4.2 Article

Perceptions on onchocerciasis and ivermectin treatment in rural communities in Uganda: implications for long-term compliance

Journal

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 1, Issue 2, Pages 163-168

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.inhe.2009.08.008

Keywords

Onchocerciasis; Ivermectin; Knowledge; Perceived severity; Patient compliance; Uganda

Funding

  1. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) [08/181/215A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Registers of community-directed distributors of ivermectin for onchocerciasis from 2000 to 2005 were reviewed to identify people highly and poorly compliant to ivermectin treatment. Compliance was termed 'high' if a person took annual ivermectin >= 4 out of 6 times and 'poor' if it was taken <4 times. Individuals (409 and 362 highly and poorly compliant, respectively) were interviewed on knowledge of onchocerciasis, severity of the disease, benefits of ivermectin treatment and its adverse events. Those who believed onchocerciasis to be a serious disease and also believed ivermectin treatment alleviated symptoms (71.9%), were highly compliant compared with (37.7%) who believed that onchocerciasis was not a serious disease and ivermectin did not alleviate symptoms (P<0.001). Those who believed that ivermectin caused itchiness were 6.1% and 39.5% of highly and poorly compliant respectively (P<0.001). Given that people more highly compliant with ivermectin mass drug administration (MDA) appear to better recognize the severity of onchocerciasis and the salutary effects of ivermectin, their enthusiasm to take ivermectin should be maintained through regular health education on the benefits and importance of continued treatment, and proper management of adverse events. The conclusions drawn in this article may equally apply to other MDA programmes. (C) 2009 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available