Peter Rockers

Prof. Peter Rockers

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

11Years (2016-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2019 in The Lancet Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PRPeter Rockers
Peter Rockers
RLRichard O Laing
Richard O Laing
PAPaul G Ashigbie
Paul G Ashigbie
MOMonica A Onyango
Monica A Onyango
CMCarol K Mukiira
Carol K Mukiira
VWVeronika J. Wirtz
Veronika J. Wirtz
Novartis Access is a Novartis programme that offers a portfolio of non-communicable disease medicines at a wholesale price of US$1 per treatment per month in low-income and middle-income countries. We evaluated the effect of Novartis Access in Kenya, the first country to receive the programme. We did a cluster-randomised controlled trial in eight counties in Kenya. Counties (clusters) were randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group with a covariate-constrained randomisation procedure that maximised balance on a set of demographic and health variables. In intervention counties, public and non-profit health facilities were allowed to purchase Novartis Access medicines from the Mission for Essential Drugs and Supplies (MEDS). Data were collected from all facilities served by MEDS and a sample of households in study counties. Households were eligible if they had at least one adult patient who had been diagnosed and prescribed medicines for one of the non-communicable diseases targeted by the programme: hypertension, heart failure, dyslipidaemia, type 2 diabetes, asthma, or breast cancer. Primary outcomes were availability and price of portfolio medicines at health facilities, irrespective of brand; and availability of medicines at patient households. Impacts were estimated with intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02773095). On March 8, 2016, we randomly assigned eight clusters to intervention (four clusters; 74 health facilities; 342 patients) or control (four clusters; 63 health facilities; 297 patients). 69 intervention and 58 control health facilities, and 306 intervention and 265 control patients were evaluated after a 15 month intervention period (last visit February 28, 2018). Novartis Access significantly increased the availability of amlodipine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·84, 95% CI 1·10 to 7·37; p=0·031) and metformin (aOR 4·78, 95% CI 1·44 to 15·86; p=0·011) at health facilities, but did not affect the availability of portfolio medicines overall (adjusted β [aβ] 0·05, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·10; p=0·096) or their price (aβ 0·48, 95% CI -1·12 to 0·72; p=0·500). The programme did not affect medicine availability at patient households (aOR 0·83, 95% CI 0·44 to 1·57; p=0·569). Novartis Access had little effect in its first year in Kenya. Access programmes operate within complex health systems and reducing the wholesale price of medicines might not always or immediately translate to improved patient access. The evidence generated by this study will inform Novartis's efforts to improve their programme going forward. The study also contributes to the public evidence base on strategies for improving access to medicines globally. Sandoz International (a subsidiary of Novartis International).

24 April 2018 in PLOS Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPeter Rockers
Peter Rockers
AZArianna Zanolini
Arianna Zanolini
BBBowen Banda
Bowen Banda
MCMwaba Moono Chipili
Mwaba Moono Chipili
RHRobert Hughes
Robert Hughes
GFGünther Fink
Günther Fink
Early childhood interventions have potential to offset the negative impact of early adversity. We evaluated the impact of a community-based parenting group intervention on child development in Zambia. We conducted a non-masked cluster-randomized controlled trial in Southern Province, Zambia. Thirty clusters of villages were matched based on population density and distance from the nearest health center, and randomly assigned to intervention (15 clusters, 268 caregiver–child dyads) or control (15 clusters, 258 caregiver–child dyads). Caregivers were eligible if they had a child 6 to 12 months old at baseline. In intervention clusters, caregivers were visited twice per month during the first year of the study by child development agents (CDAs) and were invited to attend fortnightly parenting group meetings. Parenting groups selected “head mothers” from their communities who were trained by CDAs to facilitate meetings and deliver a diverse parenting curriculum. The parenting group intervention, originally designed to run for 1 year, was extended, and households were visited for a follow-up assessment at the end of year 2. The control group did not receive any intervention. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for primary outcomes measured at the year 2 follow-up: stunting and 5 domains of neurocognitive development measured using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition (BSID-III). In order to show Cohen’s d estimates, BSID-III composite scores were converted to z-scores by standardizing within the study population. In all, 195/268 children (73%) in the intervention group and 182/258 children (71%) in the control group were assessed at endline after 2 years. The intervention significantly reduced stunting (56/195 versus 72/182; adjusted odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.92; p = 0.028) and had a significant positive impact on language (β 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; p = 0.039). The intervention did not significantly impact cognition (β 0.11, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.29; p = 0.196), motor skills (β −0.01, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.24; p = 0.964), adaptive behavior (β 0.21, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.44; p = 0.088), or social-emotional development (β 0.20, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.44; p = 0.098). Observed impacts may have been due in part to home visits by CDAs during the first year of the intervention. The results of this trial suggest that parenting groups hold promise for improving child development, particularly physical growth, in low-resource settings like Zambia. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234726

22 November 2016 in BMJ Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPeter Rockers
Peter Rockers
GFGünther Fink
Günther Fink
AZArianna Zanolini
Arianna Zanolini
BBBowen Banda
Bowen Banda
GBGodfrey Biemba
Godfrey Biemba
DHDavidson H Hamer
Davidson H Hamer
Background Community-based programmes are a critical platform for improving child health and development. We tested the impact of a community-based early childhood intervention package in rural Zambia. Methods We conducted a non-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial in Southern Province, Zambia. 30 clusters of villages were matched based on population density and distance from the nearest health centre, and randomly assigned to intervention (15 clusters and 268 caregiver–child dyads) or control (15 clusters and 258 caregiver–child dyads). Caregivers were eligible if they had a child aged 6–12 months at baseline. In intervention clusters, health workers screened children for infections and malnutrition, and invited caregivers to attend fortnightly group meetings covering a nutrition and child development curriculum. 220 intervention and 215 control dyads were evaluated after 1 year. The primary outcomes were stunting and INTERGROWTH-21st neurodevelopmental assessment (NDA) scores. Weight-for-age and height-for-age z-scores based on WHO growth standards were also analysed. Secondary outcomes were child illness symptoms, dietary intake and caregiver–child interactions based on self-report. Impact was estimated using intention-to-treat analysis. Results The intervention package was associated with a 0.12 SD increase in weight-for-age (95% CI −0.14 to 0.38), a 0.15 SD increase in height-for-age (95% CI −0.18 to 0.48) and a reduction in stunting (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.28), whereas there was no measurable impact on NDA score. Children receiving the intervention package had fewer symptoms, a more diverse diet and more caregiver interactions. Conclusions In settings like Zambia, community-based early childhood programmes appear to be feasible and appreciated by caregivers, as evidenced by high rates of uptake. The intervention package improved parenting behaviours and had a small positive, though statistically insignificant, impact on child development. Given the short time frame of the project, larger developmental impact is likely if differential parenting behaviours persist. Trial registration number NCT02234726; Results.

14 April 2023 in PLOS Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPeter Rockers
Peter Rockers
JLJukka M. Leppänen
Jukka M. Leppänen
ATAmanda Tarullo
Amanda Tarullo
LCLezanie Coetzee
Lezanie Coetzee
GFGünther Fink
Günther Fink
Denise H. EvansDenise H. Evans
Denise H. Evans
Background: Effective integration of home visit interventions focused on early childhood development into existing service platforms is important for expanding access in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We designed and evaluated a home visit intervention integrated into community health worker (CHW) operations in South Africa. Methods and findings: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Limpopo Province, South Africa. CHWs operating in ward-based outreach teams (WBOTs; clusters) and caregiver–child dyads they served were randomized to the intervention or control group. Group assignment was masked from all data collectors. Dyads were eligible if they resided within a participating CHW catchment area, the caregiver was at least 18 years old, and the child was born after December 15, 2017. Intervention CHWs were trained on a job aid that included content on child health, nutrition, developmental milestones, and encouragement to engage in developmentally appropriate play-based activities, for use during regular monthly home visits with caregivers of children under 2 years of age. Control CHWs provided the local standard of care. Household surveys were administered to the full study sample at baseline and endline. Data were collected on household demographics and assets; caregiver engagement; and child diet, anthropometry, and development scores. In a subsample of children, electroencephalography (EEG) and eye-tracking measures of neural function were assessed at a lab concurrent with endline and at 2 interim time points. Primary outcomes were as follows: height-for-age z-scores (HAZs) and stunting; child development scores measured using the Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT); EEG absolute gamma and total power; relative EEG gamma power; and saccadic reaction time (SRT)—an eye-tracking measure of visual processing speed. In the main analysis, unadjusted and adjusted impacts were estimated using intention-to-treat analysis. Adjusted models included a set of demographic covariates measured at baseline. On September 1, 2017, we randomly assigned 51 clusters to intervention (26 clusters, 607 caregiver–child dyads) or control (25 clusters, 488 caregiver–child dyads). At endline (last assessment June 11, 2021), 432 dyads (71%) in 26 clusters remained in the intervention group, and 332 dyads (68%) in 25 clusters remained in the control group. In total, 316 dyads attended the first lab visit, 316 dyads the second lab visit, and 284 dyads the third lab visit. In adjusted models, the intervention had no significant impact on HAZ (adjusted mean difference (aMD) 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): −0.07, 0.30]; p = 0.220) or stunting (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.63 [0.32, 1.25]; p = 0.184), nor did the intervention significantly impact gross motor skills (aMD 0.04 [−0.15, 0.24]; p = 0.656), fine motor skills (aMD −0.04 [−0.19, 0.11]; p = 0.610), language skills (aMD −0.02 [−0.18, 0.14]; p = 0.820), or social–emotional skills (aMD −0.02 [−0.20, 0.16]; p = 0.816). In the lab subsample, the intervention had a significant impact on SRT (aMD −7.13 [−12.69, −1.58]; p = 0.012), absolute EEG gamma power (aMD −0.14 [−0.24, −0.04]; p = 0.005), and total EEG power (aMD −0.15 [−0.23, −0.08]; p < 0.001), and no significant impact on relative gamma power (aMD 0.02 [−0.78, 0.83]; p = 0.959). While the effect on SRT was observed at the first 2 lab visits, it was no longer present at the third visit, which coincided with the overall endline assessment. At the end of the first year of the intervention period, 43% of CHWs adhered to monthly home visits. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we were not able to assess outcomes until 1 year after the end of the intervention period. Conclusions: While the home visit intervention did not significantly impact linear growth or skills, we found significant improvement in SRT. This study contributes to a growing literature documenting the positive effects of home visit interventions on child development in LMICs. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of collecting markers of neural function like EEG power and SRT in low-resource settings. Trial registration: PACTR 201710002683810; https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/TrialDisplay.aspx?TrialID=2683; South African Clinical Trials Registry, SANCTR 4407

22 June 2018 in BMJ Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PRPeter Rockers
Peter Rockers
RLRichard O Laing
Richard O Laing
VWVeronika J. Wirtz
Veronika J. Wirtz
Introduction Wealth-based inequity in access to medicines is an impediment to achieving universal health coverage in many low-income and middle-income countries. We explored the relationship between household wealth and access to medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Kenya. Methods We administered a cross-sectional survey to a sample of patients prescribed medicines for hypertension, diabetes or asthma. Data were collected on medicines available in the home, including the location and cost of purchase. Household asset information was used to construct an indicator of wealth. We analysed the relationship between household wealth and various aspects of access, including the probability of having NCD medicines at home and price paid. Results Among 639 patients interviewed, hypertension was the most prevalent NCD (69.6%), followed by diabetes (22.2%) and asthma (20.2%). There was a positive and statistically significant association between wealth and having medicines for patients with hypertension (p=0.020) and asthma (p=0.016), but not for diabetes (p=0.160). Poorer patients lived farther from their nearest health facility (p=0.050). There was no relationship between household wealth and the probability that the nearest public or non-profit health facility had key NCD medicines in stock, though less poor patients were significantly more likely to purchase medicines at better stocked private outlets. The relationship between wealth and median price paid for metformin by patients with diabetes was strongly u-shaped, with the middle quintile paying the lowest prices and the poorest and least poor paying higher prices. Patients with asthma in the poorest wealth quintile paid more for salbutamol than those in all other quintiles. Conclusion The poorest in Kenya appear to face increased barriers to accessing NCD medicines as compared with the less poor. To achieve universal health coverage, the country will need to consider pro-poor policies for improving equity in access.

1 September 2017 in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PRPeter Rockers
Peter Rockers
PTPeter Tugwell
Peter Tugwell
JGJeremy Grimshaw
Jeremy Grimshaw
SOSandy Oliver
Sandy Oliver
RARifat Atun
Rifat Atun
TBTill Bärnighausen
Till Bärnighausen