Important: The POPLINE website will retire on September 1, 2019. Click here to read about the transition.

Your search found 6 Results

  1. 1
    375396

    Community health worker programmes in the WHO African Region: Evidence and options. Policy brief.

    World Health Organization [WHO]. Regional Office for Africa. Health Systems and Services Cluster

    Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo, WHO, Regional Office for Africa, 2017. 23 p. (Policy Brief)

    Community health worker (CHW) programmes have seen a renaissance in the last two decades and now many countries in Africa boast of such national or substantial sub-national programmes. The 2013 Third Global Forum on Human Resources for Health concluded that CHWs and other frontline primary health care workers “play a unique role and can be essential to accelerating MDGs and achieving UHC”, and called for their integration into national health systems. The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak of 2014-2015 highlighted the imperative of ensuring the functioning of the health systems at the community level for both their day-to-day resilience and disaster preparedness. The purpose of this policy brief is to inform discussions and decisions in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region on policies, strategies and programmes to increase access to primary health care (PHC) services and make progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) by expanding the implementation of scaled-up CHW programmes. This brief summarizes the existing evidence on CHW programmes with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa and offers a number of context-linked policy options for countries seeking to scale up and improve the effectiveness of their CHW programmes, particularly with regard to needs such as those of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the three countries that were the most affected by the 2014-2015 EVD outbreak. For the purposes of this policy brief, a broad definition of CHW is used. CHWs are individuals “carrying out the functions related to health care delivery [who are] trained in some way in the context of the intervention [but have] no formal professional or paraprofessional certificated or degreed tertiary education [in a health-related field]”). WHO states that CHWs “should be members of the communities where they work, selected by the communities, answerable to the communities for their activities, and supported by the health system but not necessarily a part of its organization”. For the purposes of this brief, a working definition for a scaled-up CHW programme has been developed, where the term refers to a programme that is designed to be more than a pilot or demonstration project and has the intention of covering a substantial population size or geographic area, depending on the country’s context. (Excerpts)
    Add to my documents.
  2. 2
    333060

    Monitoring equity in access to AIDS treatment programmes: a review of concepts, models, methods and indicators.

    World Health Organization [WHO]; Regional Network for Equity in Health in East and Southern Africa [EQUINET]; Training and Research Support Centre [TARSC]; REACH Trust

    Geneva, Switzerland, WHO, 2010. [98] p.

    The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Regional Network for Equity in Health in East and Southern Africa (EQUINET) through REACH Trust Malawi and Training and Research Support Centre (TARSC) developed this review. It provides a practical resource for programme managers, health planning departments, evaluation experts and civil society organizations working on health systems and HIV / AIDS programmes at sub-national, national and regional levels in East and Southern Africa. Many of the orientations and tools in this document were developed through a wide consultation process, starting in 2003. We draw on the broader analysis of health equity advanced by EQUINET, as well as evidence from five background studies on equity and health systems impacts of ART programming in East and Southern Africa which were supported by EQUINET, TARSC and DFID (available at www. equinetafrica.org). (Excerpt)
    Add to my documents.
  3. 3
    278134
    Peer Reviewed

    WHO welcomes research showing effectiveness of AIDS treatment.

    Central European Journal of Public Health. 2004 Mar; 12(1):52.

    Health workers' experience shows that HAART can be delivered and is effective in poor settings. The World Health Organization (WHO) welcomes the research published in the issue of The Lancet highlighting the substantial increased survival for people with HIV/AIDS who have access to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The new report focuses on findings in rich countries, but the experience of WHO and public health workers in clinics around the world shows that antiretroviral therapy (ART) can be delivered effectively and with equally dramatic results in poor countries. This research and the new evidence that antiretroviral therapy is extremely effective gives added backing to WHO in its push to deliver antiretrovirals to three million people in developing countries by the end of 2005 (the "3 by 5" target). WHO expects survival gains to be as good or even better in resource-poor settings over a similar period of time. "Treatment with antiretrovirals works for everyone - rich and poor. Now the poor urgently need access to these drug," said Dr Charlie Gilks, head of WHO's "3 by 5" team. "We are determined too simplify treatments and to ensure that affordable, quality drugs reach those in need as quickly as possible." (excerpt)
    Add to my documents.
  4. 4
    106881
    Peer Reviewed

    India urged to rethink family planning programme.

    Kumar S

    Lancet. 1995 Jul 29; 346(8970):301.

    The World Bank, in "India's Welfare Programme: Towards a Reproductive and Child Health Approach," a review done with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, makes the following recommendations: 1) eliminate method-specific contraceptive targets and incentives, and replace them with broad reproductive and child health goals and measures; 2) increase the emphasis on male contraceptive methods (which account currently for only 6% of contraceptive use); 3) improve access to reproductive and child health services; 4) increase the role of the private sector by revitalizing the social marketing program; and 5) encourage experimentation with an expanded role for the private sector in implementing publicly funded programs. Since the launch of the family planning program in 1951, mortality has fallen by two-thirds, and life expectancy at birth has almost doubled. However, the population has almost doubled since 1961. By 2025, it is expected to be 1.5-1.9 billion. By 1992, India had achieved 60% of its goal for replacement fertility (2.1 births per woman), decreasing from 6 births per woman in 1951-1961 to 3-4 births per woman. Meeting India's unmet need for family planning would allow the replacement fertility goal to be reached. Female education and employment would add to the demand for smaller families and assure continuing declines in fertility and population growth rate. The report also highlights problems in implementation of the program, including program accessibility and quality of care. The report cites National Family Health Survey data which shows that only 35% of children under 2 received all six vaccines in the program, while 30% received none. The bank's "1993 World Development Report" recommended spending $5.40 per head for maternal and child health and family welfare programs; India spends $0.60. Massive borrowing will be required.
    Add to my documents.
  5. 5
    074065
    Peer Reviewed

    Evaluation of maternal health programs: approaches, methods and indicators.

    Bobadilla JL

    International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1992; 38 Suppl:S67-73.

    A staff person from the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank presents leading successful methods in evaluating maternal health programs in developing countries and their limitations. 1st it is important to define the program in terms of provider, setting, activities, interventions, and expected outcomes. It may be either a program with a single intervention or a complex program. The program evaluation must include coverage, equity, technical quality, women's satisfaction, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. The evaluators must compare these criteria with some standard usually based on previous research, so they need to define this standard. These standards can be theoretical standards or empirical standards such as best possible standards derived from randomized clinical and community trials and best achievable standards. Best achievable standards should be used, however, when significant differences exist between the outcomes of the health program in question and the best achievable standard. Depending on the choices made based on the aforementioned components, evaluators can choose the method and indicators to use. The most exact method for evaluating the efficacy of health interventions is the randomized clinical trial, but it is best for single interventions. Randomized clinical trials are not always achievable, however, because it is difficult to find similar communities in sufficient quantities for an adequate sample size and are costly. The most often used method is quasi-experiments including before and after measurements of the indicators, control group experiments, and demonstration health projects. The case control method is the only acceptable observational method. Another possible method is confidential investigations into maternal deaths. The most common indicators include structure, process, and outcome.
    Add to my documents.
  6. 6
    268459

    Annual report of the director, 1984.

    Pan American Health Organization [PAHO]

    Washington, D.C., PAHO, Pan American Sanitary Bureau/Regional Office of the World Health Organization, 1985. xix, 265 p. (Official Document No. 201)

    Efforts to meet the goal of health for all by the year 2000 have been hampered by the internal and external problems faced by many countries of the Americas. The pressures of external debt have been accompanied by a reduction in the resources allocated to social sector programs, including health programs. In addition, the conflict in Central America has constrained solutions to subregional problems. The health sector suffers from uncoordinated services, lack of trained personnel, and waste. Thus 30-40% of the population do not have access to basic health services. In 1984, the governments in the region, together with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), undertook projects in 5 action areas: new approaches and technology, development, intra- and intersectoral linkages, joint activities by groups of countries, mobilization of national resources and external financing, and preparation of PAHO to meet the needs of these processes. New approaches include the expansion of epidemiological capabilities and practices, the use of low-cost infant survival strategies, the improvement of rural water supplies, and the development of domestic technology. Interorganizational linkages are aimed at eliminating duplication and filling in gaps. Ministers of health and directors of social security programs are working together to rationalize the health sector and extend coverage of services. Similarly, countries have grouped to deal with common problems and offer coordinated solutions. The mobilization of national resources involves shifting resources into the health field and increasing their efficiency and effectiveness by setting priorities. External resources are recommended if they supplement national efforts and are short-term in nature. In order to enhance these strategies, PAHO has increased the managerial and operating capacity of its central and field offices. This has required consolidating programs, retraining staff, and instituting information systems to monitor activities and budgets. The report summarizes health indicators and activities by country, for all nations under PAHO.
    Add to my documents.