Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The UK government committed to undertaking impact assessments of its policies on the health of populations in low and middle-income countries in its cross-government strategy "Health is Global". To facilitate this process, the Department of Health, in collaboration with the National Heart Forum, initiated a project to pilot the use of a global health impact assessment guidance framework and toolkit for policy-makers. This paper aims to stimulate debate about the desirability and feasibility of global health impact assessments by describing and drawing lessons from the first stage of the project. DISCUSSION: Despite the attraction of being able to assess and address potential global health impacts of policies, there is a dearth of existing information and experience. A literature review was followed by discussions with policy-makers and an online survey about potential barriers, preferred support mechanisms and potential policies on which to pilot the toolkit. Although policy-makers were willing to engage in hypothetical discussions about the methodology, difficulties in identifying potential pilots suggest a wider problem in encouraging take up without legislative imperatives. This is reinforced by the findings of the survey that barriers to uptake included lack of time, resources and expertise. We identified three lessons for future efforts to mainstream global health impact assessments: 1) Identify a lead government department and champion--to some extent, this role was fulfilled by the Department of Health, however, it lacked a high-level cross-government mechanism to support implementation. 2) Ensure adequate resources and consider embedding the goals and principles of global health impact assessments into existing processes to maximise those resources. 3) Develop an effective delivery mechanism involving both state actors, and non-state actors who can ensure a "voice" for constituencies who are affected by government policies and also provide the "demand" for the assessments. SUMMARY: This paper uses the initial stages of a study on global health impact assessments to pose the wider question of incentives for policy-makers to improve global health. It highlights three lessons for successful development and implementation of global health impact assessments in relation to stewardship, resources, and delivery mechanisms.

AbstractIntroduction: Countries in the West and Central African regions struggle to offer quality HIV care at scale, despite HIV prevalence being relatively low. In these challenging operating environments, basic health care needs are multiple, systems are highly fragile and conflict disrupts health care. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has been working to integrate HIV care in basic health services in such settings since 2000. We review the implementation of differentiated HIV care and treatment approaches in MSF‐supported programmes in South Sudan (RoSS), Central African Republic (CAR) and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).Methods: A descriptive analysis from CAR, DRC and RoSS programmes reviewing methodology and strategies of HIV care integration between 2010 and 2015 was performed. We describe HIV care models integrated within the provision of general health care and highlight best practices and challenges.Results: Services included provision of general health care, with out‐patient care (range between countries 43,343 and 287,163 consultations/year in 2015) and in‐patient care (range 1076–16,595 in 2015). By the end of 2015 antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiations reached 12–255 patients/year. A total of 1101 and 1053 patients were on ART in CAR and DRC, respectively. In RoSS 186 patients were on ART when conflict recommenced late in 2013. While ART initiation and monitoring were mostly clinically driven in the early phase of the programmes, DRC implemented CD4 monitoring and progressively HIV viral load (VL) monitoring during study period. Attacks to health care facilities in CAR and RoSS disrupted service provision temporarily. Programmatic challenges include: competing health priorities influencing HIV care and need to integrate within general health services. Differentiated care approaches that support continuity of care in these programmes include simplification of medical protocols, multi‐month ART prescriptions, and community strategies such as ART delivery groups, contingency plans and peer support activities.Conclusions: The principles of differentiated HIV care for high‐quality ART delivery can successfully be applied in challenging operating environments. However, success heavily depends on specific adaptations to each setting.