Dataset Information

Legislative landscape for traditional health practitioners in Southern African development community countries: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Globally, contemporary legislation surrounding traditional health practitioners (THPs) is limited. This is also true for the member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The main aim of this study is to map and review THP-related legislation among SADC countries. In order to limit the scope of the review, the emphasis is on defining THPs in terms of legal documents.

Methods

This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews methods. Two independent reviewers reviewed applicable legal definitions of THPs by searching the Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII) database in April 2018 for legislation and bills. To identify additional legislation applicable in countries not listed on SAFLII and/or further relevant SADC legislation, the search engines, Google and PubMed, were used in August 2018 and results were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Full texts of available policy and legal documents were screened to identify policies and legislation relating to the regulation of THPs. Legislation was deemed relevant if it was a draft of or promulgated legislation relating to THPs.

Results

Four of 14 Southern African countries have legislation relating to THPs. Three countries, namely South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe, have acknowledged the roles and importance of THPs in healthcare delivery by creating a council to register and formalise practices, although they have not operationalised nor registered and defined THPs. In contrast, Tanzania has established a definition couched in terms that acknowledge the context-specific and situational knowledge of THPs, while also outlining methods and the importance of local recognition. Tanzanian legislation; thus, provides a definition of THP that specifically operationalises THPs, whereas legislation in South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe allocates the power to a council to decide or recognise who a THP is; this council can prescribe procedures to be followed for the registration of a THP.

Conclusions

This review highlights the differences and similarities between the various policies and legislation pertaining to THPs in SADC countries. Legislation regarding THPs is available in four of the 14 SADC countries. While South Africa, Tanzania, Namibia and Zimbabwe have legislation that provides guidance as to THP recognition, registration and practices, THPs continue to be loosely defined in most of these countries. Not having an exact definition for THPs may hamper the promotion and inclusion of THPs in national health systems, but it may also be something that is unavoidable given the tensions between lived practices and rigid legalistic frameworks.

SUBMITTER: Abrams AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6955546 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Legislative landscape for traditional health practitioners in Southern African development community countries: a scoping review.

Abrams Amber Louise AL Falkenberg Torkel T Rautenbach Christa C Moshabela Mosa M Shezi Busisiwe B van Ellewee Suné S Street Renee R

BMJ open 20200107 1

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Globally, contemporary legislation surrounding traditional health practitioners (THPs) is limited. This is also true for the member states of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The main aim of this study is to map and review THP-related legislation among SADC countries. In order to limit the scope of the review, the emphasis is on defining THPs in terms of legal documents.<h4>Methods</h4>This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items f ...[more]

PMID: 31915157

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although many countries are making progress towards achieving the global sustainable development goals, sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) lags behind. SSA bears a relatively higher burden of maternal morbidity and mortality than other regions despite existing cost-effective interventions. This paper assesses antenatal care (ANC) service utilisation among women in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, one of the four SSA regions. Specifically, it assesses socioeconomic inequality in the number of ANC visits, use of no ANC service, between one and three ANC visits and at least four ANC visits, previously recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Data come from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys in twelve SADC countries. Wagstaff's normalised concentration index (CI) was used to assess socioeconomic inequalities. Factors explaining these inequalities were assessed using a standard method and similar variables contained in the DHS data. A positive CI means that the variable of interest is concentrated among wealthier women, while a negative CI signified the opposite. The paper found that wealthier women in the SADC countries are generally more likely to have more ANC visits than their poorer counterparts. Apart from Zambia, the CIs were positive for inequalities in at least 4 ANC visits and negative for between 1 and 3 ANC visits. Women from poorer backgrounds significantly report no ANC visits than wealthier women. Apart from the portion that was not explainable due to limitations in the variables included in the model, critical social determinants of health, including wealth, education and the number of children, explain socioeconomic inequalities in ANC coverage in SADC. A vital policy consideration is not to leave any woman behind. Therefore, addressing access barriers and critical social determinants of ANC inequalities, such as women's education and economic well-being, can potentially redress inequalities in ANC coverage in the SADC region.

Project description:Introduction: National medicines regulatory agencies are faced with challenges including limited resources and technical capacity, resulting in countries collaborating and sharing resources to improve efficiency of the review process to facilitate access to quality-assured medicines by their populations. One such collaboration is the Southern African Development Community (SADC) medicines registration collaborative initiative, ZaZiBoNa. Countries participate in the initiative by contributing to regulatory reviews and good manufacturing practices inspections. The aim of this study was to review and compare the registration processes of regulatory authorities of Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe to identify strategies for better alignment. Methods: A senior member of the division responsible for issuing marketing authorisations completed an established and validated questionnaire, which standardises the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the six regulatory authorities to be identified and compared. The completed questionnaires were validated by the heads of the respective agencies. Results: The six countries vary in population and in the size of their respective regulatory agency and the resources allocated to regulatory reviews. The review processes of the six agencies were similar; however, differences were noted in the milestones recorded; for example, two of the countries did not record the start of the scientific assessment. Additionally, decisions for marketing authorisation were made by an expert committee in four of the countries and by the head of the agency and the Minister of Health in two countries. All six agencies implemented the majority of good review practices; however, the need for improvement in the areas of transparency and communication and quality decision making practices was a common finding for all six countries. Conclusions: Participation in the ZaZiBoNa initiative has improved the way in which the six agencies perform regulatory reviews in their countries, highlighting the realisation of one of the key objectives of the initiative, which was building the expert capacity of member countries. Other agencies in the SADC region and beyond can use the results of this study to identify best practices, which in turn, could improve their regulatory performance.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death and disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) is a tool for improving accessibility and availability of medicines. This study compared the 2021 WHO EML CVDs basket of medicines with latest available national essential medicines list (NEMLs) for South Africa and 15 Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries to assess consistency in CVDs medicine listing.MethodsThis descriptive, desktop review study compared SADC NEMLs. A comparator list was extracted by combining cardiovascular medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML for adults and children. SADC country NEMLs were obtained from the WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal. Consistency of NEMLs was calculated as a percentage coverage of CVD medicines listed in the 2021 WHO EML. SA hospital and primary health care (PHC) level NEMLs were included as separate formularies.ResultsThe SA hospital level NEML scored 70% consistency with the 2021 WHO EML. Tanzania (84%), Namibia (81%) and Angola (79%) scored the highest consistency. The mean consistency for SADC NEMLs was 66%. The lowest scoring country was Eswatini at 26%. The SA PHC NEML scored 35%. The least listed medicines were beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), clopidogrel (43%) and paediatric formulations (furosemide (21%); digoxin (43%)). Individual antihypertensive medicines were most commonly listed. Botswana and Lesotho were the only countries to list a single pill combination (SPC) for the treatment of hypertension.ConclusionsThis comparison indicates that South Africa and most SADC countries are aligned with 2021 WHO EML recommendations. The inclusion of age-appropriate formulations for children as well as ARBs and SPC for the treatment of hypertension may improve patient adherence and cardiovascular outcomes in these countries. More frequent updates to NEMLs should improve consistency. NEMLs were not available for two countries, and these therefore did not form part of this study. Country health expenditure in ranking the consistency of NEMLs was not accounted for. LMICs adopting the essential medicine list strategy should consider imposing minimum consistency thresholds to the WHO EML to improve accessibility and availability of CVD medicines.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Project description:Introduction: Regulatory reliance, harmonization and work sharing have grown over the last few years, resulting in greater sharing of work and information among regulators, enabling efficient use of limited resources and preventing duplication of work. Various initiatives on the African continent include ZaZiBoNa, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) collaborative medicines registration initiative. ZaZiBoNa has resulted in great savings in time and resources; however, identified challenges include lack of clear information regarding the participating countries registration processes and requirements as well as lengthy registration times. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare the data requirements and review models employed in the assessment of applications for registration, the target timelines for key milestones and the metrics of applications received and approved in 2019 and 2020 by Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Methods: A senior member of the division responsible for issuing marketing authorisations completed an established and validated questionnaire, which standardizes the review process, allowing key milestones, activities and practices of the six regulatory authorities to be identified and compared. The completed questionnaires were validated by the heads of the respective agencies. Results: The majority of applications received and approved by all six agencies in 2019 and 2020 were for generics. The mean approval times for generics varied across the countries, with ranges of 218-890 calendar days in 2019 and 158-696 calendar days in 2020. All three types of scientific assessment review models were used by the six agencies and data requirements and extent of scientific assessment were similar for five countries, while one conducted full reviews for new active substances. A large variation was observed in the targets set by the six agencies for the different milestones as well as overall approval times. Conclusions: The study identified the strengths of the countries as well as opportunities for improvement and alignment. Implementation of the recommendations made as in this study will enhance the countries' individual systems, enabling them to efficiently support the ZaZiBoNa initiative.

Project description:IntroductionHealthcare seekers around the globe use more than one healthcare system, with most using the traditional and the Western approaches concurrently. To date, little collaboration between the two systems has taken place within the mental health space compared with other areas of medicine. In order to inform integrating plans for traditional health practitioners and biomedical health practitioners in the South African mental health system, it is important to know which models of collaboration are used in other medical settings and contexts. This study aims to document global evidence on collaboration practices between traditional health practitioners and biomedical professionals when working with various health conditions.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be guided by an improved Arksey and O'Malley framework, the 2010 Levac et al methodological framework and the 2017 Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A systematic literature search will be carried out using seven different databases, EMBASE, PubMed, LILACS MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, CINAHL Plus, Academic Search Complete and Scopus, in addition to the WHO repository, bibliographical search engines, and Open Access Theses and Dissertations. Moreover, the references of relevant publications between January 1978 and March 2020 will be scanned. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for eligibility based on the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thematic analysis and descriptive numerical analysis will be performed using ATLAS.ti V.8 and Excel software, respectively. The results for this review will be presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Review.Ethics and disseminationThis study will not require ethics approval because publicly available material will be used. Study findings will be published in an open-access journal and be presented to other key health system stakeholders and academic research gatherings.

Project description:ObjectivesOne Health is transiting from multidisciplinary to transdisciplinary concepts and its viewpoints should move from 'proxy for zoonoses', to include other topics (climate change, nutrition and food safety, policy and planning, welfare and well-being, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), vector-borne diseases, toxicosis and pesticides issues) and thematic fields (social sciences, geography and economics). This work was conducted to map the One Health landscape in Africa.MethodsAn assessment of existing One Health initiatives in Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries was conducted among selected stakeholders using a multi-method approach. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to One Health initiatives were identified, and their influence, interest and impacts were semi-quantitatively evaluated using literature reviews, questionnaire survey and statistical analysis.ResultsOne Health Networks and identified initiatives were spatiotemporally spread across SSA and identified stakeholders were classified into four quadrants. It was observed that imbalance in stakeholders' representations led to hesitation in buying-in into One Health approach by stakeholders who are outside the main networks like stakeholders from the policy, budgeting, geography and sometimes, the environment sectors.ConclusionInclusion of theory of change, monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and tools for standardized evaluation of One Health policies are needed for a sustained future of One Health and future engagements should be outputs- and outcomes-driven and not activity-driven. National roadmaps for One Health implementation and institutionalization are necessary, and proofs of concepts in One Health should be validated and scaled-up. Dependence on external funding is unsustainable and must be addressed in the medium to long-term. Necessary policy and legal instruments to support One Health nationally and sub-nationally should be implemented taking cognizance of contemporary issues like urbanization, endemic poverty and other emerging issues. The utilization of current technologies and One Health approach in addressing the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 and other emerging diseases are desirable. Finally, One Health implementation should be anticipatory and preemptive, and not reactive in containing disease outbreaks, especially those from the animal sources or the environment before the risk of spillover to human.

Dataset Information

Legislative landscape for traditional health practitioners in Southern African development community countries: a scoping review.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Legislative landscape for traditional health practitioners in Southern African development community countries: a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets