Your search found 3 Results
Epidemic preparedness and response in Africa: an epidemiological block approach. Summary report. AFRO / EMC epidemiological blocks.
Washington, D.C., AED, SARA, 2001 Mar.  p. (USAID Contract No. AOT-00-99-00237-00)Following a series of epidemics that occurred in 1995 and 1996 in several countries in West and Central Africa, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Africa (AFRO) and the USAID Africa Bureau, Office of Sustainable Development (AFR/SD), decided to strengthen their cooperation on epidemic preparedness and response (EPR) throughout the continent. Many African countries lack drugs and other supplies for prompt and effective interventions to address epidemic outbreaks. Many country officials lack both awareness of the risk of epidemics and the capacity to effectively detect and manage them. In order to improve the situation, WHO/AFRO defined five groups of countries with similar epidemiological profiles, and created a political framework to facilitate inter-country collaboration within each of these epidemiological blocks. The Swiss Disaster Relief (SDR), the European Union (EU), and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also joined the effort to strengthen capacity for EPR in West Africa. Almost four years later, AFRO and AFR/SD decided to organize a review and documentation of the epidemic preparedness and response program. The present summary report contains the findings and recommendations of this review. The report presents the epidemiological block approach used by WHO/AFRO to implement its Emerging and other Communicable Diseases Surveillance and Control (EMC) programs, and discusses the performance of the epidemiological teams in the West Africa Block (WAB) and Great Lakes Block (GLB). It discusses the availability and use of data for assessing trends in the incidence, mortality, and occurrence of outbreaks of epidemic-prone diseases — cholera and meningitis in particular. It concludes with a short discussion and recommendations for further efforts to strengthen capacities for epidemic preparedness and response in the Africa region. (excerpt)
[Unpublished] 1984 May 3. Presented at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 3-5, 1984. 26 p.The paper summarizes the health strategy of the US Agency for International Development (AID). The goal of the strategy is to assist developing countries to 1) reduce mortality among infants and young children, and 2) to reduce disease and disability among selected population groups. The main strategy elements include: 1) improved and expanded use of available technologies; 2) development of new and improved technologies; and 3) strengthening human resource and institutional capability. A more in-depth look is taken at how AID implements its strategy in Asia emphasizing the primary goal of infant mortality reduction. The paper provides a demographic overview of the 9 AID-assisted Asian countries. A summary of AID's program support in Asia showing levels and trends by subcategory is provided. Particular attention is paid to projects supporting selective primary care. Finally, the paper discusses the difficulties of implementing the strategy in Asia and speculates on the chances for success. (author's)
An assessment of the scientific achievements of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh and their relevance to AID health sector priorities.
[Unpublished] 1983. ii, 32 p.This docunment reports the findings of a United States Agency for International Development (USAID) assessment of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B) which examined the scientific work of the Center in realtion to USAID's health sector priorities. USAID's Bureau of Science and Technoloby/Health has been providing core support to ICDDR,B but this grant terminated during fiscal year 1983. The multi-disciplinary assessment team was charged with making recommendations about the continuation of these funds and about any ways in which the ICDDR,B program might be modified to more closely respond to USAID's concerns. ICDDR,B's scientific reseachis of excellent quality and of great significance to the acquisition and spread of new knowledge about diarrheal diseases. There is every reason to believe that the work of scientists at ICDDR,B, which has in the past revolutionized thinking about these diseases, will continue to contribute to the search for ways to address this critical public health probelm. USAID should, therefore, continue to provide generous core support to ICDDR,B. The nature and diversity of the global diarrheal disease problem, and the ecologically determined differences in the requirements of implementation of control programs, make it impossible for ICDDR,B to carry the burden of scientific investigation alone. While the Center should continue to play a focal role, USAID is encouraged to identify and support institutions in other developing countries which could undertake scientific and operational research of diarrheal diseases. ICDDR,B could assist this globall effort by providing guidance and specialized technical consultation and training as new research programs are being developed elsewhere. The program of ICDDR,B is generally balanced and appropriate. However, the assessment team was concerned about the lack of expertise in epidemiology and immunology. (author's modified)