Lauren Faye Anderson

Reliance on purely face-to-face in-service training for primary healthcare workers in low- and middle-income countries is increasingly unsustainable. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition of the University of Cape Town Knowledge Translation Unit’s Practical Approach to Care Kit programme from a facility-based cascade model to online and blended learning formats. This paper analyses the implementation of this transition across 29 courses between 2020 and 2023 in South Africa. Using the Health System Process Goals framework, we reflect on the challenges and enablers of e-learning, shifting the focus from digital training as a standalone technical solution to a systemic enabler of health system strengthening. While e-learning expanded access and standardised content, successful implementation relied on addressing systemic barriers. Key learnings include the necessity of subsidised (‘reverse-billed’) data to ensure equitable access; the superiority of a ‘blended’ pedagogical model that combines digital content with peer interaction and in-person technical support and the value of automated reporting for workforce management. The systemic barriers included the lack of protected time for learners, which risks placing an inequitable burden on the workforce and reliance on donor funding, challenging long-term institutionalisation. For e-learning to effectively strengthen the health system, it must be integrated into administrative workflows and budget lines. We provide actionable recommendations for Ministries of Health, funders and implementers, advocating for a transition to government-owned platforms, accredited blended learning models and policy that mandates protected time for capacity development.

Background Training primary care doctors and nurses to use Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) improved management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a previous randomised trial. The present study examined the training effects including a second year of follow-up with expanded coverage of repeated training sessions. Methods Using a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial design, 48 clinics were randomly allocated either to sequence A: (1) no intervention, (2) no intervention, (3) intervention or sequence B: (1) no intervention, (2) intervention, (3) intervention, during three 12-month periods. Primary outcomes were change in treatment and spirometry ordering. Effects of any exposure to the training, and of exposure to the first and second years of training, were estimated with mixed effect logistic regression models. Results Any exposure to training was associated with increased changes in treatment (OR adjusted for calendar time (OR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64) and more spirometry ordering (OR 1.55, (95% CI 1.22 to 1.97)) in asthma patients, and with more spirometry ordering (OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.96)) in patients with COPD. Change in asthma treatment was more likely during the first and second year of exposure to training compared with no exposure (ORs 1.43 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.87); 1.91 (95% CI 1.21 to 3.02)), respectively. Spirometry was more likely during the first and second year of exposure in asthma patients (ORs 1.76 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.30); 2.05 (95% CI 1.32 to 3.19)) and in patients with COPD (ORs 1.57 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.10)); 1.71 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.70)). Conclusion Extended follow-up suggested that PACK training continued to be effective in improving chronic respiratory care and that effective intervention delivery was sustainable for 2 years. Trial registration number NCT02786030.

Introduction: A task-sharing collaborative care model for integrated depression care for South Africa’s burgeoning primary health care population with chronic conditions was developed and tested through two pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trials. One trial focused on patients with hypertension and was located in one district where a collaborative care model was co-designed with district stakeholders. The other trial, focused on patients on antiretroviral treatment, was located in the same district site, with the addition of a second neighbouring district, without adaptation of the original model. This paper describes the package used to implement this model, and implementation outcomes across the two sites, and summarises lessons and challenges. Methods: The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework, adapted for complex health systems interventions, was used to describe components of the package. Additional elements of ‘modifications made’ and ‘actual implementation’ introduced in the ‘Getting messier with TIDieR’ framework, were used to describe implementation outcomes in terms of reach, adoption and implementation across the two trial districts. Results: In the absence of a co-design process to adapt the model to the context of the second site, there was less system level support for the model. Consequently, more project employed human resources were deployed to support training of primary care nurses in identification and referral of patients with depression; and supervise co-located lay counsellors. Referrals to co-located lay counselling services were more than double in the second site. However, uptake of counselling sessions was greater in the first site. This was attributed to greater in-vivo supervision and support from existing mental health specialists in the system. There was greater reliance on online supervision and support in the second site where geographical distances between clinics were larger. Conclusion: The need for in-country co-designed collaborative care models, and ‘implementation heavy’ implementation research to understand adaptations required to accommodate varying in-country health system contexts is highlighted.