Integrated community case management of childhood illness in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Abstract

Abstract 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.