Healthcare Programmes for Truck Drivers in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Truck drivers have unique health needs, and by virtue of their continuous travel, experience difficulty in accessing healthcare. Currently, planning for effective care is hindered by lack of knowledge about their health needs and about the impact of on-going programmes on this population’s health outcomes. We reviewed healthcare programmes implemented for sub-Saharan African truck drivers, assessed the evaluation methods, and examined impact on health outcomes. Methods We searched scientific and institutional databases, and online search engines to include all publications describing a healthcare programme in sub-Saharan Africa where the main clients were truck drivers. We consulted experts and organisations working with mobile populations to identify unpublished reports. Forest plots of impact and outcome indicators with unadjusted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were created to map the impact of these programmes. We performed a subgroup analysis by type of indicator using a random-effects model to assess between-study heterogeneity. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to examine both the summary effect estimate chosen (risk difference vs. risk ratio) and model to summarise results (fixed vs. random effects). Results Thirty-seven publications describing 22 healthcare programmes across 30 countries were included from 5,599 unique records. All programmes had an HIV-prevention focus with only three expanding their services to cover conditions other primary healthcare services. Twelve programmes were evaluated and most evaluations assessed changes in input, output, and outcome indicators. Absence of comparison groups, preventing attribution of the effect observed to the programme and lack of biologically confirmed outcomes were the main limitations. Four programmes estimated a quantitative change in HIV prevalence or reported STI incidence, with mixed results, and one provided anecdotal evidence of changes in AIDS-related mortality and social norms. Most programmes showed positive changes in risk behaviours, knowledge, and attitudes. Our conclusions were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Diverse healthcare programmes tailored to the needs of truck drivers implemented in 30 sub-Saharan African countries have shown potential benefits. However, information gaps about availability of services and their effects impede further planning and implementation of effective healthcare programmes for truck drivers.


Rationale
3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

3
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

3,19
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

3
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

3
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

3/protocol
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

4
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

4
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

Risk of bias in individual studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

Study selection
17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

4
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.

14-16
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12).
14 ( Table  2) Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

(Fig 3)
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 6 (Fig 3) Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).

DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

6-8
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

6-8
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
Page 2 of 2