Hypertension care cascades and reducing inequities in cardiovascular disease in low- and middle-income countries.

Improving hypertension control in low- and middle-income countries has uncertain implications across socioeconomic groups. In this study, we simulated improvements in the hypertension care cascade and evaluated the distributional benefits across wealth quintiles in 44 low- and middle-income countries using individual-level data from nationally representative, cross-sectional surveys. We raised diagnosis (diagnosis scenario) and treatment (treatment scenario) levels for all wealth quintiles to match the best-performing country quintile and estimated the change in 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk of individuals initiated on treatment. We observed greater health benefits among bottom wealth quintiles in middle-income countries and in countries with larger baseline disparities in hypertension management. Lower-middle-income countries would see the greatest absolute benefits among the bottom quintiles under the treatment scenario (29.1 CVD cases averted per 1,000 people living with hypertension in the bottom quintile (Q1) versus 17.2 in the top quintile (Q5)), and the proportion of total CVD cases averted would be largest among the lowest quintiles in upper-middle-income countries under both diagnosis (32.0% of averted cases in Q1 versus 11.9% in Q5) and treatment (29.7% of averted cases in Q1 versus 14.0% in Q5) scenarios. Targeted improvements in hypertension diagnosis and treatment could substantially reduce socioeconomic-based inequalities in CVD burden in low- and middle-income countries.

Did the first Global Fund grant (2003-2006) contribute to malaria control and health system strengthening in Timor-Leste?

BACKGROUND: In 2003, Timor-Leste successfully obtained its first Global Fund grant for a three-year programme for malaria control. The grant aimed to reduce malaria-related morbidity and mortality by 30 % by the end of the implementation. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to assess the impact of the grant implementation. Fifty-eight in-depth interviews, eight group interviews, 16 focus group discussions, and on-site observations were used. Morbidity data reported to the Ministry of Health were also examined to assess trends. RESULTS: The National Malaria Programme with funding support from the Global Fund grant and other development partners contributed considerably to strengthening malaria control and the general health system. It also brought direct and indirect benefits to pregnant women and to the community at large. However, it failed to achieve the stated objective of reducing malaria morbidity and mortality by 30 %. The implementation was hampered by inadequate human resources, the rigidity of Global Fund rules, weak project management and coordination, and inadequate support from external stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Despite limitations, the grant was implemented until the agreed closing date. Considerable contributions to malaria control, health system, and the community have been made and the malaria programme was sustained.

The implementation of a new Malaria Treatment Protocol in Timor-Leste: challenges and constraints.

BACKGROUND: Timor-Leste changed its malaria treatment protocol in 2007, replacing the first-line for falciparum malaria from sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine to artemether-lumefantrine. This study explored the factors affecting the implementation of the revised treatment protocol, with an emphasis on identifying key constraints. METHODS: A mixed method approach drew on both qualitative and quantitative data. The study included data from District Health Services in seven districts, community health centres in 14 sub-districts, four hospitals, five private clinics, one private pharmacy and the country's autonomous medical store. In-depth interviews with 36 key informants, five group interviews and 15 focus group discussions were conducted. A survey was also undertaken at community health centres and hospitals to assess the availability of a physical copy of the Malaria Treatment Protocol, as well as the availability and utilization of artemether-lumefantrine and sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine. RESULTS: Many factors impeded the implementation of the new malaria protocol. These included: inadequate introduction and training around the revised treatment protocol; unclear phasing out of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and phasing in of the revised treatment, artemether-lumefantrine, and the rapid diagnostic test (RDT); lack of supervision; lack of adherence to the revised guidelines by foreign health workers; lack of access to the new drug by the private sector; obstacles in the procurement process; and the use of trade names rather than generic drug description. Insufficient understanding of the rapid diagnostic test and the untimely supply of drugs further hampered implementation. CONCLUSION: To effectively implement a revised malaria treatment protocol, barriers should be identified during the policy formulation process and those emerging during implementation should be recognized promptly and addressed.