Blog

  • Stop the Guessing: Fighting Cholera through Better Formative Research

    Tom Davis, MPH

    Global Sector Lead for Sustainable Health, World Vision International
    Little girl practices safe hand washing
    Little girl practices safe hand washing

    In order to be successful in our efforts to stop cholera, we need to better understand why some people adopt behaviors that stop cholera, while others do not. Although we all have pet theories on why people decide to do things based on our own anecdotal experience, we can often be wrong. To decide if vaccines and antibiotics are effective, we don’t sit around a table and guess - we would consider this highly unethical and unscientific. Yet when it comes to promoting behaviors, that’s what many projects end up doing. We need to stop the guessing, and conduct better formative research on the behavioral determinants for WASH behaviors and cholera immunization.

    Among the more popular formative research methods for identifying behavioral determinants are Barrier Analysis, RANAS, and the Alive & Thrive methods. Barrier Analysis (BA) is a rapid formative research tool used to identify behavioral determinants associated with a particular behavior so that improved behavior change messages and support activities can be used to facilitate behavior change [1]. A key feature of BA is that it statistically compares responses of people doing a behavior (the “Doers”) with those who are not (“Non-doers”). While studying water treatment in the Dominican Republic in 1990, I developed Barrier Analysis based on the Health Belief Model [2] and the Theory of Reasoned Action, and subsequently revised it based on the doer/non-doer analysis approach. Since then, hundreds of BA studies have been conducted by at least 33 international non-governmental organizations in 33 countries to study determinants of behaviors related to water, sanitation and hygiene, and other sectors.

    The results of 150 BA studies are now posted online on the FSN Network’s Behavior Bank [3] and some are in the published peer-reviewed literature. Analyzing these 150 studies, the most common reasons why people adopt or don’t adopt behaviors – the behavioral determinants – were found to be:

    • Perceived Self-efficacy, found in 86% of the BA studies: the belief that one can do a particular behavior given his/her current knowledge, skills, and resources. (e.g. whether or not a person believes that s/he can make it to an immunization post where cholera vaccine is offered).

       
    • Perceived Social Norms, found in 77% of the studies: the perception that people important to an individual think that he/she should do the behavior (e.g., whether a person believes that his or her spouse or neighbors approve of getting the cholera vaccine).

       
    • Perceived positive and negative consequences, found in 75% of the studies: the positive and negative things a person thinks will happen as a result of their performing a behavior (e.g., whether a person believes that the vaccine will make him or her get sick, avoid getting cholera, or become healthier overall).

       
    • Perceived Susceptibility to a disease or problem, found in 45% of the studies: a person's perception of how at risk they feel to a given problem/disease (e.g., how likely a person believes it is that he or she will get cholera in the next six months).
    Children in Myanmar wash their hands with soap at a hand-washing station. Photo: UNICEF/NYHQ2012-2056/Dean
    Children in Myanmar wash their hands with soap at a hand-washing station. Photo: UNICEF/NYHQ2012-2056/Dean

    The behavioral determinants on hand-washing with soap found through 17 BA studies posted on the Behavior Bank found similar determinants. Having a good idea of these barriers and enablers [4] will be crucial in the battle to stop cholera. Projects that use good formative research often have excellent results. For example, a Curamericas Global project in Liberia used BA and achieved impressive results on WASH and nutrition behaviors, and possibly due to that, had one of the steepest declines in child underweight of any USAID project (44 percentage points over five years). The proportion of mothers who practiced appropriate handwashing increased from 5% at baseline to 93% five years later and proper disposal of child feces also increased from 4% to 93%.

    The results from these studies are often surprising. For example, in Curamericas’ BA study of child feces disposal, they found that one prevalent and erroneous belief was that diarrheal diseases were chiefly airborne, so going to a latrine with its bad smells was perceived to be a good place to contract diarrhea rather than to prevent it. Who would have guessed that? In order to stop cholera, we need to stop the guessing and use rigorous formative research.

    References:

    [1] For a full description of this method, see the latest Barrier Analysis guide, A Practical Guide to Conducting a Barrier Analysis in English, French, Spanish and Arabic (http://www.fsnnetwork.org/practical-guide-conducting-barrier-analysis) and the Designing for Behavior Change training manual (http://www.fsnnetwork.org/designing-behavior-change-agriculture-natural-resource-management-health-and-nutrition) which is now available in English, French, Spanish, and Bangla.

    [2] See for example Koyaté et al (2015): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891400130X

    [3] See www.fsnnetwork.org/behavior-bank

    [4] See the Ebola Barrier Analysis Compendium for more information on barriers and enablers to WASH behaviors: http://www.fsnnetwork.org/ebola-barrier-analysis-compendium-summary-barrier-analysis-studies-ebola-related-behaviors.  

  • Stop Yelling: Using Neighbors to Mobilize Communities to Stop Cholera

    Tom Davis, MPH

    Global Sector Lead for Sustainable Health, World Vision International
    Man speaks into loudspeaker during vaccination campaign. Photo: WHO/C. Black
    Man speaks into loudspeaker during vaccination campaign. Photo: WHO/C. Black

    Achieving high levels of coverage of multiple-dose vaccines – such as the cholera vaccine – takes more than good logistics. Promoting turnout for immunization requires the use of evidence-based community mobilization methods. In 1983, I was involved with some of the early mass immunization efforts in Haiti while working for International Child Care, an organization that led the first mass immunization in Haiti years earlier.

    As Zone Coordinator, I would ride motorcycle or get around on horseback – and sometimes just hike Haiti’s endless mountains – with our vaccinators to remote locations of the country. We had to rely on the help of TB Agents, local government leaders, and vaccinators with megaphones to announce posts and to mobilize people to come to the posts.

    These were not sophisticated methods – it was more yelling at people to try to get them to do something. Rumors spread about vaccines, not everyone was reached with announcements, and even though vaccines were made available, not everyone turned out. Nowadays we realize that it takes a lot more than this to get the high immunization coverage that will save lives. It requires actively involving communities, gaining people’s trust, understanding how people think, and communicating messages through people that they trust – even people that they choose based on that trust.

    We need to move forward: Some community mobilization and behavior change approaches are proving themselves to work better than others, especially those where the person doing the mobilizing has a closer relationship and more frequent contact with the people being mobilized. For example, recent research found that immunization coverage for tetanus toxoid (TT2) and measles increased 16 points and 9 points more (respectively) in programs that used the Care Group approach versus those that used other behavior change and community mobilization approaches during the same years and countries [1].

    Why? Care Groups are based on peer-to-peer behavior change, and neighbors can be quite effective in persuading their closest neighbors to adopt a new behavior, to try out something new, and to shut down rumors. In many – if not most – Care Group projects, women in the community directly choose their peer educator rather than that person being chosen by an organization or community leaders. This assures that the person teaching them and promoting behaviors is someone that they know, trust, respect, and like. This is key to behavior change and to effective mobilization.

    Differences in health service utilization: care groups vs non-care groups
    Differences in health service utilization: care groups vs non-care groups

    Peer educators have also proven themselves to be effective in mobilizing parents to seek out care for sick children, well child care, and other health facility services. Evidence from a larger-scale Food for the Hungry Care Group project in Mozambique, for example, found that care seeking and use of clinical services increased much more in districts using Care Groups when compared with adjacent districts that did not use the approach [2]. Cost-effectiveness is another reason that more and more organizations are using peer-to-peer behavior promotion approaches. Studies have found low costs per life saved for Care Group projects [3, 4], and an unpublished analysis that I conducted recently found a cost per behavior adopted of only $4.18. Combining the interpersonal communication used in peer-to-peer behavior promotion with effective mass media can bring about even better results.

    Other community mobilization and behavior change approaches, such as Participatory Learning and Action Groups, have also been found to be effective for changing behaviors and improving care seeking. For that reason, they may be an effective avenue for mobilizing people for cholera immunization. In order to take advantage of these groups, Cindy Pfitzenmaier and I, along with other collaborators and with the support of the CORE Group, the TOPS Project, and CORE Group members, recently created the Cholera Disease Preparedness Community Group Module [5] which has been distributed through UNICEF and WHO for the recent Cholera outbreak in Yemen, and sent to over 16 countries through USAID’s Office of Food for Peace and The TOPS Program.

    It’s time for everyone to put down the megaphone, stop yelling, and start using the quiet power of persuasive neighbors and peer-to-peer communication to boost community turnout for cholera immunization.

    References:

    [1] See George et al. BMC Public Health (2015) 15:835 DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2187, https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-2187-2.

    [2] Davis, T., Wetzel, C., Hernandez Avilan, E., de Mendoza Lopes, C., Chase, R.P., Winch, P.J., and Perry, H.B. (2013). Reducing Child Global Undernutrition at Scale in Sofala Province, Mozambique, Using Care Group Volunteers to Contact Mothers Frequently with Health Messages. Global Health Science and Practice 1(1): 35-51. http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/1/1/35.full.pdf

    [3] See Perry et al (2015a), http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/3/3/358 for details on the Care Group approach, and Perry et al (2015b), http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/3/3/370 for results of the approach.  The Care Group training manual and other CG resources are available at www.CareGroupInfo.org.   

    [4] Tripathy et al. (2010).  Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes and maternal depression in Jharkhand and Orissa, India:  a cluster-randomised controlled trial.  Lancet 2010; 375: 1182-92.

    [5] Pfitzenmaier, C; Davis, T; Srinivasan, A; and McDaniel, S (2016). CORE Group Cholera Module. Washington, DC. Food for the Hungry (FH).  http://www.coregroup.org/resources/616-cholera-module

  • The Incomplete Report

    Among the many affected by cholera throughout Yemen, these infected children lie on the ground in a hospital in Sanaa. Photo: KHALED ABDULLAH/REUTERS/Newscom
    Among the many affected by cholera throughout Yemen, these infected children lie on the ground in a hospital in Sanaa. Photo: KHALED ABDULLAH/REUTERS/Newscom

    An article in the World Health Organization (WHO) August Weekly Epidemiological Record (WER) reported that since the creation of the global stockpile for oral cholera vaccine (OCV) in 2013, 55 campaigns have been conducted using nearly 13 million doses [1]. A majority of the OCV doses (73%), were used in emergency settings, while 27% were used in non-emergency settings to control endemic cholera. The report described OCV deployments in terms of the setting, targeted populations, campaign timelines, and coverage. The increasing trend in OCV use in affected countries is an achievement that the WHO can be proud of.

    Oral cholera vaccine use, demand, and production, 1997–2017*, WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record August 2017

    Despite these achievements, we also need to be aware of the emergency situations where OCV was not deployed. Take for example the recent cholera outbreak that began in Yemen in October 2016. The outbreak started to decline a few months after the peak but later resurged in April 2017 following a Saudi airstrike intervention in the Yemeni Civil War [2]. As of August 2017, a cumulative total of 500,000 cholera cases have been reported [3]. One million doses of the vaccine had been allocated from the global stockpile and immunizations had been set to begin in July 2017 but the vaccination campaign was suspended [4]. The article in the WER makes no mention of the Yemeni situation [1].

    Reporting the successful OCV campaigns, as in the WER report [1], is useful for recognizing what is running well, for documenting progress made and for motivation towards continued efforts. But analyzing failure to deploy the vaccine, especially in settings of humanitarian crisis, is arguably even more important. In the Yemeni situation, could the plan to deploy OCV have been made earlier? Could the misconceptions and misinformation that potentially clouded some of the choices have been cleared up? Was there any part of the decision-making process that could have been improved? Answering these questions could increase our understanding of what was tried and what could be improved.

    Additionally, it would be important to know how many applications for vaccine from the stockpile were made overall (as a measure of global demand), how many were granted, how many were denied and the reasons for denying vaccine requests. Guidelines on how to access oral cholera vaccine from the stockpile and a description of the composition and management role of the International Coordinating Group (ICG), are available online [5]. For increased clarity and transparency, we suggest that the details of the decision-making process for each application also be available online. To draw real lessons, both successful and unsuccessful deployments should be publicly discussed.

     

    References:

    [1] Pezzoli L on behalf of the Oral Cholera Vaccine Working Group of the Global Task Force on Cholera Control. WHO Weekly epidemiological record; 2017: 92, 437–52.

    [2] 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016%E2%80%9317_Yemen_cholera_outbreak Accessed 23 September 2017

    [3] Cholera count reaches 500 000 in Yemen http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/cholera-yemen-mark/en/ Accessed 23 September 2017

    [4] Wadman M. Cholera vaccination campaign in Yemen is dropped. Science 2017; 357:

    [5] WHO. Oral cholera vaccine stockpile http://www.who.int/cholera/vaccines/ocv_stockpile_2013/en/ Accessed 23 September 2017

     

  • Oral Cholera Vaccine Recommendations through the Years

    Anna Lena Lopez, MD

    Research Associate Professor | Inst. of Child Health & Human Development, Univ. of the Philippines Manila-National Inst. of Health
    Three-year-old Salomon looks on as he undergoes treatment for cholera at the general hospital in Minova. Photo: Arjun Claire
    Three-year-old Salomon looks on as he undergoes treatment for cholera at the general hospital in Minova. Photo: Arjun Claire

    On April 25-27, 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on vaccines and immunization took up oral cholera vaccination during its meeting, with a view of updating the 2010 WHO position paper [1]. WHO regularly releases position papers to guide member states on vaccines and immunization that have global public health importance.

    Provisions for safe water, improved sanitation and hygiene (WASH) as well as appropriate clinical case management have been the mainstays of cholera control. WHO’s position on oral cholera vaccine (OCVs) use has evolved over the years. In the first cholera vaccine position paper in 2001, the WHO solely recommended the pre-emptive use of OCV in high-risk populations [2]. This was further complicated with WHO’s position in 2005, that, “the current internationally-available pre-qualified vaccine (Dukoral) is not recommended once an outbreak of cholera has started” [3]. As cholera outbreaks became prolonged and protracted, such as in Zimbabwe and Angola, and with the availability of a new vaccine (Shanchol) in 2010, the WHO released a recommendation, “to consider the use of oral cholera vaccines in reactive situations” (i.e., when an outbreak has already begun) [4].

    However, since the release of the 2010 position paper, cholera cases persisted, affecting countries that have not seen cholera for many years. In 2013, an OCV stockpile was created that has since released almost 13 million doses of OCV for use in mass campaigns in diverse settings, such as humanitarian emergencies, outbreaks, and areas with endemic cholera [5].

    Experiences from these campaigns have shown that a two-dose OCV schedule is safe, feasible, acceptable and effective in all settings. A single dose of the vaccine was also shown to be efficacious for six months in a study in a cholera-endemic setting [6]. Additionally, studies among pregnant women have shown the vaccine to be safe [7].

    With an accumulating body of evidence on OCV use, and increasing OCV supply by licensure of yet another vaccine in December 2015 (Euvichol), a revised set of recommendations is expected from the WHO SAGE. It is anticipated that the new position paper will provide concrete guidance on the use of OCV not only in endemic areas but during humanitarian crises and in times of outbreaks as well [1]. This will clarify the role of OCV in cholera control and hopefully stop the misconceptions and misunderstandings on OCV use and implementation, particularly in countries where OCVs are most needed.

    References:

    [1] WHO. Meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization, April 2017 - conclusions and recommendations. Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire / Section d'hygiene du Secretariat de la Societe des Nations = Weekly epidemiological record / Health Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. 2017;92:301-20

    [2] WHO. Cholera vaccines. Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire / Section d'hygiene du Secretariat de la Societe des Nations = Weekly epidemiological record / Health Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. 2001;76:117-24.

    [3] Chaignat CL, Monti V. Use of oral cholera vaccine in complex emergencies: what next? Summary report of an expert meeting and recommendations of WHO. Journal of health, population, and nutrition. 2007;25:244-61.

    [4] WHO. Cholera vaccines: WHO position paper. Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire / Section d'hygiene du Secretariat de la Societe des Nations = Weekly epidemiological record / Health Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. 2010;85:117-28.

    [5] WHO. Deployments from the oral cholera vaccine stockpile, 2013-2017. Releve epidemiologique hebdomadaire / Section d'hygiene du Secretariat de la Societe des Nations = Weekly epidemiological record / Health Section of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. 2017;92:437-42.

    [6] Azman, AS et al. Effectiveness of one dose of oral cholera vaccine in response to an outbreak: a case-cohort study. The Lancet: Global Health. 2016; 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30211-X

    [7] Mohammad Ali et al. Safety of a killed oral cholera vaccine (Shanchol) in pregnant women in Malawi: an observational cohort study. The Lancet: Infectious Disease. 2017; 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30523-0

  • Yemen’s Cholera Crisis: Fighting Disease During Armed Conflict

    Doctors treat patients with cholera in Yemen, Photo Courtesy of Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action
    Doctors treat patients with cholera in Yemen, Photo Courtesy of Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action

    This podcast was produced by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action and originally appeared here."

    Yemen is currently facing the world's worst cholera epidemic. As of August, the WHO reported that over 500,000 suspected cholera cases and nearly 2,000 associated deaths had occurred since the end of April alone.  One of many factors that has caused such a large-scale outbreak is the ongoing armed conflict. How do you fight disease during an armed conflict?

    In light of this multidimensional humanitarian crisis, the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action brought together medical experts and humanitarian practitioners, including:

    • Dr. David Sack, DOVE Director and Professor, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University
    • Johannes Bruwer, Deputy Head of Delegation, ICRC Yemen
    • Samuel Cheung, Senior Protection Cluster Coordinator, UNHCR Yemen
    • Nadine Drummond, Media and Communications Manager, Save the Children Yemen
    • Jamie McGoldrick, Humanitarian Coordinator, United Nations, Yemen

    The experts discuss the epidemiological implications and medical treatment of Yemen’s cholera epidemic amidst an active armed conflict, as well as the ongoing challenges of maintaining humanitarian assistance and protection operations to mitigate the devastating impact of this crisis on vulnerable populations.

    Listen to the podcast in full below or on the Advanced Training Program on Humanitarian Action webpage: