Search

Objectives To compare unannounced standardised patient approach (eg, mystery clients) with typical exit interviews for assessing patient experiences in HIV care (eg, unfriendly providers, long waiting times). We hypothesise standardised patients would report more negative experiences than typical exit interviews affected by social desirability bias.Setting Cross-sectional surveys in 16 government-operated HIV primary care clinics in Lusaka, Zambia providing antiretroviral therapy (ART).Participants 3526 participants aged ≥18 years receiving ART participated in the exit surveys between August 2019 and November 2021.Intervention Systematic sample (every nth file) of patients in clinic waiting area willing to be trained received pre-visit training and post-visit interviews. Providers were unaware of trained patients.Outcome measures We compared patient experience among patients who received brief training prior to their care visit (explaining each patient experience construct in the exit survey, being anonymous, without manipulating behaviour) with those who did not undergo training on the survey prior to their visit.Results Among 3526 participants who participated in exit surveys, 2415 were untrained (56% female, median age 40 (IQR: 32–47)) and 1111 were trained (50% female, median age 37 (IQR: 31–45)). Compared with untrained, trained patients were more likely to report a negative care experience overall (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) for aggregate sum score: 1.64 (95% CI: 1.39 to 1.94)), with a greater proportion reporting feeling unwelcome by providers (aPR: 1.71 (95% CI: 1.20 to 2.44)) and witnessing providers behaving rude (aPR: 2.28 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.19)).Conclusion Trained patients were more likely to identify suboptimal care. They may have understood the items solicited better or felt empowered to be more critical. We trained existing patients, unlike studies that use ‘standardised patients’ drawn from outside the patient population. This low-cost strategy could improve patient-centred service delivery elsewhere.Trial registration number Assessment was nested within a parent study; www.pactr.org registered the parent study (PACTR202101847907585).

Objectives We sought to assess depression among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the context of COVID-19 in Lusaka Province, Zambia.Design This cross-sectional study is nested within a larger study, the Person-Centred Public Health for HIV Treatment in Zambia (PCPH), a cluster-randomised trial to assess HIV care and outcomes.Setting The research was conducted in 24 government-run health facilities from 11 August to 15 October 2020 during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Lusaka, Zambia.Participants We used convenience sampling to recruit HCW participants who were previously enrolled in the PCPH study, had more than 6 months’ experience working at the facility and were voluntarily willing to participate.Primary outcome measures We implemented the well-validated 9-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess HCW depression. We used mixed-effects, adjusted Poisson regression to estimate the marginal probability of HCWs experiencing depression that may warrant intervention (PHQ-9 score ≥5) by healthcare facility.Results We collected PHQ-9 survey responses from 713 professional and lay HCWs. Overall, 334 (46.8%, 95% CI 43.1%, 50.6%) HCWs recorded a PHQ-9 score ≥5, indicating the need for further assessment and potential intervention for depression. We identified significant heterogeneity across facilities and observed a greater proportion of HCWs with symptoms of depression in facilities providing COVID-19 testing and treatment services.Conclusions Depression may be a concern for a large proportion of HCWs in Zambia. Further work to understand the magnitude and aetiologies of depression among HCWs in the public sector is needed to design effective prevention and treatment interventions to meet the needs for mental health support and to minimise poor health outcomes.