| Literature DB >> 25409682 |
Cara Smith Gueye1, Michelle Gerigk, Gretchen Newby, Chris Lourenco, Petrina Uusiku, Jenny Liu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low malaria transmission in Namibia suggests that elimination is possible, but the risk of imported malaria from Angola remains a challenge. This case study reviews the early transition of a program shift from malaria control to elimination in three northern regions of Namibia that comprise the Trans-Kunene Malaria Initiative (TKMI): Kunene, Omusati, and Ohangwena.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25409682 PMCID: PMC4255954 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1transmission and predictions of receptive PR . Map of Namibia showing the spatial limits of P. falciparum transmission and predictions of receptive P. falciparum parasite rate (for age range 2–10 years, or PfPR2–10) at health district within the stable limits. The receptive risks were computed as the maximum mean population adjusted PfPR2–10 predicted for the years 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984 and 1989 for each health district [13].
Figure 2Malaria program organization. Within the Government Republic of Namibia Ministry of Health and Social Services, the National Vector-borne Diseases Control Programme is part of the Directorate of Special Programmes (DSP). At the national level, the program supervises malaria activities at the regional and district level, providing them with trainings and supplies for vector control. The Central Medical Store provides all medicines and clinical supplies required to carry out malaria case management. Regional DSP Programme Administrators and Environmental Health Officers organize and support activities at the regional and district levels.
Figure 3Reported malaria cases from health facilities, 2001–2011. Source: Health Information System, MoHSS Note: Region populations for 2002–2004 were not available. Calculated by taking difference between 2005 and 2001 populations, dividing by 4 and adding amount to each year. Note: Based on regional names and boundaries as of July 2013. The selected study regions are shown in color. Neighboring regions are shown for comparison. PAR = population at risk; ACT = artemisinin combination therapy; LLIN = long-lasting insecticide-treated nets; RDT = rapid diagnostic test.
Figure 4Malaria program expenditures in study regions, 2009–2011. PAR = population at risk; CLM = controlled low-endemic malaria; M&E = monitoring and evaluation. All figures are reported in 2011 USD. Note: Figures A, B, and C contain different scales in US$ per PAR.
Population, malaria cases, and program expenditures for selected regions, 2009-2011
| Control | Control/Controlled low-endemic malaria | Controlled low-endemic malaria | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |||||||
| Kunene | Ohangwena | Omusati | Kunene | Ohangwena | Omusati | Kunene | Ohangwena | Omusati | |
| Total population | 75,632 | 261,323 | 243,657 | 76,598 | 265,992 | 245,788 | 88,300 | 245,100 | 242,900 |
| Reported1 malaria cases | 729 | 13,755 | 1,689 | 292 | 3,078 | 1,828 | 138 | 451 | 729 |
| Expenditures (US$2011) | $424,155 | $2,015,576 | $1,216,671 | $405,194 | $1,486,757 | $1,183,450 | $305,546 | $881,399 | $915,354 |
| Expenditures/total population | $ 5.61 | $ 7.56 | $ 4.99 | $ 5.29 | $ 5.48 | $ 4.81 | $3.46 | $4.02 | $3.77 |
| Expenditure type: | |||||||||
| Personnel | 73.8% ($4.14)2 | 84.2% ($6.37) | 73.6% ($3.67) | 64.2% ($3.40) | 71.7% ($3.93) | 62.3% ($3.00) | 66.5% ($2.30) | 58.9% ($2.37) | 50.8% ($1.92) |
| Consumables | 9.3% ($0.52) | 6.7% ($0.51) | 18.1% ($0.90) | 17.8% ($0.94) | 18.8% ($1.03) | 32.3% ($1.55) | 20.6% ($0.71) | 30.4% ($1.22) | 47.2% ($1.77) |
| Services | 15.8% ($0.89) | 8.4% ($0.63) | 7.1% ($0.36) | 15.2% ($0.81) | 7.5% ($0.41) | 4.3% ($0.21) | 7.2% ($0.25) | 8.1% ($0.33) | 0.9% ($0.03) |
| Capital | 1.1% ($0.06) | 0.7% ($0.05) | 1.1% ($0.06) | 2.7% ($0.14) | 2.0% ($0.11) | 1.1% ($0.05) | 5.7% ($0.20) | 2.6% ($0.10) | 1.2% ($0.05) |
1Reported from health facilities.
2Total cost per person at risk for particular expenditure type.
Technical, operational, and resource allocation challenges of key malaria interventions elicited from key informant interviews
| Issues discussed | Operational | Technical | Resource allocation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indoor residual spraying | ● Access and weather difficulties | ● Does not cover mobile population | ● Insufficient spray men |
| ● Homeowner/community refusals | ● Delayed insecticide procurement in 2008 | ||
| ● Late staff payments | ● Not as effective against outdoor biting/resting vectors | ||
| ● Turnover/retraining | ● Irregular trainings | ||
| ● No documented strategy on targeting populations | ● Lack of some IRS equipment | ||
| Long-lasting insecticide-treated nets | ● Unclear/outdated targeting | ● Does not cover mobile population | ● Insufficient supplies of LLINs and resource mechanism for distribution |
| ● High turnover of community volunteers | ● Not as effective against outdoor biting/resting vectors | ||
| ● LLINs misused by recipients | ● Insufficient IEC for proper use of LLINs | ||
| Diagnosis & treatment | ● No official change in policy (until 2012) | ● Trainings not organized or timed to coincide with new commodity rollout | |
| ● No concentrated strategy across regions | |||
| ● Insufficient IEC for dispelling myths and emphasizing need for prompt diagnosis and treatment | |||
| ● Some malaria patients reluctant to provide accurate contact or place of origin information. | |||
| ● Some health workers perceive RDTs to be too time-consuming | |||
| Surveillance/Reporting | ● No analysis/feedback | ● Reporting systems not linked across health system levels or regions | ● Lack of personnel |
| ● Private sector not included |