Anemia in disadvantaged children aged under five years; quality of care in primary practice

Anemia is a major public health issue globally with an estimated prevalence of 47% in children aged under 5 years. [1] Prevalence is reported to be 70% in children living in low income countries and over 30% in disadvantaged Indigenous children aged under 5 years worldwide. [2, 3] Children are born with high hemoglobin concentrations but levels drop after 6 months of age due to depletion of iron stores with the most vulnerable period between 6 and 11 months. [4‐7] Iron deficiency is the most important cause of anemia. [8] However, the cycle of poverty, poor environmental conditions, chronic infection, malabsorption and anorexia affecting disadvantaged children and families is also well recognised. [9, 10] Iron deficiency and other forms of anemia are associated with long term deficits in cognitive development and poor educational outcomes, especially in the youngest infants. [11, 12]

Reducing anemia rates requires complex and long-standing changes to nutritional intake, education levels, economic status and the social determinants of health. [9, 10] However, primary health care services have an important role in prevention, early detection and treatment. In Australia, the national government advises primary care providers to administer a ‘child health check’ annually to each Indigenous child across the country. [13] These ‘checks’ are standardised, based on best practice guidelines and include measurements for growth and screening for hemoglobin at least once per year for high risk groups, as well as breastfeeding promotion, dietary and complementary feeding advice, discussion of housing and food security and recommendations about social support services. [13]

Yet, there is little information about how well anemia services are being implemented in busy primary care settings, especially those in remote areas, which service highly disadvantaged communities. Also, despite the high burden, to our knowledge only one study has assessed anemia burden and the quality of anemia care provided to infants aged 6–11 months. [14]

The Audit for Best Practice in Chronic Disease (ABCD) continuous quality improvement (CQI) program was developed for Australian Indigenous primary health care centers for the prevention and management of chronic disease. [15‐17] The ABCD program aims to improve service delivery using plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles (including analysing current practice, implementing change and then encouraging service providers to assess the impact of the change). [15]

Our primary objective was to assess the quality of anemia care provided to disadvantaged children attending the ABCD primary care centers and to determine how this varied by age. Secondary objectives were to assess the effect of geographic location and to describe the burden of anemia (hemoglobin < 110 g/dl) in children aged 6–59 months.

To our knowledge, this is the largest published study describing the quality of anemia care provided to disadvantaged children in primary health care centers. Anemia prevalence was 33% overall and 57% in children aged 6–11 months. Yet only 54% of children received the composite measure of anemia care, 76% of caregivers received nutrition advice, 70% of children had a hemoglobin measurement within the preceding 12 months and only 48% received follow up care for anemia. Young children aged 6–11 months had the poorest quality of care despite having the highest anemia rates. Health centres in remote areas appeared recorded better quality of care than non-remote areas.

The prevalence of anaemia that we reported in our study was similar to anaemia prevalence reported for other disadvantaged children in low and middle income countries globally (especially east and southeast Asia [29%] and southern Africa [30%]). [2] Our rates were also similar to disadvantaged children in high income countries including Inuit children (36%) in Canada [3], urban African-American children (25–35%) in the US [29, 30] and Native Alaskan infants (35%). [31] Rural risk factors for anemia are well known and include tropical diseases and severe food insecurity. However, in both urban and rural areas, poor education levels and poverty also limit food purchasing and the provision of an adequate nutritional intake. [32, 33]

We also found the highest anemia prevalence in children aged 6–11 months (57%) and 12–23 months (43%). Infant anemia is well known to be due to poor maternal nutrition, poor complementary food intake and gastro intestinal infections. [34, 35] Low birth weight and maternal anemia are also important determinants of early onset anemia, [11, 36].

We also reported concerningly low quality of anemia care (54%). Provision of nutrition advice and screening to families by primary care providers in Australia was reported to be as low as 20% in 2011. [14] However, many efforts have been made to improve primary and secondary prevention of anemia in remote areas including training of health care providers, CQI initiatives and community consultation. [37] The quality of anemia care we report this study is substantially better than reported in the 2011 study. These findings are encouraging given the ongoing challenges of high staff turnover and difficulty in accessing professional development in remote areas.

We found six other studies that reported on the poor quality of anemia care for disadvantaged children, [4, 14, 38‐42] Of these, one assessed quality of care in infants aged 6 months and compared to older age groups.(38)In our study children aged 6–11 months had the highest anemia burden (56.9%) but were two fold less likely to receive anemia care compared to those aged 12–59 months.

Interestingly, the quality of health centre care in urban areas was significantly poorer than remote areas in our study. This may be due to some participation bias by health centres. i.e., participation was voluntary and more ‘better quality’ health centres may have volunteered in remote than urban areas.. Other possible reasons include difficulties in locating children who live in crowded urban environments, lack of funding for urban based care from local and national governments and lack of community health workers or other ancillary staff to help with communication and follow up. [43] This can result in fragmentation of care with many children receiving care from multiple different service providers. Similar findings have been reported from other high-income urban environments including studies of type 2 diabetes [44], immunisation, [45] and adult preventative health care services. [46]

We also reported poor anemia treatment and follow up in the disadvantaged children in our study. Our low follow up rate (49%) may be explained by the frequent migration between city and country locations commonly seen in disadvantaged families. [14, 47] However, we also reported that only 66% of children with anemia received dietary/nutrition advice and 56% were prescribed an iron supplement at the time of diagnosis. These findings are most likely explained by high staff turnover and the need for ongoing staff trainings. Our standard operating procedures state that nutritional advice and iron therapy should commence immediately while waiting for laboratory results. We have now conducted refresher training in both remote and urban areas and are continuing close follow up of these concerning findings. We are also focusing on ‘structures of care’ such as education and training, capacity building and improvements in the organisation of health systems. [14, 48]

Long term neurodevelopmental and educational outcomes have been linked to early deprivation and micronutrient intake, [11, 12] so it is concerning that very young infants aged 6–11 months had both high levels of anemia and poor quality of care and follow-up in our study. This low prevalence of care for our youngest and most vulnerable infants may be because of the perception that anemia commences later in childhood. [14]

There were some limitations to our study. Some items may not have been documented in client records thus there may have been under reporting of the level of care provided. Participation of health services was voluntary therefore limiting generalisability. We were unable to collect data on cause of anemia e.g. iron deficiency so we cannot comment on aetiology specific issues. We are also aware that our anemia rates were reported only in the 70% of children who received screening for anemia. Children that did not receive screening may be more disadvantaged and have even higher anemia burden. Our anemia burden data relied on capillary samples (heel prick and finger prick) analysed by hemoglobinometers. Venous blood full blood examinations (FBE) are well known to be the gold standard technique for measuring hemoglobin levels. However, there have been many hemoglobinometer diagnostic accuracy studies that report high levels of sensitivity, specificity and level of agreement with venous Coulter samples if the hemoglobinometer is used by well trained staff under optimal situations such as in our study. [49, 50]

Strengths of our study included the large sample size and multicenter design which included a large number of primary health care centers across different regions of Australia. Within the statistical analysis we controlled for confounders such as age, sex, year, geographic location, governance and CQI participation and we feel that residual confounding was unlikely. We also controlled for the effects of clustering of health care centers.

Anemia continues to be an important issue for disadvantaged children in urban, rural and remote areas. In our study children aged 6–11 months had the highest anemia rates but the poorest quality of care. Improving care for these vulnerable children is especially needed. This includes improved training and capacity building of primary care providers in the care of young children, the delivery of standardised health checks and ensuring appropriate follow up and treatment.