+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Chaminuka , Lodge

Chaminuka , Lodge

Date post: 24-Feb-2016
Category:
Upload: trella
View: 45 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Situation analysis for the Mid-Term Review of the NMSP 2011-2015: Relevent outcomes and impact measures. Chaminuka , Lodge. Overview. Goals, targets, objectives Coverage of interventions Recommendations. Total malaria cases. Total malaria case rates. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
43
Situation analysis for the Mid-Term Review of the NMSP 2011-2015: Relevent outcomes and impact measures Chaminuka, Lodge
Transcript

Situation analysis for the Mid-Term Review of the NMSP 2011-2015:Relevent outcomes and impact measures

Chaminuka, Lodge

Overview

• Goals, targets, objectives• Coverage of interventions• Recommendations

Total malaria cases

Total malaria case rates

Malaria reported case rates by district and case counts by facility 2011

g

Malaria indicator surveys

• Household surveys every 2 years: 2006-2012• Malaria parasitemia and severe anemia• Coverage of prevention interventions– ITNs, IRS, IPTp

• Fever prevalence, uptake of diagostics and ACT treatment

Fever prevalence with the preceding two weeks among children under age five years (Zambia 2006–2012)

<12m 12–23m 24–35m 36–47m 48–59m Urban Rural National0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

30.3

40.9

33.930.7

27.4

19.3

37.4

33.2

27.1

34.5

28.725.5

24.0 24.3

29.5 28.128.5

37.2 36.338.4

30.4

26.1

37.534.1

19.0

24.0

28.1 27.2

22.6

13.2

29.3

24.2

Age in months

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Severe anaemia (Hb<8g/dl) prevalence among children under age five years by urban and rural areas (Zambia 2006–2012)

Urban Rural National0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

7.2

16.3

14

4.3 4.3 4

6.8

10.29

3.8

8.26.8

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Severe anaemia prevalence among children under age five years by province (Zambia 2006–2012).

Copperbelt

North-W

estern

Southern

Lusaka

Centra

l

Muchinga

Northern

Easte

rn

Western

Luapula

0

5

10

15

20

25

13.1

18.8

7.6 7.5

13.4

18.917.4

12.4

6.7

22

4.25

3.5 4.23.2 3

4.55.9

1.2

6.9

9.6

2.9

8

4.2 4.1

8.5

12.7

9.8

7.6

20.8

3.5 3.4 4 4.4 4.4

8.39.3 9.9

10.812

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Household ownership of at least one ITN by rural and urban areas (Zambia 2006–2012)

Urban Rural National0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

38 37.7 37.8

58.863.9 62.3

56.9

68.564.362.3

71.968.1

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Household ownership of at least one ITN by province (Zambia 2006–2012).

Western

Lusaka

Central

Muchinga

Copperbelt

Southern

North-W

estern

Northern

Eastern

Luapula

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

67.0

26.7

48.4

38.8

30.4

46.942.3

15.7

33.2

40.433.8

55.451.0

93.7

57.2

69.9

48.4

86.5

74.369.8

74.7

49.9

74.069.5

62.366.1

72.8

57.8

75.7

50.151.955.4 55.7

62.2 62.4 63.7

77.883.1

87.5 90.02006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of households with an ITN to sleeping space ratio of least one-to-one (Zambia 2008–2012)

Urban

Rural

Lusaka

Centra

l

Western

Copperbelt

Southern

Muchinga

North-W

estern

Easte

rn

Northern

Luapula

National0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

28.734.1 33.8

16.5 17.322.8

38.1

68.6

29.9

39.3

51.8

31.1 32.5

23.7

40.4

18.1

35.7

55.5

27.1

40.0

48.543.6 42.5

35.0

19.6

34.3

47.9

60.4

37.642.8 43.2

50.6 50.654.9

62.4

72 73.5

83

55.3

2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

ITN use by children under age five years by rural and urban areas (Zambia 2006–2012)

Urban Rural National0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

25.2 24.0 24.0

37.842.3 41.0

44.3

52.550.050.9

60.157.1

2006 2008 2010 2012

Per-

cent

-ag

e

ITN use by children under age five years by province (Zambia 2006–2012)

Lusaka

Southern

Western

Muchinga

Central

Copperbelt

North-W

estern

Northern

Luapula

Easte

rn0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

11.3

29.7

44.0

21.1

30.2

20.1 21.5

9.4

28.3 27.3

42.7

32.3

20.4

69.4

20.8

34.5 35.1

65.1

45.4

53.8

37.5

51.6

63.9

50.7

58.1

47.1

60.5

40.034.2

65.3

40.5 43.0 45.151.1 53.2 54.9 55.9

65.0

77.6 79.92006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

ITN use among household members by age group (Zambia 2006–2012)

0–4 5–9 10–14

15–19

20–24

25–29

30–34

35–39

40–44

45–49

50–54

55–59

60–64

65–69

70–74

75–79

80+0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

24.3

14.912.0 12.8

18.3

24.0 24.4 24.9 23.7 23.020.1 18.5

15.013.2

20.5 19.0 18.7

41.1

28.8

22.0 21.6

33.6

40.544.9

41.743.7 42.3

37.8 38.636.6 35.5

31.1

40.536.3

49.9

36.3

30.227.8

39.4

49.851.7 50.2

52.147.9 46.1

43.3 44.4

39.341.4

31.9

41.1

57.1

45.4

37.1 36.7

45.7

51.1

56.258.6 59.7 61.0

47.6

42.2

47.851.4

39.841.8

44.7

2006 2008 20102012

Age in years

Pe rce nt ag e

Households reported sprayed within the previous 12 months (Zambia 2006–2012)

National Urban Rural0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

9.5

26.2

0.8

14.9

35.3

5.8

23.1

37.9

14.6

29.133.8

18.9

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Households reported sprayed within the previous 12 months, by province (Zambia 2006–2012)

Northern

Lusaka

Western

Luapula

North-W

estern

Southern

Centra

l

Muchinga

Easte

rn

Copperbelt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.5

11.3

1.3 03.7

7.112

0 1.9

34.2

1.1

29.3

0 0.3

15.1 15.519.3

0 0.7

46.3

12.8

31.928

17.8

7.6

23.6

12.6 12.314.6

43.4

10 11.9 12.216.3

21.2 21.625.2

30.134.6

48.82006 2008 2010 2012

Households reporting either at least one ITN or house sprayed or both (Zambia 2006–2012)

2006 2008 2010 2012 2006 2008 2010 2012Any ITN or IRS Any ITN and IRS

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

43.2

68.372.9 73.4

4.18.9

14.519.1

53.4

72.972.8

71.1

10.8

21.2 21.925.1

37.9

66.372.9 75.8

0.6 3.410.2

15.1

National Urban Rural

Perc

enta

ge

Women with recent births reporting coverage of IPTp two doses and three doses, by urban and rural areas

(Zambia 2010–2012)

Urban Rural National0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

78.7

65.770.2

59.2

43.949.2

77.80

69.4072.50

63.8

49.154.3

IPT2 2010IPT3 2010IPT2 2012IPT3 2012

Fever prevalence with the preceding two weeks among children under age five years (Zambia 2006–2012)

<12m 12–23m 24–35m 36–47m 48–59m Urban Rural National0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

30.3

40.9

33.930.7

27.4

19.3

37.4

33.2

27.1

34.5

28.725.5

24.0 24.3

29.5 28.128.5

37.2 36.338.4

30.4

26.1

37.534.1

19.0

24.0

28.1 27.2

22.6

13.2

29.3

24.2

Age in months

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of febrile children under age five years with a reported finger stick for presumed diagnostic testing services

and parasitologic confirmation (Zambia 2008–2012)

Urban

Rural

National

Lusaka

Western

Northern

Muchinga

Luapula

Southern

Centra

l

Easte

rn

North-W

estern

Copperbelt0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

15.39.5 10.9

20.8

0.15.1

10.815.2 17.9

3.4 5.4

29.4

10.4

21.015.4 16.7 15.2 19.3

6.2

16.6 15.1 15.111.2

17.6

27.8 28.231.1 32.6 32.3

14.419.9

26.4 27.7 28.5 30.834.1

43.7

54.3 56.62008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Among febrile children taking antimalarial, the percentage of antimalarial drug taken (Zambia 2006–2012)

ART-LUM SP Quinine Other antimalarials0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

18.2

55.5

6.4

19.9

29.5

47.8

7.7

15.1

76.2

10.6 11.8

1.5

85.2

8.5 5.5

0.8

2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

enta

ge

Percentage of people with recent fever who reportedly sought treatment outside of the home, across age

Age 0-4(N=972)

Age 5+(N=1848)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

63% 58%55%44%

51%41%

2% 0%4% 3%10% 13%

Any source outside of the homeAppropriate provider (CHW, public or private facility)Public facilityCHWPrivate facilityOther private (pharmacy, shop)

% P

eopl

e w

ith fe

ver

Source: MIS 2012 woman’s questionnaire

Percentage of patients with suspected malaria who received a blood test for malaria, across level of care and patient age

Health post (N=86)

Rural health center (N=116)

Urban health center (N=117)

Hospital (N=110)

All patients age 5+ (N=429)

Health post (N=97)

Rural health center (N=134)

Urban health center (N=102)

Hospital (N=102)

All patients age 0-4 (N=435)

Faci

lity

type

:

Faci

lity

type

:

Age

5+

Age

0-4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

55%

53%

81%

79%

64%

60%

70%

76%

78%

71%

% Patients with suspected malaria

Source: HFS 2011

Percentage of patients who were prescribed the first line ACT (AL) across blood test results, patient age, and level of care

Health post (N=26)Rural health center (N=29)

Urban health center (N=28)Hospital (N=36)

All patients age 5+ (N=119)Health post (N=24)

Rural health center (N=50)Urban health center (N=15)

Hospital (N=22)All patients age 0-4 (N=111)

Health post (N=31)Rural health center (N=42)

Urban health center (N=59)Hospital (N=44)

All patients age 5+ (N=176)Health post (N=42)

Rural health center (N=46)Urban health center (N=59)

Hospital (N=48)All patients age 0-4 (N=195)

Faci

lity

type

: Fa

cilit

y ty

pe:

Faci

lity

type

:

Faci

lity

type

:

Age

5+

Age

0-4

Age

5+

Age

0-4

Posit

ive

bloo

d te

stN

egat

ive

bloo

d te

st

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

97%98%

79%82%

89%97%

87%82%

87%86%

2%12%13%

12%12%

4%10%12%

16%11%

% Patients with suspected malariaSource: HFS 2011

Percentage of patients prescribed AL who demonstrated full comprehension of the drug regimen (duration, dosage, and

number of times per day), across patient age and level of care

Health post (N=28)

Rural health center (N=46)

Urban health center (N=33)

Hospital (N=41)

All patients age 5+ (N=148)

Health post (N=29)

Rural health center (N=60)

Urban health center (N=21)

Hospital (N=26)

All patients age 0-4 (N=136)

Faci

lity

type

:

Faci

lity

type

:

Age

5+

Age

0-4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

67%

58%

60%

75%

61%

81%

74%

65%

87%

73%

% Patients prescribed AL

Source: HFS 2011

Summary• Slight decrease in parasite prevalence between 2010 and 2012,

but still and overall decline compared to 2006• Improving quality ITN distributions through door-to-door

campaigns, particularly in Luapula, Muchinga, and Eastern– More ITNs per household to cover all sleeping spaces– Increase in use among all ages, including U5s and PW

• General shift in IRS coverage from urban to more malarious, rural areas

• IPTp continues to remain high, including more than half of women receiving 3 doses during pregnancy

• Trend in improving use of ACTs among antimalarials and increasing amounts of testing for febrile episodes

Recommendations (1)• Changes in parasite prevalence and severe anemia, while reduced in some areas,

have stagnated in several key areas of the country. It is recommended to examine approaches to maximizing the use of existing prevention and treatment interventions in combinations to exact the greatest impact on localized malaria burden.

• Re-establish high ITN ownership and use in areas of the country that dropped between 2010 and 2012 including Southern, Western, Central provinces provinces and encourage continued sustained coverage of ITNs uptake among all households and household members throughout the country.

• The effort to reach to last 30% of households is likely to be more difficult than reaching the 70% presently reached. The National Malaria Control Program recommends house to house distribution for replacement and current strategies should align to attain highest coverage possible. Full coverage at community level benefits all members of the community, including the most vulnerable populations of children under five and pregnant women.

Recommendations (2)• Continue to strategically offer IRS services to areas with malaria

to maximize the potential of malaria burden reduction, complementing current IRS and ITN efforts and in conjunction with an integrated vector management framework.

• Continue to expand case management, including diagnostics for parasitologic confirmation of suspected malaria cases, and consider that screening populations and treating those with infection may be important to further curtail malaria transmission. This latter effort would be especially appropriate in areas with continued and persistent high levels of malaria parasitaemia and transmission to supplement existing malaria prevention interventions.


Recommended