| Literature DB >> 22943659 |
Anna Tynan1, Andrew Vallely, Angela Kelly, Greg Law, John Millan, Peter Siba, John Kaldor, Peter S Hill.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Male circumcision (MC) has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV acquisition among heterosexual men, with WHO recommending MC as an essential component of comprehensive HIV prevention programs in high prevalence settings since 2007. While Papua New Guinea (PNG) has a current prevalence of only 1%, the high rates of sexually transmissible diseases and the extensive, but unregulated, practice of penile cutting in PNG have led the National Department of Health (NDoH) to consider introducing a MC program. Given public interest in circumcision even without active promotion by the NDoH, examining the potential health systems implications for MC without raising unrealistic expectations presents a number of methodological issues. In this study we examined health systems lessons learned from a national no-scalpel vasectomy (NSV) program, and their implications for a future MC program in PNG.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22943659 PMCID: PMC3457912 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Figure 1Map of Papua New Guinea with case study provinces highlighted.
Overview of four NSV services that took part in this research
| Stand alone service situated within family health services program | Provincial health | 2 x CHW | · Clinic 2 x per week | · Peers/ Word of mouth | ~400 per year | UNFPA | |
| | | Family health services coordinator | 1 x NO | · Outreach when requested | · District CHW | | HSIP |
| Aligned with men’s sexual and reproductive health program | International NGO | 1 x CHW | · Rural outreach service. | · Men’s health clinic. | ~ 2 per year at urban clinic | NGO supported | |
| | | | 3 x NO | · Saturday clinic when available | · Promotion during outreach | ~ 100 per year in rural areas | Small fee for service |
| | | | 1 x visiting medical doctor | | · Peers/word of mouth | | |
| | | | | | · District CHWs | | |
| | | | | | · Incentives for health worker and clients | | |
| Aligned with Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department | Hospital Department Head | Medical doctors | · As requested and when available | · Wives/mothers | ~ 40 per year | Government | |
| | | | | | · Peers/word of mouth | | |
| Stand alone service situated within family health services program | Provincial Government | 2 x CHWs | · No set clinic | · Peers/word of mouth | Between 200 and 300 a year | NGO Support for training and outreach | |
| | | Family Health services coordinator | | · Outreach as required | · Promotion during outreach | | HSIP |
| | | | | | · District CHWs | | UNFPA |
| Technical assistance from International NGO | · Incentives for clients |
NO: Nursing Officer; CHW: Community Health Worker; HSIP: Health Sector Improvement Program.
Illustrative quotes for Leadership, Governance and Health Financing
| Well it [The NSV Program] has never been organised.... it has just never been organised properly. We have tried to make inputs on so many occasions for so many years. But family health services have just never been competently organised themselves. | |
| I think the other challenge is awareness, people understanding of the importance of family planning and the issues surrounding the permanent methods of family planning. So those are challenges that we face and specifically on no-scalpel vasectomy. Since 1997 we have had a number of our staff were sent to Indonesia to be trained and now there are only a few you know that are taking the initiative forward. But the rest have gone over and basically because of the difficulties that they face in facilities that are not in a good state for them to perform, or they don’t get the support they need. There are a whole lot of other issues. | |
| I mean I am sure that money could be accessed if we really put our minds to it. First of all you need to produce a national program. And then you need to get funding for it. Instead of having UNFPA passing by and saying would you like some funding to do a bit of vasectomy and the answer is always… yes please. And then, then nothing happens. They throw a bit of money at it and they do a bit of something. That is usually fairly ineffectual. Like they run a little vasectomy training program and the people in the program never get to do a vasectomy .... It’s just hopeless. | |
| Yeah, about this funding we do normally get this funding from the health department, but we are finding it difficult. For me as a vasectomist, to go out within the district to perform a service to the men and at the same time perform hands on training to the apprentice I need continued funding. Funding is really a problem within this program and within the province. | |
| Sometimes they tell us that there is no money and we have to wait. Vasectomy, comes under the family health services. The program safe motherhood and so the vasectomy program comes under that safe motherhood family health services. I really don’t know how much we have, but we are just doing the proposal. And it’s up to the people up there, the finance team to approve our patrol [outreach service] and then they give us the funding. | |
Figure 2No-Scalpel Vasectomies carried out in Papua New Guinea, 2002 – 2006. [Adapted from O'Connor, M. (2007).].