Search

Multimorbidity is an emerging challenge for health systems globally. It is commonly defined as the co-occurrence of two or more chronic conditions in one person, but its meaning remains a lively area of academic debate, and the utility of the concept beyond high-income settings is uncertain. This article presents the findings from an interdisciplinary research initiative that drew together 60 academic and applied partners working in 10 African countries to answer the questions: how useful is the concept of multimorbidity within Africa? Can the concept be adapted to context to optimise its transformative potentials? During a three-day concept-building workshop, we investigated how the definition of multimorbidity was understood across diverse disciplinary and regional perspectives, evaluated the utility and limitations of existing concepts and definitions, and considered how to build a more context-sensitive, cross-cutting description of multimorbidity. This iterative process was guided by the principles of grounded theory and involved focus- and whole-group discussions during the workshop, thematic coding of workshop discussions, and further post-workshop development and refinement. Three thematic domains emerged from workshop discussions: the current focus of multimorbidity on constituent diseases; the potential for revised concepts to centre the priorities, needs, and social context of people living with multimorbidity (PLWMM); and the need for revised concepts to respond to varied conceptual priorities amongst stakeholders. These themes fed into the development of an expanded conceptual model that centres the catastrophic impacts multimorbidity can have for PLWMM, families and support structures, service providers, and health systems.

With COVID-19 no longer categorized as a public health emergency of international concern, vaccination strategies and priority groups for vaccination have evolved. Africa Centres for Diseases Prevention and Control proposed the '100-100-70%' strategy which aims to vaccinate all healthcare workers, all vulnerable groups, and 70% of the general population. Understanding whether healthcare workers were reached during previous vaccination campaigns and what can be done to address concerns, anxieties, and other influences on vaccine uptake, will be important to optimally plan how to achieve these ambitious targets. In this mixed-methods study, between June 2021 and July 2022 a quantitative survey was conducted with healthcare workers accessing a comprehensive health check in Zimbabwe to determine whether and, if so, when they had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Healthcare workers were categorized as those who had received the vaccine 'early' (before 30.06.2021) and those who had received it 'late' (after 30.06.2021). In addition, 17 in-depth interviews were conducted to understand perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Of the 3,086 healthcare workers employed at 43 facilities who participated in the study, 2,986 (97%, 95% CI [92%-100%]) reported that they had received at least one vaccine dose. Geographical location, older age, higher educational attainment and having a chronic condition was associated with receiving the vaccine early. Qualitatively, (mis)information, infection risk perception, quasi-mandatory vaccination requirements, and legitimate concerns such as safety and efficacy influenced vaccine uptake. Meeting the proposed 100-100-70 target entails continued emphasis on strong communication while engaging meaningfully with healthcare workers' concerns. Mandatory vaccination may undermine trust and should not be a substitute for sustained engagement.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant threat to public health. Use of antibiotics, particularly in contexts where weaker regulatory frameworks make informal access easier, has been identified as an important driver of AMR. However, knowledge is limited about the ways antibiotics are used in communities in Malawi and sub-Saharan Africa. Between April and July 2021, we undertook a cross-sectional survey of community antibiotic use practices in Blantyre, Malawi. We selected two densely-populated neighbourhoods (Chilomoni and Ndirande) and one peri-urban neighbourhood (Chileka) and undertook detailed interviews to assess current and recent antibiotic use, supported by the innovative "drug bag" methodology. Regression modelling investigated associations with patterns of antibiotic recognition. We interviewed 217 households with a total of 1051 household members. The number of antibiotics recognised was significantly lower among people with poorer formal health care access (people with unknown HIV status vs. HIV-negative, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.77-.099) and amongst men (aOR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99), who are less likely to support healthcare-seeking for family members. Reported antibiotic use was mostly limited to a small number of antibiotics (amoxicillin, erythromycin and cotrimoxazole), with current antibiotic use reported by 67/1051 (6.4%) and recent use (last 6 months) by 440/1051 (41.9%). Our findings support the need for improved access to quality healthcare in urban and peri-urban African settings to promote appropriate antibiotic use and limit the development and spread of AMR.

Drug resistant infections are increasing across the world and urgent action is required to preserve current classes of antibiotics. Antibiotic use practices in low-and-middle-income countries have gained international attention, especially as antibiotics are often accessed beyond the formal health system. Public awareness campaigns have gained popularity, often conceptualising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a problem of excess, precipitated by irrational behaviour. Insufficient attention has been paid to people’s lived experiences of accessing medicines in low-income contexts. In Chikwawa District, Malawi, a place of extreme scarcity, our study aimed to understand the care and medicine use practices of households dependent on subsistence farming. Adopting an anthropological approach, we undertook medicine interviews (100), ethnographic fieldwork (six-month period) and key informant interviews (33) with a range of participants in two villages in rural Chikwawa. The most frequently used drugs were cotrimoxazole and amoxicillin, not considered to be of critical importance to human health. Participants recognised that keeping, sharing, and buying medicines informally was not the “right thing.” However, they described using antibiotics and other medicines in these ways due to conditions of extreme precarity, the costs and limitations of seeking formal care in the public sector, and the inevitability of future illness. Our findings emphasise the need in contexts of extreme scarcity to equip policy actors with interventions to address AMR through strengthening health systems, rather than public awareness campaigns that foreground overuse and the dangers of using antibiotics beyond the formal sector.

Drug resistant infections are increasing across the world and urgent action is required to preserve current classes of antibiotics. Antibiotic use practices in low-and-middle-income countries have gained international attention, especially as antibiotics are often accessed beyond the formal health system. Public awareness campaigns have gained popularity, often conceptualising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a problem of excess, precipitated by irrational behaviour. Insufficient attention has been paid to people's lived experiences of accessing medicines in low-income contexts. In Chikwawa District, Malawi, a place of extreme scarcity, our study aimed to understand the care and medicine use practices of households dependent on subsistence farming. Adopting an anthropological approach, we undertook medicine interviews (100), ethnographic fieldwork (six-month period) and key informant interviews (33) with a range of participants in two villages in rural Chikwawa. The most frequently used drugs were cotrimoxazole and amoxicillin, not considered to be of critical importance to human health. Participants recognised that keeping, sharing, and buying medicines informally was not the "right thing." However, they described using antibiotics and other medicines in these ways due to conditions of extreme precarity, the costs and limitations of seeking formal care in the public sector, and the inevitability of future illness. Our findings emphasise the need in contexts of extreme scarcity to equip policy actors with interventions to address AMR through strengthening health systems, rather than public awareness campaigns that foreground overuse and the dangers of using antibiotics beyond the formal sector.