Implementing Impact Evaluations of Malaria Control Interventions: Process, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations.

As funding for malaria control increased considerably over the past 10 years resulting in the expanded coverage of malaria control interventions, so did the need to measure the impact of these investments on malaria morbidity and mortality. Members of the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership undertook impact evaluations of malaria control programs at a time when there was little guidance in terms of the process for conducting an impact evaluation of a national-level malaria control program. The President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), as a member of the RBM Partnership, has provided financial and technical support for impact evaluations in 13 countries to date. On the basis of these experiences, PMI and its partners have developed a streamlined process for conducting the evaluations with a set of lessons learned and recommendations. Chief among these are: to ensure country ownership and involvement in the evaluations; to engage stakeholders throughout the process; to coordinate evaluations among interested partners to avoid duplication of efforts; to tailor the evaluation to the particular country context; to develop a standard methodology for the evaluations and a streamlined process for completion within a reasonable time; and to develop tailored dissemination products on the evaluation for a broad range of stakeholders. These key lessons learned and resulting recommendations will guide future impact evaluations of malaria control programs and other health programs.

Hepatitis C virus transmission from an anesthesiologist to a patient.

BACKGROUND: An anesthesiologist was diagnosed as having acute hepatitis C 3 days after providing anesthesia during the thoracotomy of a 64-year-old man (patient A). Eight weeks later, patient A was diagnosed as having acute hepatitis C. METHODS: We performed tests for antibody to hepatitis C virus (HCV) on serum samples from the thoracotomy surgical team and from surgical patients at the 2 hospitals where the anesthesiologist worked before and after his illness. We determined the genetic relatedness of the HCV isolates by sequencing the quasispecies from hypervariable region 1. RESULTS: Of the surgical team members, only the anesthesiologist was positive for antibody to HCV. Of the 348 surgical patients treated by him and tested, 6 were positive for antibody to HCV. Of these 6 patients, isolates from 2 (patients A and B) were the same genotype (1a) as that of the anesthesiologist. The quasispecies sequences of these 3 isolates clustered with nucleotide identity of 97.8% to 100.0%. Patient B was positive for antibody to HCV before her surgery 9 weeks before the anesthesiologist's illness onset. The anesthesiologist did not perform any exposure-prone invasive procedures, and no breaks in technique or incidents were reported. He denied risk factors for HCV. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation suggests that the anesthesiologist acquired HCV infection from patient B and transmitted HCV to patient A. No further transmission was identified. Although we did not establish how transmission occurred in this instance, the one previous report of bloodborne pathogen transmission to patients from an anesthesiologist involved reuse of needles for self-injection.