“This guideline is not practical; it might be practical to specialists like you”: Doctors’ experiences of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guideline in Nigeria; A qualitative study

Design

This was a qualitative study in which in-depth interviews were conducted using a topic guide (Appendix 1). The topic guide was iteratively developed and informed by the literature and experience of the first author, a Nigerian pulmonologist and lecturer who also manages asthma at a tertiary care hospital in Lagos.

Setting

Nigeria is the most populous African country and over 40% of the population live below the poverty line [18]. Lagos is the most cosmopolitan and populated city in Nigeria, with high levels of air pollution and the highest prevalence of asthma [7]. The healthcare system in Nigeria is poorly resourced and biomedical healthcare is provided through public (67%) and private health facilities (33%) at the primary (88%), secondary (12%) and tertiary levels (0.25%), with 76% of secondary facilities being privately owned [19,20]. About 90% of patients bypass the primary healthcare facilities due to perceived need for quality services and self-refer to the secondary care facilities [21]. Doctors provide services at secondary facilities with a greater use of task shifting at primary care centres. Most general practice clinicians which comprise General Practitioners (GPs), with only undergraduate medical training, and Family Physicians (FP), who have postgraduate residency training, work at secondary care facilities and private hospitals, where most asthma patients seek care [8].

Participants/ Sampling approach

Participants comprised FPs and GPs who worked at public and private hospitals. They were included if they attended to a minimum of three asthma patients in a month. Doctors who worked at tertiary hospitals and house officers were excluded.

Purposive sampling was used to select doctors who had personal experience of asthma management. We aimed for near equal distribution between GPs and FPs as well as between publicly funded and private hospitals.

Participants were identified through a network of professional colleagues and by snowballing and contact established by email. Those who consented to participate were recruited and a date set for interview. No monetary compensation was provided.

We aimed to recruit 10-15 participants and stopped when we achieved saturation of themes.

Data Collection

Data collection took place between April and May 2021. The interviews were conducted in a Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) secure manner using video teleconferencing technology (Zoom®) with participants alone in a quiet room.[22]

Semi-structured interviews were conducted by the first author. Open-ended questions and probes which allowed open discussion and promoted the emergence of new ideas to enrich the data were used.[23] Interviews were conducted in English which is spoken fluently by all doctors and lasted 45-60 minutes. Participants’ demographics, duration of practice, hospital setting and availability of asthma diagnostic tools (spirometry and peak flow meter) at their hospital were obtained.

Data Management

Interviews were recorded and saved on a secure password-protected computer prior to transcription. Recordings were transcribed using the denaturalized approach.[24] Fields notes and a reflexive log taken during interview were used to annotate areas where there was a threat to confirmability.

Data Analysis

We used the framework approach and iteratively applied codes which were then categorized to develop a thematic framework.[25],[26],[27]. Indexing was done across all text and charted across themes in Nvivo® (QRS International, Melbourne, Australia). Data were mapped and interpreted by identifying associations, providing explanations and creating typologies.

1. Knowledge of and Attitude towards the GINA Strategy

Most participants were aware of but had never read the GINA guideline and therefore had poor knowledge of its content. Knowledge was mostly obtained during medical school and or at CME programmes. The GPs considered it unnecessary to know the details of the strategy as one GP noted:

“I’m aware of the GINA guideline but to be frank, I’ve never really been able to know the details. I just know that there is the GINA guideline. I have been managing it the way we’ve been doing it right from housejob and the simple way we do it as medical officers in my centre of practice now…. I am very sure I am not managing according to the guidelines”. The maximum that I do in my practice is just to relieve patients. (GP, private hospital)

There was also low awareness of the Nigerian asthma guideline. It was considered inaccessible compared to international guidelines. A GP who was aware of the Nigerian asthma guideline put it this way:

“Well, lately it’s been more of the UK version actually, I find it quite clear in the steps… the, Nigerian version is dated …, and it is not as clear. The NICE one has very obvious steps along the way, what to do…. when you routinely search for guidelines about a specific condition I think, the US and UK bodies have easier access on google to prop up”. (GP, private hospital)

Despite the low levels of awareness of the content of GINA, there was a positive attitude towards guidelines generally as participants considered guidelines trustworthy, evidence-based and capable of promoting standardised practice. However, most participants had reservations towards the suitability and applicability to local contexts such as Lagos. This is how one FP opined when discussing how guidelines are often developed in high income countries with the appropriate diagnostic resources:

“…but I think the problem that we have most times especially those of us back here are that sometimes most of these guidelines are done with the Caucasians, so sometimes what suits them doesn’t suit us”. (FP, public hospital).

Importantly, guidelines were not considered to be rules with legal recourse; therefore, adherence to recommendations from the guidelines in their practices, was therefore unprioritized. They reported that observation of senior colleagues or hospital norms regarding treatment usually informed their practice and saved time. New information from CMEs could also influence practice, but these were usually dependent on the availability of resources for implementation. One GP reported how management of asthma is experiential and shared within their practice:

“So, it’s not easy to always go to the guidelines. There are many things to do, many patients to see. There is a standard way we know that has been passed down from one medical officer to another…. We just adopt the way senior colleagues in the job have been doing it and we just continue that way”. (GP, private hospital).

There was a positive attitude towards the GINA recommendation for treatment with ICS for all severities of asthma, but, they questioned the feasibility due to unavailability and unaffordability of ICS:

“For GINA to come up with this, that means that they have done their research …and found that it is best for asthma patients to be on continuous steroids. So, I see that as good… “I don’t see it as feasible in our environment, mainly because of lack of access and the cost, even availability, how available is it”? (FP, private hospital).

2. Asthma Diagnosis and Treatment

For most participants, asthma diagnosis did not involve lung function testing using spirometry or the peak flow. Most were dispassionate about the GINA recommendation for lung function testing and felt it was of no value. The three doctors with access to spirometry did not use it because it was impracticable during exacerbations when most patients presented. One FP who has access to spirometry said:

“So, that’s how I make the diagnosis, mainly using the symptoms…. Well, there is really no reason why I don’t consider it. It’s just that I don’t, I have not really been, I am just not keen about telling them to do the test…. for me to see a patient in an acute state and begin to do, ask the patient, go and do tests, for me it is delay, so treat the patient immediately even if it is symptomatically.” (FP, private hospital)

The only doctor with access to peak flow however found it valuable and she used it regularly. She said:

“So, I just used that example…. to give you an idea of how just using a basic peak flow meter, even in the absence of spirometry, it was able to help me make a diagnosis…decision of whether it is asthma or something else.” (FP, private hospital)

GPs perceived asthma as an acute disease and reported that the focus in their practice was to avoid triggers for asthma flare ups and treatment of exacerbations. However, FPs were more likely to consider asthma as a chronic disease as they regularly saw individual patients presenting in their practices over time. Subsequently, GPs reported that they had ‘low confidence’ in making long term decisions for asthma treatment and deferred to specialists. This GP describes:

“…And I am very sure I am not managing according to the guidelines…After they are relieved and stable to go home on salbutamol inhalers, we refer them to the pulmonology clinic for long term care… It’s the specialist that does the real diagnosis…” (GP, private hospital).

When discussing treatment plans for their patients including training patients on inhaler techniques, most participants did not mention reference to the guideline recommendations. Due to time constraints, GPs reported that in most cases, they referred patients to pharmacists for the training. Only one FP shared experience with the use of written asthma action plan and none objectively assessed asthma control. This GP reports:

“Because of time constraints or because of doctor even being tired because sometimes you can actually see up to 50 patients…”. Nobody taught them how to use the inhaler…and the pharmacist might not be able to teach or might not even have the time …” (FP, public hospital).

The participants reported that, in their practices, they had experienced patient inhaler hesitancy and non-adherence to treatment. They attributed these patient factors to cultural beliefs and myths about asthma. As captured in this quote:

“Like maybe from 60% do not tend to initially accept. Because they have like, will I say, wrong notion that when they use the inhaler, the diagnosis is like permanent or how do I put it-they now really get the asthma. They don’t understand that the inhaler is to help, to relieve symptoms. There are some that will rather prefer to take oral medications than to take an inhaler”. (GP, public hospital)

One participant described how patients preferred to use complementary and alternative medicines and said:

“ .. a local stone they throw in hot water and inhale the steam ….they are quick to tell you that this is what they have tried and this what has happened … And interestingly even though it doesn’t work negative reviews and criticism do not follow”. (GP, private hospital)

Another GP describes how patients’ experience of stigma influenced adherence:

“Most people will not want to be seen with this inhaler… It will come with a bad attitude or rather a bad perception of “are you sick? What is going on?” and it is definitely going to reduce the likelihood of using it… and letting people know that you even have asthma…. Definitely, there are a lot of cultural bias in there”. (GP, public)

Participants also reported how spirituality influenced doctors’ experiences in diagnosing and treating asthma. They all admitted to having spiritual beliefs which influenced their practice when encountering patients with asthma:

I am a Christian, that helps me ….to listen to their complaints, their fears…so I now use that aspect of spirituality as a form of comfort to them while I still go ahead to give them the proper treatment” (FP, private hospital).

She also added how patients’ own spirituality influences their responses to the diagnosis of asthma:

“..when you tell them that this is likely asthma, they say, “ No, God forbid, it is not me, I can’t have asthma”,… “my enemy has asthma it is not me”….Nigerians are very spiritual people…There’s a big clash between spirituality and medical care.

So, it takes extra effort and I tend to spend enough time…trying to counsel them… …Based on my own view, I’ve learnt to separate medicine and religion…

The participants reported that they had experienced poor attendance for follow up care which hinged on the intermittent nature of asthma, poor health seeking behaviour and difficulty accessing care at public hospitals. One FP said:

“You know that in Nigeria people don’t like going to hospital, so they already have an idea of how to manage themselves and they don’t come unless it is that bad.” (FP, public)

3. Barriers to Managing Asthma according to GINA Recommendations

The GINA report was considered, by the participants, as cumbersome and impractical due to the multiple treatment steps. The Nigerian asthma guideline was not expected to provide additional value as it was opined to likely be a copy of the GINA recommendations without consideration of the local context. One description of the GINA guideline was:

“The GINA guideline is not something that is practical, it might be practical to specialists like you (referring to the interviewer) but for ordinary doctors like us, we don’t really see it as being practical”. (FP, private)

The doctors also reported that the unavailability and unaffordability ICS hindered access and use. Doctors in public hospitals experienced stock-out of ICS inhalers more regularly. A GP said:

“But if it is expensive or not easily available…they start looking for a cheaper alternative, which is the Ventolin that is everywhere and they can just pick up”. (GP, public).

A FP also noted that insurance coverage for ICS was limited which further hindered access due to costs:

“99% of the patients we see are HMOs’ and most times they will not give them “Seretide” because it’s expensive”. (FP, public)

4. Enablers of GINA-recommended Asthma Management

Participants also discussed ways of enabling doctors working within the context to implement GINA recommendations. A universally recognized enabler was delivering more CMEs for general practice clinicians as they considered themselves as frontline workers. One GP felt that that asthma education was low compared to other chronic diseases, which they could learn from, and said:

“I know that some companies are actually doing that for diabetes because recently I just filled a form for…International Diabetic Federation for training on diabetes trying to equip the health care professionals on the best practice in managing diabetes. I believe if we can do the same for asthma, we can have more practitioners having a good grasp on managing asthma”. (GP, public)

There was also a strong recommendation for asthma education of the general public to improve population health literacy on the condition. They believed, at a population level, education would reduce the negative influence of myths, fight stigma associated with asthma, with the perceived outcome of improving support and adherence to medication. This FP put it this way:

“Increased awareness of asthma through the media. I don’t think I have seen anything. I see them talk about hypertension, I see them talk about TB but I don’t think I have really seen much media publicity about asthma…” (FP, private).

Clinicians laid responsibility on the government for multiple aspects of asthma care such as, improving the availability and affordability of asthma medicines through Universal Health Coverage, reducing air pollution and regular practice audits. They suggested:

“I know asthma is not necessarily avoidable but… if the environment is cleaner, there are less fumes, pollutants and things like that, that might to an extent help”. (FP, public).