BACKGROUND: The leading causes of mortality globally in children younger than five years of age (under-fives), and particularly in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia, in 2018 were infectious diseases, including pneumonia (15%), diarrhoea (8%), malaria (5%) and newborn sepsis (7%) (UNICEF 2019). Nutrition-related factors contributed to 45% of under-five deaths (UNICEF 2019). World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), in collaboration with other development partners, have developed an approach - now known as integrated community case management (iCCM) - to bring treatment services for children 'closer to home'. The iCCM approach provides integrated case management services for two or more illnesses - including diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, severe acute malnutrition or neonatal sepsis - among under-fives at community level (i.e. outside of healthcare facilities) by lay health workers where there is limited access to health facility-based case management services (WHO/UNICEF 2012).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the integrated community case management (iCCM) strategy on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL on 7 November 2019, Virtual Health Library on 8 November 2019, and Popline on 5 December 2018, three other databases on 22 March 2019 and two trial registers on 8 November 2019. We performed reference checking, and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) studies and repeated measures studies comparing generic WHO/UNICEF iCCM (or local adaptation thereof) for at least two iCCM diseases with usual facility services (facility treatment services) with or without single disease community case management (CCM). We included studies reporting on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for under-fives in low- and middle-income countries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened abstracts, screened full texts and extracted data using a standardised data collection form adapted from the EPOC Good Practice Data Collection Form. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third review author not involved in the original screening. We contacted study authors for clarification or additional details when necessary. We reported risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and hazard ratios (HR) for time to event outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for clustering, where possible. We used estimates of effect from the primary analysis reported by the investigators, where possible. We analysed the effects of randomized trials and other study types separately. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies, of which three were cluster RCTs and four were CBAs. Six of the seven studies were in SSA and one study was in Southern Asia. The iCCM components and inputs were fairly consistent across the seven studies with notable variation for the training and deployment component (e.g. on payment of iCCM providers) and the system component (e.g. on improving information systems). When compared to usual facility services, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 2 CBA studies, 5898 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM may have little to no effect on neonatal mortality (HR 1.01, 95% 0.73 to 1.28; 2 trials, 65,209 children; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on infant mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 2 trials, 60,480 children; very low-certainty evidence) and under-five mortality (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.37; 1 trial, 4729 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness by 68% (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.27; 2 trials, 9853 children; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, severity of illness or adverse events for this comparison. When compared to usual facility services plus CCM for malaria, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (very low-certainty evidence) and iCCM may have little or no effect on careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17; 1 trial, 811 children; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality or adverse events for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness. However, the evidence presented here underscores the importance of moving beyond training and deployment to valuing iCCM providers, strengthening health systems and engaging community systems.
BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200.
The objectives of this review were to evaluate the effect of home visits by trained community health workers (CHWs) to successfully identify newborns and young infants (up to 59 days of age) with serious illness and improve care seeking from a health facility. The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts of all articles were read by two authors independently and relevant articles selected. Data were extracted in a pretested questionnaire by two authors independently. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager software. A meta-analysis of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. Pooled estimates (risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of the evaluated outcome measures were calculated by the generic inverse variance method. Seven articles were identified for inclusion in the review. None of them compared the diagnosis of serious illness in young infants by health workers to a 'gold standard' diagnosis. Three studies were available for evaluating the ability of CHWs to identify seriously ill young infants/signs of serious illness. These studies suggest that sensitivity to identify serious illness ranged from 33.3 to 90.5% and specificity from 75.61 to 98.4%. For the outcome of improved care seeking from a health facility, after pooling the data from six RCTs with 4760 subjects in the intervention and 4398 subjects in the control arm, there was a significant improvement in care seeking in the home visit arm (RR=1.35; 95% CI=1.15 to 1.58). Moderate quality evidence indicated that home visits by trained CHWs were associated with improved care-seeking for sick young infants from health facilities by appropriate health care providers in resource-limited settings. However, there is a lack of data regarding successful identification of serious illness. Evidence from validation studies supports the implementation of home visits by trained CHWs for improving outcomes in sick newborns and young infants in resource-limited areas. Further well-designed studies evaluating the effect of home visits by CHWs on successful identification of seriously ill newborns and young infants should include verification by a 'gold standard'.
AIM: To update a previous systematic review and meta-analyses about the effect of breastfeeding promotion interventions on child growth.
METHODS: Studies evaluating the effect of any type of breastfeeding promotion intervention on child weight, length (or height) and weight/height (or BMI) were screened. Papers published between 2006 and 2014 were checked using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Lilacs and SciELO.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were added to 19 other studies identified in the previous review, resulting in 35 studies. Meta-analyses of studies reporting on mean weight, length, weight/length or BMI showed that the interventions had no impact on weight or length/height z scores [pooled effect: 0.03 (95% confidence interval: -0.06;0.12) and 0.03 (95% confidence interval: -0.02;0.08), respectively] and had a modest, but significant, reduction in body mass index/weight-for-height z scores [z score mean difference: -0.06 (95% confidence interval: -0.12;0.00)], which was limited to studies from low- and high-incomes settings. For all three outcomes, there was important heterogeneity among studies, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results.
CONCLUSION: Breastfeeding promotion interventions were not associated with significant changes in weight or length, but led to a modest, albeit significant, reduction in body mass index/weight-for-height z scores.
The leading causes of mortality globally in children younger than five years of age (under-fives), and particularly in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia, in 2018 were infectious diseases, including pneumonia (15%), diarrhoea (8%), malaria (5%) and newborn sepsis (7%) (UNICEF 2019). Nutrition-related factors contributed to 45% of under-five deaths (UNICEF 2019). World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), in collaboration with other development partners, have developed an approach - now known as integrated community case management (iCCM) - to bring treatment services for children 'closer to home'. The iCCM approach provides integrated case management services for two or more illnesses - including diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, severe acute malnutrition or neonatal sepsis - among under-fives at community level (i.e. outside of healthcare facilities) by lay health workers where there is limited access to health facility-based case management services (WHO/UNICEF 2012).
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of the integrated community case management (iCCM) strategy on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL on 7 November 2019, Virtual Health Library on 8 November 2019, and Popline on 5 December 2018, three other databases on 22 March 2019 and two trial registers on 8 November 2019. We performed reference checking, and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) studies and repeated measures studies comparing generic WHO/UNICEF iCCM (or local adaptation thereof) for at least two iCCM diseases with usual facility services (facility treatment services) with or without single disease community case management (CCM). We included studies reporting on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for under-fives in low- and middle-income countries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
At least two review authors independently screened abstracts, screened full texts and extracted data using a standardised data collection form adapted from the EPOC Good Practice Data Collection Form. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third review author not involved in the original screening. We contacted study authors for clarification or additional details when necessary. We reported risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and hazard ratios (HR) for time to event outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for clustering, where possible. We used estimates of effect from the primary analysis reported by the investigators, where possible. We analysed the effects of randomized trials and other study types separately. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included seven studies, of which three were cluster RCTs and four were CBAs. Six of the seven studies were in SSA and one study was in Southern Asia. The iCCM components and inputs were fairly consistent across the seven studies with notable variation for the training and deployment component (e.g. on payment of iCCM providers) and the system component (e.g. on improving information systems). When compared to usual facility services, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 2 CBA studies, 5898 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM may have little to no effect on neonatal mortality (HR 1.01, 95% 0.73 to 1.28; 2 trials, 65,209 children; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on infant mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 2 trials, 60,480 children; very low-certainty evidence) and under-five mortality (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.37; 1 trial, 4729 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness by 68% (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.27; 2 trials, 9853 children; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, severity of illness or adverse events for this comparison. When compared to usual facility services plus CCM for malaria, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (very low-certainty evidence) and iCCM may have little or no effect on careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17; 1 trial, 811 children; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality or adverse events for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness. However, the evidence presented here underscores the importance of moving beyond training and deployment to valuing iCCM providers, strengthening health systems and engaging community systems.
