Dataset Information

Parasites and vectors carry no passport: how to fund cross-border and regional efforts to achieve malaria elimination.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Tremendous progress has been made in the last ten years in reducing morbidity and mortality caused by malaria, in part because of increases in global funding for malaria control and elimination. Today, many countries are striving for malaria elimination. However, a major challenge is the neglect of cross-border and regional initiatives in malaria control and elimination. This paper seeks to better understand Global Fund support for multi-country initiatives.

Methods

Documents and proposals were extracted and reviewed from two main sources, the Global Fund website and Aidspan.org. Documents and reports from the Global Fund Technical Review Panel, Board, and Secretariat documents such as guidelines and proposal templates were reviewed to establish the type of policies enacted and guidance provided from the Global Fund on multi-country initiatives and applications. From reviewing this information, the researchers created 29 variables according to eight dimensions to use in a review of Round 10 applications. All Round 10 multi-country applications (for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and all malaria multi-country applications (6) from Rounds 1 - 10 were extracted from the Global Fund website. A blind review was conducted of Round 10 applications using the 29 variables as a framework, followed by a review of four of the six successful malaria multi-country grant applications from Rounds 1 - 10.

Findings

During Rounds 3 - 10 of the Global Fund, only 5.8% of grants submitted were for multi-country initiatives. Out of 83 multi-country proposals submitted, 25.3% were approved by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for funding, compared to 44.9% of single-country applications. The majority of approved multi-country applications were for HIV (76.2%), followed by malaria (19.0%), then tuberculosis (4.8%). TRP recommendations resulted in improvements to application forms, although guidance was generally vague. The in-depth review of Round 10 multi-country proposals showed that applicants described their projects in one of two ways: a regional 'network approach' by which benefits are derived from economies of scale or from enhanced opportunities for mutual support and learning or the development of common policies and approaches; or a 'cross-border' approach for enabling activities to be more effectively delivered towards border-crossing populations or vectors. In Round 10, only those with a 'network approach' were recommended for funding. The Global Fund has only ever approved six malaria multi-country applications. Four approved applications stated strong arguments for a multi-country initiative, combining both 'cross-border' and 'network' approaches.

Conclusion

With the cancellation of Round 11 and the proposal that the Global Fund adopt a more targeted and strategic approach to funding, the time is opportune for the Global Fund to develop a clear consensus about the key factors and criteria for funding malaria specific multi-country initiatives. This study found that currently there was a lack of guidance on the key features that a successful multi-country proposal needs to be approved and that applications directed towards the 'network' approach were most successful in Round 10. This type of multi-country proposal may favour other diseases such as HIV, whereas the need for malaria control and elimination is different, focusing on cross-border coordination and delivery of interventions to specific groups. The Global Fund should seek to address these issues and give better guidance to countries and regions and investigate disease-specific calls for multi-country and regional applications.

SUBMITTER: Gueye CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3506506 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Parasites and vectors carry no passport: how to fund cross-border and regional efforts to achieve malaria elimination.

Gueye Cara Smith CS Teng Alexandra A Kinyua Kelvin K Wafula Frank F Gosling Roly R McCoy David D

Malaria journal 20121011

<h4>Background</h4>Tremendous progress has been made in the last ten years in reducing morbidity and mortality caused by malaria, in part because of increases in global funding for malaria control and elimination. Today, many countries are striving for malaria elimination. However, a major challenge is the neglect of cross-border and regional initiatives in malaria control and elimination. This paper seeks to better understand Global Fund support for multi-country initiatives.<h4>Methods</h4>Doc ...[more]

PMID: 23057734

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Zanzibar provides a good case study for malaria elimination. The islands have experienced a dramatic reduction in malaria burden since the introduction of effective vector control interventions and case management. Malaria prevalence has now been maintained below 1% for the past decade and the islands can feasibly aim for elimination. METHODS:To better understand factors that may contribute to remaining low-level malaria transmission in Zanzibar, layered human behavioural and entomological research was conducted between December 2016 and December 2017 in 135 randomly selected households across six administrative wards. The study included: (1) household surveys, (2) structured household observations of nighttime activity and sleeping patterns, and (3) paired indoor and outdoor mosquito collections. Entomological and human behavioural data were integrated to provide weighted estimates of exposure to vector bites, accounting for proportions of people indoors or outdoors, and protected by insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) each hour of the night. RESULTS:Overall, 92% of female Anopheles mosquitoes were caught in the rainy season compared to 8% in the dry season and 72% were caught outdoors compared to 28% indoors. For individual ITN users, ITNs prevented an estimated two-thirds (66%) of exposure to vector bites and nearly three quarters (73%) of residual exposure was estimated to occur outdoors. Based on observed levels of ITN use in the study sites, the population-wide mean personal protection provided by ITNs was 42%. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study identified gaps in malaria prevention in Zanzibar with results directly applicable for improving ongoing programme activities. While overall biting risk was low, the most notable finding was that current levels of ITN use are estimated to prevent less than half of exposure to malaria vector bites. Variation in ITN use across sites and seasons suggests that additional gains could be made through targeted social and behaviour change interventions. However, even for ITN users, gaps in protection remain, with a majority of exposure to vector bites occurring outdoors before going to sleep. Supplemental interventions targeting outdoor exposure to malaria vectors, and groups that may be at increased risk of exposure to malaria vectors, should be explored.

Project description:Background & aimsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a significant strain on national healthcare systems at a critical moment in the context of hepatitis elimination. Mathematical models can be used to evaluate the possible impact of programmatic delays on hepatitis disease burden. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the incremental change in HCV liver-related deaths and liver cancer, following a 3-month, 6-month, or 1-year hiatus in hepatitis elimination programs.MethodsPreviously developed models were adapted for 110 countries to include a status quo or 'no delay' scenario and a '1-year delay' scenario assuming significant disruption in interventions (screening, diagnosis, and treatment) in the year 2020. Annual country-level model outcomes were extracted, and weighted averages were used to calculate regional (WHO and World Bank Income Group) and global estimates from 2020 to 2030. The incremental annual change in outcomes was calculated by subtracting the 'no-delay' estimates from the '1-year delay' estimates.ResultsThe '1-year delay' scenario resulted in 44,800 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 43,800-49,300) excess hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 72,300 (95% UI: 70,600-79,400) excess liver-related deaths, relative to the 'no-delay' scenario globally, from 2020 to 2030. Most missed treatments would be in lower-middle income countries, whereas most excess hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related deaths would be among high-income countries.ConclusionsThe impact of COVID-19 extends beyond the direct morbidity and mortality associated with exposure and infection. To mitigate the impact on viral hepatitis programming and reduce excess mortality from delayed treatment, policy makers should prioritize hepatitis programs as soon as it becomes safe to do so.Lay summaryCOVID-19 has resulted in many hepatitis elimination programs slowing or stopping altogether. A 1-year delay in hepatitis diagnosis and treatment could result in an additional 44,800 liver cancers and 72,300 deaths from HCV globally by 2030. Countries have committed to hepatitis elimination by 2030, so attention should shift back to hepatitis programming as soon as it becomes appropriate to do so.

Dataset Information

Parasites and vectors carry no passport: how to fund cross-border and regional efforts to achieve malaria elimination.

Background

Methods

Findings

Conclusion

Publications

Parasites and vectors carry no passport: how to fund cross-border and regional efforts to achieve malaria elimination.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets