Browsing by Author "Pandey BD"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating active leprosy case identification methods in six districts of Nepal.
    (BioMed Central Ltd., 2023-12-06) Mahato RK; Ghimire U; Lamsal M; Bajracharya B; Poudel M; Napit P; Lama K; Dahal G; Hayman DTS; Karna AK; Pandey BD; Das CL; Paudel KP
    BACKGROUND: Nepal has achieved and sustained the elimination of leprosy as a public health problem since 2009, but 17 districts and 3 provinces with 41% (10,907,128) of Nepal's population have yet to eliminate the disease. Pediatric cases and grade-2 disabilities (G2D) indicate recent transmission and late diagnosis, respectively, which necessitate active and early case detection. This operational research was performed to identify approaches best suited for early case detection, determine community-based leprosy epidemiology, and identify hidden leprosy cases early and respond with prompt treatment. METHODS: Active case detection was undertaken in two Nepali provinces with the greatest burden of leprosy, Madhesh Province (40% national cases) and Lumbini Province (18%) and at-risk prison populations in Madhesh, Lumbini and Bagmati provinces. Case detection was performed by (1) house-to-house visits among vulnerable populations (n = 26,469); (2) contact examination and tracing (n = 7608); in Madhesh and Lumbini Provinces and, (3) screening prison populations (n = 4428) in Madhesh, Lumbini and Bagmati Provinces of Nepal. Per case direct medical and non-medical costs for each approach were calculated. RESULTS: New case detection rates were highest for contact tracing (250), followed by house-to-house visits (102) and prison screening (45) per 100,000 population screened. However, the cost per case identified was cheapest for house-to-house visits [Nepalese rupee (NPR) 76,500/case], followed by contact tracing (NPR 90,286/case) and prison screening (NPR 298,300/case). House-to-house and contact tracing case paucibacillary/multibacillary (PB:MB) ratios were 59:41 and 68:32; female/male ratios 63:37 and 57:43; pediatric cases 11% in both approaches; and grade-2 disabilities (G2D) 11% and 5%, respectively. Developing leprosy was not significantly different among household and neighbor contacts [odds ratios (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-5.85] and for contacts of MB versus PB cases (OR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.26-2.0). Attack rates were not significantly different among household contacts of MB cases (0.32%, 95% CI 0.07-0.94%) and PB cases (0.13%, 95% CI 0.03-0.73) (χ2 = 0.07, df = 1, P = 0.9) and neighbor contacts of MB cases (0.23%, 0.1-0.46) and PB cases (0.48%, 0.19-0.98) (χ2 = 0.8, df = 1, P = 0.7). BCG vaccination with scar presence had a significant protective effect against leprosy (OR = 0.42, 0.22-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective case identification approach here is contact tracing, followed by house-to-house visits in vulnerable populations and screening in prisons, although house-to-house visits are cheaper. The findings suggest that hidden cases, recent transmission, and late diagnosis in the community exist and highlight the importance of early case detection.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Healthcare performance of leprosy management in peripheral health facilities of Dhanusa and Mahottari, Nepal.
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2025-12) Mahato RK; Ghimire U; Bajracharya B; K C B; Bam D; Ghimire D; Pyakurel UR; Hayman DTS; Pandey BD; Das CL; Paudel KP
    BACKGROUND: The global elimination of leprosy transmission by 2030 is a World Health Organization (WHO) target. Nepal's leprosy elimination program depends on early case diagnosis and the performance of health workers and facilities. The knowledge and skills of paramedical staff (Leprosy Focal Person, LFP) and case documentation and management by health facilities are therefore key to the performance of health care services. METHODS: The performance of health workers and facilities was evaluated through a combined cross-sectional and retrospective study approach of 31 health facilities and their LFPs in Dhanusa and Mahottari Districts in Madhesh Province, Nepal. An average of 6 patients (paucibacillary, PB, or multibacillary, MB) per health facility registered within the 2018/2019 fiscal year were also enrolled in the study. LFP knowledge (e.g., of the three cardinal signs) and skills (e.g., nerve palpation) and facility processes (e.g., record keeping) were scored (e.g., 0, 1) and then rescaled to a proportion, where 1 is perfect. Internal benchmarking was used to guide performance management. RESULTS: Overall LFP knowledge and skill scores of health workers ranged from 0.16 to 0.63 (median 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-0.6). Case documentation scores ranged from 0.15 to 0.87 (median 0.37, 95% CI 0.36-0.38), case management scores from 0.38 to 0.79 (median 0.54, 95% CI 0.53-0.55) and overall healthcare scores from 0.36-0.62 (median 0.48, 95% CI 0.47-0.49). Leprosy-related training was significantly related to the knowledge and skills of the health workers. All identified cases (n = 187) adhered to the complete treatment and release after treatment (RFT) scheme, out of which 84.5% were satisfied with the service they were provided. Leprosy disability and ear hand and feet (EHF) scores were not significantly reduced in treated patients during the study period, but counseling by LFPs significantly improved cases' positive beliefs and practices regarding self-care. CONCLUSION: Overall leprosy care median performance was low (53%) and can be improved by evidenced-based training, onsite coaching, monitoring, and supervision to facilitate leprosy transmission elimination. The results highlight many of the challenges facing leprosy elimination programs.