A Comparative Study of Lymphatic Filariasis-Related Perceptions among Treated and Non-Treated Individuals in the Ahanta West Municipality of Ghana
Background: Ghana joined the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (GPELF), established in the year 2000, with the aim of eliminating the disease as a public health problem through annual mass treatment of entire endemic populations. Since 2001, the country has implemented mass drug administration (MDA) in endemic districts, with great reductions in the population at risk for infection. However, in many districts, the elimination programme is faced with the presence of hotspots, which may be due in part to individuals not taking part in MDA (either intentionally or unintentionally) who may serve as reservoirs to sustain transmission. This paper compares the LF-related perceptions among individuals who regularly take the MDA drugs and those who seldom or never take part in the MDA in the Ahanta West Municipality of Ghana to determine community acceptable ways to implement an intervention aimed to track, engage, and treat individuals who regularly miss MDA or to test individuals who intentionally refuse MDA and treat them if positive for LF.
Methods: This was a mixed method study employing questionnaire surveys and focus group discussions (FDG) for data collection. Survey participants were randomly selected from the 2019 treatment register to stratify respondents into treated and non-treated groups. FGD participants were selected purposively such that there are at least two non-treated persons in each discussion session.
Results: Over 90% of the respondents were aware of the disease. Poor hygiene/dirty environment was wrongly reported by most respondents (76.8%) as the causes. MDA awareness was very high among both treated (96.9%) and non-treated (98.6%) groups. A low sense of vulnerability to LF infection was evident by a reduction in the number of people presenting clinical manifestations of the disease in communities. Slightly more, 65 (29.0%) of the non-treated group compared to the 42 (19.4%) treated group reported ever experiencing adverse effects of the MDA drugs. Barriers to MDA uptake reported in both groups were poor planning and implementation of the MDA, lack of commitments on the part of drug distributors, and adverse drug reactions. About 51% of the non-treated group reported never taking the drugs even once in the last five years, while 61% among the treated group took the MDA drug consistently in the past five years. Respondents in both groups believed that, when engaged properly, most non-treated persons will accept to take the drug but insisted community drug distributors (CDDs) must be trained to effectively engage people and have time for those they will be engaging in dialogue. The chiefs emerged as the most influential people who can influence people to take MDA drugs.
Conclusions: The reduction in risk perception among respondents, adverse reactions and the timing of MDA activities may be influencing MDA non-participation in the study area; however, respondents think that non-treated individuals will accept the interventions when engaged properly by the CDDs. This has been corrected and it now read “Respondents in both groups believed that, when community drug distributors (CDDs) are trained on how to engage the non-treated persons in effective dialogue, most of them will accept to take the drugs”.