IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-site comparison of factors influencing progress of African insecticide testing facilities towards an international Quality Management System certification

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Begg
  • Alex Wright
  • Graham Small
  • Matt Kirby
  • Sarah Moore
  • Ben Koudou
  • William Kisinza
  • Diabate Abdoulaye
  • Jason Moore
  • Robert Malima
  • Patrick Kija
  • Frank Mosha
  • Constant Edi
  • Imelda Bates

Abstract

Background: Insecticidal mosquito vector control products are vital components of malaria control programmes. Test facilities are key in assessing the effectiveness of vector control products against local mosquito populations, in environments where they will be used. Data from these test facilities must be of a high quality to be accepted by regulatory authorities, including the WHO Prequalification Team for vector control products. In 2013–4, seven insecticide testing facilities across sub-Saharan Africa, with technical and financial support from Innovative Vector Control Consortium (IVCC), began development and implementation of quality management system compliant with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to improve data quality and reliability. Methods and principle findings: We conducted semi-structured interviews, emails, and video-call interviews with individuals at five test facilities engaged in the IVCC-supported programme and working towards or having achieved GLP. We used framework analysis to identify and describe factors affeting progress towards GLP. We found that eight factors were instrumental in progress, and that test facilities had varying levels of control over these factors. They had high control over the training programme, project planning, and senior leadership support; medium control over infrastructure development, staff structure, and procurement; and low control over funding the availability and accessibility of relevant expertise. Collaboration with IVCC and other partners was key to overcoming the challenges associated with low and medium control factors. Conclusion: For partnership and consortia models of research capacity strengthening, test facilities can use their own internal resources to address identified high-control factors. Project plans should allow additional time for interaction with external agencies to address medium-control factors, and partners with access to expertise and funding should concentrate their efforts on supporting institutions to address low-control factors. In practice, this includes planning for financial sustainability at the outset, and acting to strengthen national and regional training capacity.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Begg & Alex Wright & Graham Small & Matt Kirby & Sarah Moore & Ben Koudou & William Kisinza & Diabate Abdoulaye & Jason Moore & Robert Malima & Patrick Kija & Frank Mosha & Constant Edi & Imelda , 2021. "Multi-site comparison of factors influencing progress of African insecticide testing facilities towards an international Quality Management System certification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-24, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259849
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259849
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259849&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.