Open Access

A retrospective review of the Pediatric Development Clinic implementation: a model to improve medical, nutritional and developmental outcomes of at-risk under-five children in rural Rwanda

  • Eric Ngabireyimana1,
  • Christine Mutaganzwa2, 7Email author,
  • Catherine M. Kirk2,
  • Ann C. Miller5,
  • Kim Wilson4, 5,
  • Evodia Dushimimana6,
  • Olivier Bigirumwami1,
  • Evelyne S. Mukakabano1,
  • Fulgence Nkikabahizi1 and
  • Hema Magge2, 3, 4
Contributed equally
Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology20173:13

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-017-0052-2

Received: 8 March 2017

Accepted: 7 June 2017

Published: 12 July 2017

Abstract

Background

As more high-risk newborns survive the neonatal period, they remain at significant medical, nutritional, and developmental risk. However, no follow-up system for early intervention exists in most developing countries. In 2014, a novel Pediatric Development Clinic (PDC) was implemented to provide comprehensive follow-up to at-risk under-five children, led by nurses and social workers in a district hospital and surrounding health centers in rural Rwanda.

Methods

At each PDC visit, children undergo clinical/nutritional assessment and caregivers participate in counseling sessions. Social assessments identify families needing additional social support. Developmental assessment is completed using Ages and Stages Questionnaires. A retrospective medical record review was conducted to evaluate the first 24 months of PDC implementation for patients enrolled between April 2014–December 2015 in rural Rwanda. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and their caregivers were described using frequencies and proportions. Completion of different core components of PDC visits were compared overtime using Fisher’s Exact test and p-values calculated using trend analysis.

Results

426 patients enrolled at 5 PDC sites. 54% were female, 44% were neonates and 35% were under 6 months at enrollment. Most frequent referral reasons were prematurity/low birth weight (63%) and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (34%). In 24 months, 2787 PDC visits were conducted. Nurses consistently completed anthropometric measurements (age, weight, height) at all visits. Some visit components were inconsistently recorded, including adjusted age (p = 0.003), interval growth, danger sign assessment, and feeding difficulties (p < 0.001). Completion of other visit components, such as child development counseling and play/stimulation activities, were low but improved with time (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

It is feasible to implement PDCs with non-specialized providers in rural settings as we were able to enroll a diverse group of high-risk infants. We are seeing an improvement in services offered at PDCs over time and continuous quality improvement efforts are underway to strengthen current gaps. Future studies looking at the outcomes of the children benefiting from the PDC program are underway.

Keywords

High-risk newborns survival early childhood development primary care sub-Saharan Africa

Background

Global advances have been made over the past decade to improve neonatal care and the burden of neonatal mortality and morbidity in low and middle-income countries [1] with prematurity as the leading cause of death among children under 5 years of age [2]. Ongoing efforts to eliminate preventable neonatal deaths globally must also be accompanied by efforts to ensure children not only survive but also thrive [3]. The first 3 years of life are a critical period of brain development [4]; interventions during this early period can improve growth and development [5] which impact long-term outcomes including educational attainment and productivity later in life [6, 7]. Certain populations of children are at increased risk of developmental delay and growth faltering, such as those born preterm and low birth weight, or with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), congenital malformations, genetic syndromes, or birth injuries. It is known that these high-risk infants can have a range of challenges such as vision and hearing impairment, speech and motor delays, and poor nutrition, among others [811]. In high-income countries, longitudinal follow-up of these children is integrated into routine pediatric care and is typically conducted by specialists [12]. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are very few interventions to support early childhood development and the majority are generalized, community-based programs [13, 14] that do not meet the unique needs of high-risk infants. The use of an intensive home-visiting model has shown promise for improving the development of children with HIE in low and middle income countries [15]. However, to our knowledge there are no early childhood development interventions integrated into routine primary care for at-risk children in low-income countries without access to pediatricians and subspecialists, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

Rwanda has made tremendous improvements in reducing under-five mortality [16], and expanded access to neonatal care through neonatal units at district hospitals and essential neonatal care at health centers. However, there is no formal follow-up system for children after being discharged from hospital neonatal units, especially in rural areas where there are no specialists; these children remain at increased risk for mortality and morbidities into childhood [17]. “A follow-up of preterm and low birth weight children discharged from Rwinkwavu District Hospital neonatal unit between October 2011 and October 2013 showed rates of chronic and acute malnutrition that were double and triple national prevalence rates, respectively, and that caregivers frequently reported feeding difficulties. Furthermore, two-thirds of the children had an abnormal developmental screening (Kirk, et al., unpublished data)".

In Rwanda, screening for malnutrition in infants and young children is conducted at the community level by community health workers [18] and early childhood development programs have been piloted in selected communities [19, 20]. As in many other sub-Saharan African countries, a barrier to delivering specialized follow-up is the limited availability of pediatricians outside of higher-level referral facilities [21], and other specialists such as developmental pediatricians, neurologists, and physical, speech and occupational therapists. Task-shifting has been used as an approach across low-resource settings to overcome the gap between the availability of specialized providers and service needs [22]. However, this approach has not been explored for pediatric follow-up care among high-risk infants.

Since April 2014 the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima and UNICEF, has been implementing the Pediatric Development Clinic (PDC) to serve neonates discharged from a rural hospital neonatal unit and other high-risk children under-five in need of follow-up. The PDC provides medical, nutritional and developmentally supportive programs to allow for early identification of complications and intervention to support children to reach their full potential. We hope that this study will provide a pragmatic approach to implementing a feasible clinic model for comprehensive medical, nutritional, developmental support for high-risk infants until age 5 years in resource-limited settings without access to complex care services and medical specialists.

Methods

Study aim and design

This study aims to provide a description of the PDC intervention’s first 2 years of implementation using a retrospective electronic medical record review of routinely-collected data. The study population includes all children referred into PDC from April 2014–December 2015. In order to ensure all referred children completed at least one visit following their referral date, we analyzed all of the visits for these children in the first 2 years of clinic implementation (April 2014–March 2016). We hypothesize that as the program matures, over time we will see greater adherence to clinic procedures and increase in documentation of appropriate clinical and developmental assessment and follow-up.

Study intervention

This study was conducted in the Rwinkwavu District Hospital catchment area in Southern Kayonza District in rural Rwanda. Rwinkwavu District Hospital is a public Ministry of Health facility supported by Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima since 2005. Southern Kayonza serves a population of approximately 188,363 [23] with one district hospital and eight health centers. Rwinkwavu District Hospital has provided neonatal care since 2010 and was among the first district hospitals to initiate specialized neonatal care services [24]. The first PDC was opened in April 2014 at Rwinkwavu District Hospital to provide medical, nutritional and developmental follow-up for high-risk children discharged from the neonatal unit (see Fig. 1). Four months later, in August 2014, PDC was expanded to two health centers and thereafter to two more in June 2015.
Fig. 1

Pediatric Development Clinic (PDC) Referral and Clinic Flow. Routine Clinic Flow: Different health facilities and services (a) refer all stable under-five children meeting referral criteria (b) to PDC for enrolment (c). At any PDC visit assessment, if an acute illness is identified, an immediately referral (d) for acute care is issued (e) followed by specialized care (f) if needed. When the child has been stabilized and preparing for hospital discharge (g), a referral back to continue PDC follow-up (h) is completed

The PDC serves children with prematurity, birth weight under 2000 g, HIE, hydrocephalus, cleft lip and palate, trisomy 21, or other developmental delays. In April 2015, additional referral criteria – post-central nervous system infections (meningitis and cerebral malaria) – were added, and in February 2016 (after the inclusion period for this study), children diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition requiring hospitalization began being referred to PDC after discharge from the hospital. Children are referred to PDC using standardized referral criteria and a form completed from Rwinkwavu District Hospital neonatal unit, maternity ward, pediatric ward or emergency department when a child meeting referral criteria is identified. The goal is to identify at-risk infants as young as possible for early enrollment. Children may additionally be referred informally from outpatient clinics at health centers and Rwinkwavu District Hospital, health center maternity wards or via self-referral from the community.

The clinic was designed to be integrated into the public system with as minimal additional external resources as possible to maximize the potential for scalability. Building on an existing platform for chronic care services, the PDCs were integrated into the non-communicable disease (NCD) clinics in the public health system. Only one additional staff member was hired at the district hospital clinic due to the addition of patients to an already high-volume NCD clinic. The PDC is operated at each site on a weekly basis. The PDC team is led by a general practitioner based at the Rwinkwavu District Hospital PDC with routine clinic visits conducted by a nurse and social worker. Each clinic is equipped with a child-friendly space for group counseling and play, and a consultation room with basic furnishings, medical equipment for assessing growth and vitals, as well as structured medical record forms for monitoring patients. Health center teams receive mentorship and supervision from the district hospital team, and the hospital team receives mentorship from additional technical advisors as needed (including a pediatrician and a nutritionist). Prior to initiation of PDC, each team was trained on the PDC protocol and completion of medical record forms for each specific condition. When a health center clinic is first opened, the district hospital doctor, nurse and social worker provide weekly mentorship to provide intensive support following the initial training. After approximately two to 3 months of weekly mentorship (and depending on assessed level of skill and comfort of the providers) mentorship de-intensifies to at least one visit per month. The supervision team meets monthly to discuss strengths and weaknesses of implementation at each clinic, address specific challenges, and create future plans for the clinic.

On a visit day, children’s clinical, nutritional and developmental status are assessed by the nurse. According to the protocol, the following are documented for all children: age, weight, height, interval growth for infants up to 6 months, head circumference for infants up to 18 months, immunization status, and vital signs. The child’s anthropometric measurements are plotted on World Health Organization growth charts [25, 26] and counseling provided accordingly. Also, a condition-specific protocol of additional screening is completed based on the reason for referral. For preterm infants – the primary referral base – this includes Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) follow-up, micronutrient supplementation, and vision/hearing screening among other standard follow-up measures. Developmental screening using an Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) [27] is conducted at ages 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months; the ASQ-3 was previously adapted and translated into the local language, Kinyarwanda, for use in Rwanda [19].

In addition, the children’s primary caretakers participate in group education led by the social worker on different topics depending on the age of their children such as KMC, hygiene, nutrition, family planning, breastfeeding, and the importance of play and early stimulation. A structured social assessment is performed for further individual counseling and to identify families who qualify for conditional food or cash transfers, or additional counseling and home visits according to pre-determined clinical and social criteria. Rwanda’s community-based poverty categorizations, known as Ubudehe, were used to establish social need [28]; Ubudehe is a government mechanism to help communities identify the most vulnerable households so that government-provided social support to achieve poverty reduction can be targeted to these households. Home visits are conducted weekly by social workers with nurses to provide support to families identified during clinic and social assessments as needing additional or home-based support.

Data collection

Data were extracted from electronic medical records (EMR) and paper-based patient charts by trained data collectors. The EMR undergoes routine data quality checks, and discrepancies for key indicators between paper-based charts and the EMR were addressed during data collection.

Measures

Demographic characteristics for children and their primary caretakers were extracted from patients’ referral and intake forms. Children’s age was categorized as neonates less than 1 month, infants 1 to 5 months, 6 to 11 months and children 12 months and above. Gestational age in weeks was categorized according to WHO classification as “extremely preterm” or less than 28 weeks, “very preterm” from 28 to less than 32 weeks, “moderate to late preterm” from 32 to less than 37 weeks and “term” as 37 weeks and above. Birth weight in grams was categorized as “extremely low birth weight” (less than 1000 g), “very low birth weight” (from 1000 to 1499 g), “low birth weight” (1500 to 1999 g) and birth weight above 2000 g. Mother’s age was categorized in intervals from 15 to less than 20, from 20 to 24, 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 years and 45 years and above. Caretakers’ socio-economic status was categorized using Rwanda’s Ubudehe classification based on households that qualify for automatic government support or those who do not qualify. The number of other dependents in a household was categorized as “none” if the child attending PDC was the only child in the home, or “1–3”, “4 to 5”, or “6 and above”.

Based on visit forms that were completed at each patient visit, we assessed whether the nurse had conducted the required assessments at each patient visit according to the PDC protocol. To assess changes in clinic implementation over time, patient visits were grouped into 6 months intervals: April to Sept 2014, October 2014 to March 2015, April to September 2015 and October 2015 to March 2016.

Analysis

We described patient demographic and clinical characteristics, and programmatic process using frequencies and proportions for categorical variables. We compared percent of different aspects of PDC protocol completed at each visit across 6 months intervals using a non-parametric test for trend [29] to determine if there were significant differences in protocol adherence over time.

Ethics

The Rwanda National Ethics Committee (RNEC) No.882/RNEC/2016 and Ministry of Health approved this study. Additionally, the institutional review board at Boston Children’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) exempted this study from review.

Results

From April 2014 to December 2015, 426 children enrolled in the PDC. Table 1 describes characteristics of the participants and their caregivers. Of 417 children with gender recorded, more than half were female (54.2%, n = 225/417). Most were neonates (43.7%, n = 172/394) or less than 6 months old (35.0%, n = 138/394) at the time of enrollment. Most enrollees (56.7%, n = 160/282) were preterm. The clinic also enrolled children with a birth weight under 2000 g, with 53.5% (n = 124/334) of those with available birth weight data in the low, very low or extremely low birthweight categories. Most enrolled children were born at Rwinkwavu District Hospital (64.7%, n = 247/382) and were referred into PDC from hospital departments. Two-thirds of children (64.3%, n = 214/333) were living in households with one to three other dependents.
Table 1

Demographic characteristics of children enrolled in PDCs from April 2014 to March 2016 and their caretakers

Child characteristics

Total N = 426

n

%

Gender (N = 415)

 Male

190

45.8

 Female

225

54.2

Age at first visit (N = 394)

 Neonate (< 1 month)

172

43.7

 1–5 months

138

35.0

 6–11 months

26

6.6

 12 months and above

58

14.7

Gestational age in weeks (N = 282)

 Extremely preterm (<28 weeks)

13

4.6

 Very preterm (29 to <32 weeks)

38

13.5

 Moderate to late preterm (32 to <37 weeks)

109

38.7

 Term (37 + weeks)

122

43.3

Birth weight categories (grams) (N = 334)

 Extremely low, < 1000 g

4

1.2

 Very low, 1000–1499 g

61

18.3

 Low, 1500–1999 g

114

34.1

 2000 g or more

155

46.4

Site of birth (N = 382)

 District Hospital

247

64.7

 Health Center

97

25.4

 Home

26

6.8

 En route

8

2.1

 National Referral Hospital

4

1.1

Referral site (N = 355)

 District Hospital

310

87.3

 Health Center

24

6.8

 Other

21

5.9

Caretaker characteristics

n

%

 Relationship with the child (N = 312)

  Mother

306

98.1

  Father

2

0.6

  Grandmother

3

1.0

  Other relative

1

0.3

 Mother’s age (N = 292)

  15–19 years

17

5.8

  20–24 years

98

33.6

  25–34 years

120

41.1

  35–44 years

52

17.8

  45 years and above

5

1.7

 Marital status (N = 383)

  Married or cohabitating

337

88.0

  Not currently married/ cohabitating

46

12.0

 HIV status (N = 367)

  

  Positive

23

6.3

  Negative

344

93.7

 Caretaker education level (N = 343)

  No formal education

57

16.6

  Some primary

142

41.4

  Primary completed

128

37.3

  Secondary or higher completed

16

4.7

Ubudehe classification (N = 282)

  Does not qualify for government support

202

71.4

  Qualifies for government support

80

28.3

Household lives within Rwinkwavu catchment area (n = 413)

 Yes

383

92.7

 No

30

7.3

Transport means to the health facility (N = 408)

 Walking

177

43.4

 Bicycle

4

1.0

 Motorbike

149

36.5

 Mini bus

54

13.2

 Other

24

5.9

Number of dependents in a household (N = 333)

 No other children

23

6.9

 1 to 3

214

64.3

 4 to 5

66

19.8

 6 and above

30

9.0

Almost all children were brought to the PDC by their mothers (98.1%, n = 306/312). The majority of caregivers were between 25 and 34 years of age (41.1%, n = 120/292), and were married or cohabitating (88%, n = 337/383), and had some primary school education (41.4%, n = 142/343). Nearly all patients were living in Rwinkwavu catchment area (92.7%, n = 383/413) with some patients coming from neighboring hospital catchment areas. Of caregivers, 6.3% (n = 23/367) were known to be living with HIV. The most common mode of transport to the clinic was walking (43.4%, n = 177/408) or motorcycle taxis (36.5%, n = 149/408). Of those with Ubudehe status recorded, 71.4% (n = 202/282) percent did not qualify for automatic government support.

The most frequent diagnosis of PDC clinic patients was prematurity and/or low birth weight (62.9%, n = 266/423) followed by HIE (33.7%, n = 142/422, Table 2). Less common diagnoses included hydrocephalus (1.3%, n = 5/390), trisomy 21 (2.3%, n = 9/390), and cleft lip and/or palate (1.8%, n = 7/390). Fifty-six children had more than one diagnosis (13.2%).
Table 2

Medical diagnoses of PDC patients at enrollment in Rwinkwavu catchment area

Medical conditions

n

%

Children with any diagnosis on record

 Diagnosed as preterm/LBW (N = 423)

266

62.9

 Diagnosed with HIE (N = 422)

142

33.7

 Diagnosed with Hydrocephalus (N = 390)

5

1.3

 Diagnosed with Trisomy 21 (N = 390)

9

2.3

 Diagnosed with Cleft lip and/or palate (N = 390)

7

1.8

 Diagnosed with other development delays (N = 390)

22

5.6

 Diagnosed with other condition (N = 390)

22

5.6

 Child has multiple diagnoses (N = 423)

56

13.2

We assessed whether families had received social support and developmental screening with the ASQ-3 according to protocol (Table 3). Of 364 participants with social support data available, almost every mother received transport fees at one or more visits during PDC (96.7%, n = 352) and 43.7% received food packages (n = 159). Additionally, more than one-third of children with available data (36.3%, n = 132) received infant formula for some period of time as part of a treatment plan for insufficient maternal breastmilk supply or other difficulties with breastfeeding to achieve adequate growth. Developmental screening using the ASQ-3 was completed for more than the half of children in the clinic who were 6 months or older (56.4%, n = 184/326 eligible children 6 months or older).
Table 3

Developmental screening and social support provided to PDC patients at enrolment

 

n

%

Socioeconomic assistance ever received (N = 364)

 Transport fees

352

96.7

 Infant formula

132

36.3

 Food package

159

43.7

ASQ assessment completed if child is 6+ months old (N = 326)

 Yes

184

56.4

 No

142

43.6

The proportion of visits over time with clinical, nutritional and developmental screening and counseling completed according to protocol are shown in Table 4. Overall, age, weight, height/length, and head circumference were measured consistently at visits (98.3%, n = 2486/2529; 98.9%, n = 2755/2787; 98.2%, n = 2736/2787 and 95.8%, n = 2366/2431 respectively). Vaccination status was assessed at 88.1% (n = 2138/2529) of visits and feeding difficulties were assessed at 84.5% (n = 2138/2529) of visits. Danger signs were assessed at 70.1% (n = 1953/2787) of visits and interval growth for children under 6 months was assessed at 70.4% (n = 1168/2431) of visits. Child development activities were assessed less frequently; general child development counseling was provided 52.1% of the time and availability of playthings for stimulation in the home was assessed at 6.6% of visits. Adjusted age for preterm infants was assessed 21.6% (n = 232/1074) of the time for those children under age 24 months with a documented gestational age recorded.
Table 4

Progress of Pediatric Development Clinics services in the first 24 months of implementation

Time periods

0–6 months

7–12 months

13–18 months

19–24 months

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

P value*

Total number of visits during period

315

11.3

716

25.7

890

31.9

866

31.1

 

Visit location (N = 2787)

 Rwinkwavu District Hospital

250

79.4

363

50.7

391

43.9

444

51.3

<0.001

 Decentralized Health Center

65

20.6

353

49.3

499

56.1

422

48.7

 

Danger signs assessed at visit (N = 2787)

 Yes

136

43.2

508

71.0

684

76.9

625

72.2

<0.001

 No

179

56.8

208

29.1

206

23.2

241

27.8

 

Age recorded at visit (N = 2529)

 Yes

272

98.2

617

97.8

795

98.4

802

98.7

0.302

 No

5

1.8

14

2.2

13

1.6

11

1.4

 

Adjusted age for preterm babies ≤24 months (N = 1074)

 Yes

27

20.8

91

31.1

64

18.2

50

16.7

0.003

 No

103

79.2

202

68.9

288

81.8

249

83.3

 

Weight recorded at visit (N = 2787)

 Yes

312

99.1

708

98.9

876

98.4

859

99.2

0.790

 No

3

1.0

8

1.1

14

1.6

7

0.8

 

Height recorded at visit (N = 2787)

 Yes

308

97.8

695

97.1

877

98.5

856

98.9

0.021

 No

7

2.2

21

2.9

13

1.5

10

1.2

 

Head circumference recorded at visit if ≤18 months (N = 2431)

 Yes

284

96.3

607

92.1

779

97.4

696

97.3

<0.001

 No

11

3.7

52

7.9

21

2.6

19

2.7

 

Interval growth calculated at visit if ≤6 months (N = 1659)

 Yes

196

74.5

385

76.4

351

73.1

236

57.3

<0.001

 No

67

25.5

119

23.6

129

26.9

176

42.7

 

Vaccination status recorded (N = 2529)

 Yes

259

93.5

553

87.6

696

86.1

721

88.7

0.171

 No

18

6.5

78

12.4

112

13.9

92

11.3

 

Feeding difficulty assessed (N = 2529)

 Yes

244

88.1

496

78.6

664

82.2

734

90.3

<0.001

 No

33

11.9

135

21.4

144

17.8

79

9.7

 

General child development counseling received (N = 2675)

Yes

64

21.8

256

38.2

519

59.9

554

65.6

<0.001

No

229

78.2

415

61.9

347

40.1

291

34.4

 

Playthings and stimulating activities in the home assessed (N = 2529)

 Yes

7

2.5

32

5.1

58

7.2

69

8.5

<0.001

 No

270

97.5

599

94.9

750

92.8

744

91.5

 

Next rendez-vous recorded (N = 2787)

         

 Yes

309

98.1

694

96.9

869

97.6

841

97.1

0.658

 No

6

1.9

22

3.1

21

2.4

25

2.9

 

*P-values were calculated using a non-parametric test for trend.

Significant, steady improvements in assessment over time were documented in development counseling – from 21.8% (n = 64/2675) in the first 6 months to 65.6% (n = 554/2675) in the most recent 6 months of clinic implementation (p < 0.001) as well as evaluation of home stimulation activities from 2.5% (n = 7/2529) to 8.5% (n = 69/2529, p = 0.001). Danger signs assessment improved substantially between the first and second 6 months from 43.2% (n = 136/2787) to 72.2% (n = 625/2787), then stabilized (p < 0.001). Feeding difficulty and vaccination status assessments were more varied across time: feeding difficulty fluctuated from 88.1% (n = 244/2529) in the first 6 months to 78.6% (n = 496/2529) then 82.2% (n = 664/2529) and up to 90.3% (n = 734/2529) in the most recent 6 months of implementation (p < 0.001). Vaccination status also varied, with some declines from 93.5% (n = 259/2529) in the first 6 months of implementation to 87.6% (n = 553/2529), then 86.1% (n = 696/2529) and 88.7% (n = 721/2529, p = 0.171). Proportion of interval growth assessment dropped significantly in the last 6 months from 74.5% (n = 196/1659) to 57.3% (n = 236/1659, p < 0.001).

Discussion

We report the successful implementation of the novel PDC in a rural African setting during its first 24 months of operation. Our findings show relative completeness of follow-up visits according to PDC protocol for 2 years in this population of previously underserved high-risk children. In a setting with very few specialists, the program was designed to tackle a health worker shortage based on a task shifting model that relies primarily on nurses and social workers to deliver care with general practitioner oversight. Our findings show this task shifted model is feasible for delivering follow-up care for the early identification of complications among a population of children at risk of medical, nutritional, and developmental impairments. This builds on the large body of evidence demonstrating successes of task shifting in other domains, especially in HIV care [30].

The PDC is reaching a diverse population of at-risk children under-5 years of age, many of whom were previously not reached at all [31]. By providing services for these high-risk children, PDC has the potential to empower caretakers who face stigma and high levels of stress when looking after children experiencing developmental problems [32]. The targeted population of PDC was focused on those infants born with perinatal risk whose long-term outcomes could benefit significantly with early assessment and intervention to catch up with their non-medically vulnerable peers– namely, those born preterm and/or low birth weight and significant HIE, as well as other less common perinatal conditions requiring medical and nutritional follow-up. The majority of children were less than 6 months at the time of enrollment, which is critical for ensuring services are provided as early as possible. By enrolling children in their first few months of life and routinely screening these children for medical, nutritional and developmental concerns, the PDC has created a platform for early identification and intervention rather than the default system of waiting until children are sick and present to care before care is provided [33]. Additionally, creating a comprehensive platform rather than a vertical program targeted solely at one population, such as preterm infants for KMC, optimizes the impact of investing in a chronic care operational delivery model.

Most caretakers were mothers and were married or cohabiting. Caretakers play an enormous role in the development of young children and the very rare involvement of father’s in the program is an aspect that the clinic is trying to address. Involving fathers in children’s care can mean not only that when mothers are not available, they can step in and avoid missing appointments, but more importantly, that fathers are also involved in early stimulation activities at home [34] which can improve children’s developmental outcome [35]. Additionally, supporting older siblings who may serve as caretakers is an area for consideration in future programming. Further, almost half of caretakers were less than 25 years of age, with several adolescent mothers, which has been shown to be associated with social and medical vulnerability and a barrier to adherence to care [36]. This unique population of mothers can benefit from services promoting positive parenting and stimulation [37] to empower them to create a nurturing home environment for optimal development.

In serving this unique and vulnerable population of patients, the provision of conditional food and cash transfers aims to break barriers to adherence to chronic care and ensure adequacy of access to at least minimum nutritional needs. As the PDC patients’ families were primarily not eligible for government support, social support is an integral component of the PDC program. The majority of patients in the program benefit from some form of conditional food and cash transfers, particularly transport fees to reduce financial barriers to accessing the PDC. Future research to assess PDC impact on patient outcomes is needed, which, in combination with a costing analysis – that takes into consideration required start-up costs for equipment and staff training, staff time, social supports, medications, supplies, operational costs, as well as costs of mentorship and supervision for both health center and hospital teams – will be important to assessing potential for scale-up.

Although there was significant variability in the proportion of visit assessments completed over time, completion of screening for danger signs and developmental counselling improved significantly. Possible explanations for this finding are that over time, providers became more familiar and more comfortable with assessing these components. Additionally, mentorship visits were conducted at least monthly by the hospital staff to health center clinics where the district hospital PDC team provided practice-based guidance on care protocols, referral processes, and nutrition and development counseling to health center teams. These visits have likely contributed to this improvement. Percent complete recording of adjusted age, although improved since the first 6 months of PDC, have fluctuated over time. Interval growth calculation was steadily above 70% until the last 6 months, when we saw a sharp reduction in percent complete recording. These quality gaps highlight the particular challenges of growth monitoring in preterm infants where growth standards are unique and gestational age is often not known. We found that variables requiring calculation, such as adjusted age for preterm infants and interval growth calculation, were completed less frequently than those variables requiring simple recording, such as age, weight and head circumference. These well-done components are also captured in other clinics, such as the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness, and clinicians are accustomed to recording them. Although a clinician’s ability to calculate interval growth will be impacted if the weight of the previous visit was not recorded in patient charts, the fact that weight was recorded more than 95% of the time makes this less likely to be an issue. Qualitative exploration of factors leading to the reduction in recording are needed to understand these findings. Automated calculation tools, such as job aids or mHealth tools, could facilitate the completion of these assessments, provide clinical reminders, and video teaching and counseling supports, as has been successfully done in other task-shifted programs [38, 39].

More than the half of PDC children who were eligible for ASQ had one completed. The integration of developmental screening has proven challenging as nurses have to read questions to caretakers due to low literacy and it takes time to administer, which can be particularly burdensome as patient volume increases. Furthermore, the ASQ-3 was a new tool in our setting and nurses from PDCs needed time to become familiar with the process. Further efforts are needed to be able to appropriately translate the findings of a developmental screening into direct intervention in settings such as Rwanda where no locally validated tools exist [18]. Some promising tools have emerged that were designed specifically for easy assessment and intervention in low- and middle-income countries including the International Guide for Monitoring Child Development [40] and the Caregiver-Reported Early Childhood Development Index (CREDI) [41], which could be more appropriate but require additional study for feasibility in the PDC. In the meantime, a play and communication module has been introduced more recently into the protocol and provider training in order to help boost the developmental assessment and intervention skills of PDC providers.

This study has some limitations. Because we used routinely-collected data from patient charts entered into EMR, data were missing or incomplete for several variables. However, we believe the data available gives an accurate description of the clinic’s patients and services. In addition, when possible, we verified discrepant data in patient charts and in the EMR. Another limitation could be the generalizability of the study findings to other settings, as the pilot for PDC was conducted in rural southern Kayonza District in Rwinkwavu District Hospital catchment area which has received support from Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima since 2005.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that the PDC model is a feasible design that supports early identification and intervention for medical, nutritional, and developmental complications among high-risk children in a rural African setting. Using a task-shifting model, nurses and social workers were able to follow a standardized protocol for patient visits; however as a new program there are areas for ongoing improvement in the quality of care. Future research is needed to understand the outcomes of the children benefiting from the PDC program as well as costs of PDC implementation.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima for the support of this work. This study was developed under the Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima Intermediate Operational Research Training Program, developed and facilitated by Bethany Hedt-Gauthier and Jackline Odhiambo. Ann Miller and Catherine Kirk provided direct mentorship to this paper as part of this training. Training costs were covered by the Harvard Global Health Initiative Burke Global Health Fellowship grant and by Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima. Some training facilitators and mentors are Rwanda Human Resources for Health faculty, funded with the support of the Government of Rwanda, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Support for some mentors was provided by the Global Health Research Core at Harvard Medical School. We also acknowledge the contributions of Stephanie Bazubagira, Jean de Dieu Uwihaye, and Emmanuel Ndayishimiye for data collection as well as Kaya Hedt for her support of data cleaning.

Funding

This manuscript was developed under the Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima Intermediate Operational Research Training Program, training costs were covered by the Harvard Global Health Initiative Burke Global Health Fellowship grant and by Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima. Some training facilitators and mentors are Rwanda Human Resources for Health faculty, funded with the support of the Government of Rwanda, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Support for some mentors was provided by the Global Health Research Core at Harvard Medical School. Data collection costs were covered by UNICEF Rwanda.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Rwandan Ministry of Health but restrictions apply to the availability of these data which were used under license for the current study, and are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of MOH.

Authors’ contributions

CM & EN designed the protocol, analyzed the data, and wrote the first and subsequent drafts of the manuscript. HM & KW designed the PDC program, assisted with protocol design, analysis contextualization, and reviewed all drafts of the manuscript. AM & CK mentored the protocol design, data analysis and drafts of the paper, and reviewed all versions of the manuscript. CK also cleaned the data. ED and FN reviewed the manuscript, OB and SE work on PDC implementation directly and reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Rwanda National Ethics Committee (RNEC) No.882/RNEC/2016 and Ministry of Health approved this study. Additionally, the institutional review board at Boston Children’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) exempted this study from review.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Rwinkwavu District Hospital, Ministry of Health
(2)
Department of Pediatrics, Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima
(3)
Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
(4)
Division of General Pediatrics, Boston Children’s Hospital
(5)
Harvard Medical School, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine
(6)
Division of Clinical Services, Ministry of Health
(7)

References

  1. Darmstadt GL, Shiffman J, Lawn JE. Advancing the newborn and stillbirth global agenda: priorities for the next decade. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(Suppl 1):S13–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Lu C, Black MM, Richter L. Risk of poor development in young children in low-income and middle-income countries: an estimation and analysis at the global, regional, and country level. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(12):e916–e22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Oza S, You D, Lee AC, Waiswa P, et al. Every Newborn: progress, priorities, and potential beyond survival. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):189–205.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilmore JH, Lin W, Prastawa MW, Looney CB, Vesta YS, Knickmeyer RC, et al. Regional gray matter growth, sexual dimorphism, and cerebral asymmetry in the neonatal brain. J Neurosci. 2007;27(6):1255–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Ford ND, Stein AD. Risk factors affecting child cognitive development: a summary of nutrition, environment, and maternal child interaction indicators for Sub- Saharan Africa. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2016;7(2):197–217.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Casale D, Desmond C, Richert L. The association between stunting and psychosocial development among preschool children: a study using the South African Birth to Twenty cohort data. Child Care Health Dev. 2014;40(6):900–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Weisglas-Kuperus N, Van Goudoever JB, Oosterlaan J. Meta- Analysis of Neurobehavioral Outcomes in Very Preterm and/ or Very Low Birth Weight Children. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):717–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Colella-Santos MF, Hein TA, de Souza GL, do Amaral MI, Casali RL. Newborn Hearing Screening and Early Diagnostic in the NICU. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:845308. doi:10.1155/2014/845308.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Zerbeto AB, Cortelo FM, Filho EB C. Association between gestational age and birth weight on the language development of Brazilian children: a systematic review. J Pediatr. 2015;91(4):326–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ballot DE, Potterton J, Chirwa T, Hilburn N, Cooper PA. Developmental outcome of very low birth weight infants in a developing country. BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:11. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Sudfeld CR, McCoy DC, Fink G, Muhihi A, Bellinger DC, Masanja H, et al. Malnutrition and Its Determinants Are Associated with Suboptimal Cognitive, Communication and Motor Development in Tanzanian Children. J Nutr. 2015;145(12):2705–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Doyle LW, Anderson PJ, Battin M, Bowen JR, Brown N, Callanan C, et al. Long term follow up of high risk children: who, why and how? BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:279. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-14-279.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang KY, Nakigudde J, Calzada E, Boivin MJ, Ogedegbe G, Brotman LM. Implementing an early childhood school- based mental health promotion intervention in low-resource Ugandan Schools: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trails. 2014;15(1):471. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-471.Google Scholar
  14. Yousfazai AK, Rasheed MA, Rizvi A, Amstrong R, Bhutta ZA. Parenting Skills and Emotional Availablity: An RCT. Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):e1247–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Wallender JL, Bann CM, Biasini FJ, Goudar SS, Pasha O, Chomba E, et al. Development of children at risk for adverse outcomes participating in early intervention in developing countries: a randomized controlled trial. J Child Psychol Psychiarty. 2014;55(11):1251–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Farmer PE, Nutt CT, Wagner CM, Sekabaraga C, Nuthulaganti T, Weigel JL, et al. Reduced premature mortality in Rwanda: lessons from success. BMJ. 2013;346:f65.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz J, Lee AC, Kozuki N, Lawn JE, Cousens S, Blencowe H, et al. Mortality risk in preterm and small-for-gestational-age infants in low-income and middle-income countries: a pooled country analysis. Lancet. 2013;382(9890):417–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Rwanda Ministry of Health. National Community Health Policy. 2015. http://www.moh.gov.rw/fileadmin/templates/policies/NATIONAL_COMMUNITY_HEALTH_POLICY.pdf. 24 Jan 2017.
  19. UNICEF. Early Childhood Development and Family Services: Baseline Evaluation in 2016 Sites in Rwanda. https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/ECD_and_F_Baseline_Evaluation_Rwanda.pdf. 12 Dec 2016.
  20. USAID. An Evaluation of the Kuraneza Project: Good Growth for Children in Rwanda. 2015. http://www.mcsprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CARE-Rwanda-FE-Brief1.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2016.
  21. World Health Organization. Health workforce requirements for universal health coverage and the sustainable development goals. 2016. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/250330/1/9789241511407-eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 12 Jan 2016.
  22. Shumbusho F, van Griensven J, Lowrance D, Turate I, Weaver MA, Price J, et al. Task shifting for scale-up of HIV Care: evaluation of nurse- centered antiretroviral treatment at rural health centers in Rwanda. PLoS Med. 2009;6(10):e1000163.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. Fourth Population and Housing Census, Rwanda, 2012: Final Results Main Indicators Report 2014. 16 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Hansen A, Magge H, Labrecque M, Munyaneza RB, Nahimana E, Nyishime M, et al. The development and implementation of a newborn medicine program in a resource-limited setting. Public Health Action. 2015;5(1):17–22.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. World Health Organization. WHO Child Growth Standards: Length/height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-length, weight-for-height and body mass index-for-age: Methods and Development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar
  26. World Health Organization. WHO Child Growth Standards: Head Circumference-for-age, Arm Circumference-for- age, Triceps Skinfold-for-age and Subscapular Skinfold-for-age: Methods and Development. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Squires J, Twombly E, Bricker D, Potter L. ASQ-3 User's Guide. 2009. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. 2009.Google Scholar
  28. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. The Government of Rwanda, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. 2002. http://www.unrwanda.org/undp/prsp2002.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2017.
  29. Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med. 1985;4:87–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. World Health Organization. Task shifting to tackle health worker shortages. 2007. http://www.who.int/healthsystems/task_shifting_booklet.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2016.
  31. Blencowe H, Cousens S, Chou D, Oestergaard M, Say L, Moller AB, et al. Borrn To Soon: The global epidemiology of 15 million preterm births. Reprod Health. 2013;10(suppl 1):S2. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-10-S1-S2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Masulani-Mwale C, Mathanga D, Silungwe D, Kauye F, Gladstone M. Parenting children with intellectual disabilities in Malawi: the impact that reaches beyond coping? Child Care. Health Dev. 2016;42(6):871–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Mugeni C, Levine AC, Munyaneza RM, Mulindahabi E, Crokrell HC, Glavis-Bloom J, et al. Nationwide implementation of integrated community case management of childhood illness in Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014;2(3):328–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Britto PR, Lye SL, Proulx K, Yousfazai AK, Matthews SG, Vaivada T, et al. Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):91–102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeong J, McCoy DC, Yousafzai AK, Salhi, C, Fink G. Paternal Stimulation and Early Child Development in Low- and Middle- Income Countries. Pediatrics. 2016;138(4):e20161357.Google Scholar
  36. Pinto-Foltz MD, Logsdon C, Derrick A. Engaging adolescent mothers in a longitudinal mental health intervention study: challenges and lessons learned. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2011;32(4):214–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Aboud FE. Evaluation of early childhood parenting program in rural Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. J Health Popul Nutr. 2007;25(1):3–13.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Catalani C, Philbrick W, Fraser H, Mechael P, Israelski DM. mHealth for HIV treatment and Prevention: A systematic Review of the Literature. Open AIDS J. 2013;7:17–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Labrique AB, Vasudevan L, Kochi E, Fabricant R, Mehl G. mHealth innovations as health system strengthening tools: 12 common applications and a visual framework. Global Health: Science and Practice. 2013;1(2):160–71.Google Scholar
  40. Ertem IO, Dogan DG, Gok CG, Kizilates SU, Caliskan A, Atay G, et al. A Guide for Monitoring Child Development in Low and Middle-Income Countries. Pediatrics. 2008;121(3):e581–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. McCoy DC, Sudfeld CR, Bellinger DC, Muhihi A, Ashery G, Weary TE et al. Development and validation of an early childhood development scale for use in low-resourced settings. Popul Health Metr. 2017;15(3). doi:10.1186/s12963-017-0122-8.

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement