DOD-CI @ INTEREST 2020

Abstract: Contexte: Depuis le début des années 2010, le President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar) et le Fonds mondial de lutte contre le VIH/ sida, la tuberculose et le paludisme, ont accentué leurs stratégies d’efficience basées sur la gestion axée sur les résultats (GAR). L’objectif ici est d’analyser les effets de ces stratégies sur la mise en oeuvre locale des activités, à travers l’exemple du dépistage du VIH à base communautaire. Matériels et Méthodes: L’étude a été menée en 2015 et 2016 dans trois districts sanitaires de la Côte d’Ivoire. Une cartographie des acteurs impliqués dans le dépistage à base communautaire et des entretiens semi-directifs ont été réalisés auprès de dix-huit membres des ONG dites «communautaires» : coordonnateurs de projet (8), chargés de suivi et évaluation (5), superviseur des activités (1), conseillers communautaires (4). Résultats: Les deux bailleurs mettent en place des systèmes de financement qui se déclinent sous forme de chaines à plusieurs maillons d’acteurs (bailleurs, organisations intermédiaires, ONG communautaires), de trois niveaux pour le Pepfar à quatre ou cinq pour le Fonds mondial. A chaque niveau, des comptes rendus et validations des données mensuelles, trimestrielles et annuelles sont exigées comme conditions de décaissements des fonds. Leur caractère chronophage, conjugué au manque de ressources humaines et/ou techniques des ONG communautaires génèrent d’importants retards. Au final, sur une année, seuls huit à neuf mois (sur douze) sont généralement consacrés à la mise en oeuvre effective des activités de dépistage ; et chaque mois, seules deux semaines (sur quatre) y sont dédiées. Conclusion: Tandis que les bailleurs de fonds portent une attention croissante à l’obtention de données précises et actualisées dans le but d’améliorer l’efficience de leurs stratégies, celles-ci produisent des effets contre-productifs, qui tendent à nuire à la mise en oeuvre effective des activités. Un juste équilibre entre mise en oeuvre et suivi et évaluation est ainsi à trouver, en fonction des capacités humaines et techniques des acteurs.

Abstract: Background: Dedicated HIV testing settings have been developed for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) since the end of the 2000s. These facilities are supported by community-based NGOs and promoted by peer educators, who are trained in the use of rapid HIV tests. As such, this community-based HIV-testing should be adapted to reach the MSM populations. However, little is known about the direct MSM’ point of view regarding such community-based services. Materials and methods: A respondent-driven sampling telephone survey of 518 MSM was conducted in 2018 in Côte d'Ivoire. The questionnaire examined knowledge, practice, satisfaction, and preferences regarding MSM-community-based HIV testing services. Results: Only half of the respondents (47%) reported knowing a community-based HIV testing site dedicated to MSM. Of these, 79% had already attended one. They reported that they were welcomed, that they felt confident, that confidentiality was respected, and 95% said they would return to one of these sites. In terms of preferences, 37% of respondents said they preferred undifferentiated HIV testing sites (i.e., “all patients” or “general population” HIV testing sites), 34% preferred community-based sites, and 29% had no preference. Those who preferred community-based HIV testing reported better listening and feeling more confident, particularly because of the presence of other MSM. Conversely, those preferring undifferentiated HIV testing sites mentioned the lack of discretion and anonymity of community-based sites and wanting to avoid the gaze of others. They feared to be recognized by other patients in a context where they want to keep secret their sexual preferences. Men who were furthest away from the MSM community, defining themselves as bisexual/heterosexual, attracted primarily to women, not knowing a dedicated MSM NGO, or not having disclosed their homo/bisexuality to one member of their family were more likely to prefer undifferentiated HIV testing sites. Conclusion: Community-based HIV testing is well suited for MSM who identify as homosexual and those close to the MSM community while maintaining undifferentiated HIV testing is essential for others. Both types of activities need to be maintained and developed. It is also crucial that healthcare professionals in undifferentiated HIV testing sites are properly trained in non-judgemental reception of people with diverse sexual practices and identities.

Abstract: Background: Viral hepatitis is a major public health problem in Côte d'Ivoire, with a prevalence of 8% to 10% for hepatitis B and 1% for hepatitis C. Research indicates that there is a lack of awareness of hepatitis in the general population; however, there remains little evidence concerning physician’s knowledge of the virus. We, thus, investigate physician’s knowledge on viral hepatitis B and C, which can be the first condition for screening and treatment. Materials and methods: In 2018, we conducted a cross-sectional Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices (KAP) telephone survey on a random sample of physicians working in health facilities in Côte d'Ivoire. Data collected included an assessment of knowledge about viral hepatitis B and C and their personal attitudes towards hepatitis screening and vaccination. We created a knowledge score based on 14 variables (screening test variables, HBV viral load variables, treatment indications variables, treatment availability and associated costs variables) and identified the associated factors using a multivariate Poisson model. Results: Among the 542 physicians contacted, 316 physicians participated in the survey (58%). The vast majority of doctors spontaneously cited cirrhosis (79%) and liver cancer (77%) as the main complications of viral hepatitis. Screening modalities were also well known. Knowledge of modes of transmission and prevention were uneven : blood transmission 88%, sexual 78%, saliva 27%, during pregnancy or childbirth 20%. Physicians' knowledge of the prevalence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in the population remains very limited (32% indicates between 5% and 15% for HBV while 33% indicates less than 5% for HCV) In terms of treatment, less than half knew the conditions for initiating hepatitis B treatment (42%) or the existence of curative treatment for hepatitis C (34%). Similarly, few knew the cost of associated treatments or tests (23%), such as HBV viral load (17%). A higher knowledge score was associated with having a close relative infected by viral hepatitis (RR=1.09 [1.00 – 1.19], p=0.052), receiving training on viral hepatitis (RR=1.16 [1.04 – 1.29], p=0,008) and testing for any viral hepatitis (RR=1.16 [1.04 – 1.29], p=0.008). Conclusion: The fight against viral hepatitis requires the involvement of physicians. Findings suggest that many physicians are in need of ongoing training on prevention and treatment of viral hepatitis.