Skip to main content

Advertisement

Open Access

Prescription practices for malaria in Mozambique: poor adherence to the national protocols for malaria treatment in 22 public health facilities

  • Cristolde A. Salomão1Email author,
  • Jahit Sacarlal2,
  • Baltazar Chilundo3 and
  • Eduardo Samo Gudo1
Malaria Journal201514:483

DOI: 10.1186/s12936-015-0996-5

Received: 28 April 2015

Accepted: 18 November 2015

Published: 1 December 2015

Back to article

Archived Comments

  1. Robust sampling is needed to extrapolate the study findings

    4 December 2015

    Siddharudha Shivalli, Yenepoya Medical College, Yenepoya University, Mangaluru, Karnataka, India

    I read the article by Salomão CA et al, with a great interest. Authors’ efforts are commendable. Based on a large scale hospital based survey, authors demonstrate the poor adherence to the new guidelines for malaria treatment among health care workers in Mozambique and higher prescription of ACT to malaria negative patients.

    In method section, authors stated that only districts that were accessible by road were selected. Authors should have mentioned the approx proportion of districts in 11 provinces of Mozambique which are not accessible by road. If it amounts to a substantial proportion then study findings may not be applicable for these districts. In addition, method of selection of each health centre from each stratum is not clear (i.e. random or purposive).

    It appears that both healthcare worker and clinician can prescribe anti-malarial drugs in the study setting. If so, overuse of ACT in malaria negative patients according to health cadre (clinician vs. healthcare worker) would have been more interesting and informative. Authors should have briefly explained the existing healthcare delivery system and strategies in the study setting with reference to malaria.

    In Table 1 and throughout the article, authors have mentioned the p value as ‘0.000’. Statistical software, by default setting, displays p value as zero if it extends beyond 3 decimal points (i.e. p=0.0000001 would be displayed as p=0.00). Practically, the value of p cannot be zero and hence, I would suggest to report it as p<0.0001.

    Nonetheless, I must congratulate the authors for exploring an important public health problem in the study area.

    Competing interests

    The author declares that there is no conflict of interest about this publication.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
National Institute of Health, Ministry of Health, Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program
(2)
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Eduardo Mondlane University
(3)
Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Eduardo Mondlane University

Advertisement