Dataset Information

Evolution of the World Health Organization's programmatic actions to control diarrheal diseases.

ABSTRACT: The Program for the Control of Diarrheal Diseases (CDD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) was created in 1978, the year the Health for All Strategy was launched at the Alma Ata International Conference on Primary Health Care. CDD quickly became one of the pillars of this strategy, with its primary goal of reducing diarrhea-associated mortality among infants and young children in developing countries. WHO expanded the previous cholera-focused unit into one that addressed all diarrheal diseases, and uniquely combined support to research and to national CDD Programs. We describe the history of the Program, summarize the results of the research it supported, and illustrate the outcome of the Program's control efforts at country and global levels. We then relate the subsequent evolution of the Program to an approach that was more technically broad and programmatically narrow and describe how this affected diarrheal diseases-related activities globally and in countries.

SUBMITTER: Wolfheim C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6816052 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evolution of the World Health Organization's programmatic actions to control diarrheal diseases.

Wolfheim Cathy C Fontaine Olivier O Merson Michael M

Journal of global health 20191201 2

The Program for the Control of Diarrheal Diseases (CDD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) was created in 1978, the year the Health for All Strategy was launched at the Alma Ata International Conference on Primary Health Care. CDD quickly became one of the pillars of this strategy, with its primary goal of reducing diarrhea-associated mortality among infants and young children in developing countries. WHO expanded the previous cholera-focused unit into one that addressed all diarrheal diseas ...[more]

PMID: 31673346

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrated care is recognised as an important enabler to healthy ageing, yet few countries have managed to sustainably deliver integrated care for older people. We aimed to gather global consensus on the key actions required to realign health and long-term systems and integrate services to implement the World Health Organization (WHO) Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) approach.MethodsA two-round eDelphi study, including a global consultation meeting, was undertaken to identify, refine and generate consensus on the actions required across high-, middle- and low-income countries to implement the WHO ICOPE approach. In round 1, a framework of 31 actions, empirically derived from previous WHO evidence reviews was presented to panellists to judge the relative importance of each action (numeric rating scale; range:1-9) and provide free-text comments concerning the scope of the actions. These outcomes were discussed and debated at the global consultation meeting. In round 2, a revised framework of 19 actions was presented to panellists to measure their extent of agreement and identify 'essential' actions (five-point Likert scale; range: strongly agree to strongly disagree). A threshold of ≥80% for agree/strongly agree was set a priori for consensus.ResultsAfter round 1 (n = 80 panellists), median scores across 31 actions ranged from 6 to 9. Based on pre-defined category thresholds for median scores, panellists considered 28 actions (90·3%) as 'important' and three (9·7%) as 'uncertain'. Fifteen additional actions were suggested for inclusion based on free-text comments, creating 46 for consideration at the global consultation meeting. In round 2 (n = 84 panellists), agreement (agree or strongly agree) ranged from 84·6-97·6%, suggesting consensus. Fourteen (73·7%) actions were rated as essential.ConclusionFourteen essential actions and five important actions are necessary at system (macro; n = 10) and service (meso; n = 9) levels to implement community-based integrated care for older people.

Project description:India is revising its mental health legislation with the Indian Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (IMHA). When implemented, this legislation will apply to over 1.25 billion people. In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a Resource Book (WHO-RB) on mental health, human rights and legislation, including a checklist of 175 specific items to be addressed in mental health legislation or policy in individual countries. Even following the publication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2006), the WHO-RB remains the most comprehensive checklist for mental health legislation available, rooted in UN and WHO documents and providing the most systematic, detailed framework for human rights analysis of mental health legislation. We sought to determine the extent to which the IMHA will bring Indian legislation in line with the WHO-RB.The IMHA and other relevant pieces of Indian legislation are compared to each of the items in the WHO-RB. We classify each item in a binary manner, as either concordant or not, and provide more nuanced detail in the text.The IMHA addresses 96/175 (55.4%) of the WHO-RB standards examined. When other relevant Indian legislation is taken into account, 118/175 (68.0%) of the standards are addressed in Indian law. Important areas of low concordance include the rights of families and carers, competence and guardianship, non-protesting patients and involuntary community treatment. The important legal constructs of advance directives, supported decision-making and nominated representatives are articulated in the Indian legislation and explored in this paper.In theory, the IMHA is a highly progressive piece of legislation, especially when compared to legislation in other jurisdictions subject to similar analysis. Along with the Indian Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, it will bring Indian law closely in line with the WHO-RB. Vague, opaque language is however, used in certain contentious areas; this may represent arrangement-focused rather than realisation-focused legislation, and lead to inadvertent limitation of certain rights. Finally, the WHO-RB checklist is an extremely useful tool for this kind of analysis; we recommend it is updated to reflect the CRPD and other relevant developments.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of digital technologies within health care rapidly increased as services transferred to web-based platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequalities in digital health across the domains of equity are not routinely examined; yet, the long-term integration of digitally delivered services needs to consider such inequalities to ensure equitable benefits.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to map inequities in access, use, and engagement with digital health technologies across equity domains.MethodsWe searched 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, ASSIA, PsycINFO, and Scopus) for quantitative and mixed methods reviews and meta-analyses published between January 2016 and May 2022. Reviews were limited to those that included studies from the World Health Organization's European region. Extracted data were mapped against Cochrane's PROGRESS PLUS (place of residence, race, ethnicity, culture, and language, occupation, gender and sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, and other characteristics) dimensions of equity.ResultsIn total, 404 unique citations were identified from the searches, and 2 citations were identified from other sources. After eligibility assessment, 22 reviews were included. Consistent evidence was found showing higher access to digital health technologies among patients who were of White ethnicity, were English speaking, and had no disability. There were no reviews that explored differences in access to digital health care by age, gender and sex, occupation, education, or homeless or substance misuse. Higher use of digital health technologies was observed among populations that were White, English speaking, younger, with a higher level of education, of higher economic status, and residents in urban areas. No clear evidence of differences in the use of digital technologies by occupation, gender and sex, disability, or homeless or substance misuse was found, nor was clear evidence found in the included reviews on inequalities in the engagement with digital technologies. Finally, no reviews were identified that explored differences by place of residence.ConclusionsDespite awareness of the potential impact of inequalities in digital health, there are important evidence gaps across multiple equity domains. The development of a common framework for evaluating digital health equity in new health initiatives and consistency in reporting findings is needed.

Dataset Information

Evolution of the World Health Organization's programmatic actions to control diarrheal diseases.

Publications

Evolution of the World Health Organization's programmatic actions to control diarrheal diseases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets