance of three vaccine injections at a single immunisation visit by caregivers and vaccinators in South Africa. Methods: A mixed methods exploratory study of caregivers and vaccinators at clinics in two provinces of South Africa was conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using questionnaires as well as observations of the administration of three-injection vaccination sessions. Results: The sample comprised 229 caregivers and 98 vaccinators. Caregivers were satisfied with the vaccinators’ care (97 %) and their infants receiving immunisation injections (93 %). However, many caregivers, (86 %) also felt that three or more injections were excessive at one visit. Caregivers had limited knowledge of actual vaccines provided, and reasons for three injections. Although vaccinators recognised the importance of informing caregivers about vaccination, they only did this sometimes. Overall, acceptance of three injections was high, with 97 % of caregivers expressing willingness to bring their infant for three injections again in future visits despite concerns about the pain and discomfort that the infant experienced. Many (55 %) vaccinators expressed concern about giving three injections in one immunisation visit. However, in 122 (95 %) observed three-injection vaccination sessions, the vaccinators administered all required vaccinations for that visit. The remaining seven vaccinations were not completed because of vaccine stock-outs. Conclusions: We found high acceptance by caregivers and vaccinators of three injections. Caregivers’ poor understanding of reasons for three injections resulted from limited information sharing by vaccinators for caregivers. Acceptability of three injections may be improved through enhanced vaccinator-caregiver communication, and improved management of infants’ pain. Vaccinator training should include evidence-informed ways of communicating with caregivers and reducing injection pain. Strategies to improve acceptance and acceptability of three injections should be rigorously evaluated as part of EPI’s expansion in resource-limited countries.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A cost-effectiveness analysis of a home-based HIV counselling and testing intervention versus the standard (facility based) HIV testing strategy in rural South Africa
    (Public Library of Science, 2015) Tabana, Hanani; Nkonki, Lungiswa; Hongoro, Charles; Doherty, Tanya; Ekström, Anna Mia; Naik, Reshma; Zembe-Mkabile, Wanga; Jackson, Debra; Thorson, Anna
    Introduction: There is growing evidence concerning the acceptability and feasibility of home-based HIV testing. However, less is known about the cost-effectiveness of the approach yet it is a critical component to guide decisions about scaling up access to HIV testing. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of a home-based HIV testing intervention in rural South Africa. Methods: Two alternatives: clinic and home-based HIV counselling and testing were compared. Costs were analysed from a provider’s perspective for the period of January to December 2010. The outcome, HIV counselling and testing (HCT) uptake was obtained from the Good Start home-based HIV counselling and testing (HBHCT) cluster randomised control trial undertaken in KwaZulu-Natal province. Cost-effectiveness was estimated for a target population of 22,099 versus 23,864 people for intervention and control communities respectively. Average costs were calculated as the cost per client tested, while cost-effectiveness was calculated as the cost per additional client tested through HBHCT. Results: Based on effectiveness of 37% in the intervention (HBHCT) arm compared to 16% in control arm, home based testing costs US$29 compared to US$38 per person for clinic HCT. The incremental cost effectiveness per client tested using HBHCT was $19. Conclusions: HBHCT was less costly and more effective. Home-based HCT could present a cost-effective alternative for rural ‘hard to reach’ populations depending on affordability by the health system, and should be considered as part of community outreach programs.