Back to Malaria Update
Back to CORE Meetings

(Courtesy of Dr. Maire Connolly)

Dr. Connolly and Dr. (Holly) Williams met with a group of representatives from 10 different organizations (university programs on refugee and migration issues, federal government agencies, and PVOs).

Dr. Williams was identified as the focal person for U.S. PVOs/NGOs for all network activities. Requests for assistance from the network should be channeled through Dr. Williams, with a "cc" to Dr. Connolly. They will establish an email forwarding systems so that requests will receive attention during the periods when both are on travel status. Written guidelines on requesting network assistance were distributed to all persons attending the meeting. Discussions centered around various field concerns:

1. The need for up-to-date information and training on various subjects:
   • State of the art approaches with vector control (e.g., spraying versus source reduction strategies).
   • Case management (e.g., should microscopic examinations be decentralized, what is the role of rapid diagnostic tests in a complex emergency, should passive case detection be used?).
   • Promotion of ITNs at the community level.
   • Drug policies (how can RBM focus more attention on systems that would enable MOH and other policy makers to make appropriate decisions for malaria policy).
2. Education of donors, raising additional monies to support field training programs, as well as time for agencies to publish and disseminate their findings (e.g., evaluations of programs, "lessons learnt from the field," both of which are examples of areas that PVOs recognize as important to document, yet difficult to accomplish).
3. The identified need for an agency in each complex emergency situation to take responsibility for coordination of all malaria control activities:
   
   • Difficulties voiced in recognition of the realistic turf battles that occur between PVO/NGOs;
   • The noted reluctance of most PVOs to share data/case management strategies with other PVOs, unless asked by a more prominent organization, such as WHO or RBM Network (example given was that of CARE trying to elicit information on how other agencies handled malaria in South Sudan in order to write their proposal).
   • A lead agency would have to possess known expertise in malaria control in complex emergencies, as well as the political clout to pull together and enforce standards of operation for all PVOs/NGOs in complex emergency situations.
   • The need for secondment of an epidemiologist or other consultant to coordinate activities in large complex emergencies, such as South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
4. The noted variability between the levels of expertise and training needs of the various PVOs, and the difficulties encountered by the smaller, less?well funded PVOs.
5. The problems related to working in volatile areas, with inconsistent representation of PVOs in the area. Concerns were raised that often, when health-care PVOs leave an area due to conflict, agriculturally?focused PVOs remain in emergency situations as they focus their work on development goals for the affected communities. The agricultural PVOs are then asked to collect health-care data, for which they are not trained or adequately prepared.
   • When planning training or health programs, the need to examine countries which host complex emergencies in terms of sectors, rather than a whole. The specific needs of each sector may be very different (the DRC was given as an example).
6. The overall need for increased training of PVO/NGO staff, focusing on the training of instructors and support for the national or local staff, rather than the expatriates.
   • There are few data on the retention of PVO/NGO staff, particularly in regard to how long the staff member stays after receiving advanced training in public health areas.
   • The need for standardized training courses: one role the network could play would be to suggest performance standards (suggestion was made not to go for minimally acceptable standards, but to start with establishing higher standards from the beginning). Setting a high level of standards might compensate, somewhat, for the varying levels of sophistication between PVOs/NGOs.
   • The need to link training standards with the SPHERE program.
   • The need to link SPHERE standards to grant guidelines, rather than always asking for voluntary compliance. This includes the need for the network to stress this point to the donor agencies.
   • Guidelines developed by the network for training could be accompanied by self?guided modules and other focused training materials.
   • Guidelines could be disseminated on the Web, through email, and at regional workshops.
   • The consider the optimal duration of a network?designed training session. Concerns were raised that one day is too short to be effective.
   • The network could link to the World Education program (located in Boston) to discuss how to best package training materials.
   • The network can link to other databases for consultants, such as the CORE database, or consultants that UNHCR uses. These consultants could be "loaned" to PVOs/NGOs for short-term assistance.

Future Activities:

1. PVOs/NGOs will send Dr. Holly Williams ("cc" to Dr. Maire Connolly) the following information:
   • A list of countries in which they are active.
   • Current malaria control activities.
   • The top 2?3 concerns they have in regard to providing malaria control in complex
   • emergencies.
2. Dr. Williams, with the assistance of Mr. Nitin Madhav, will explore options of meetings between Dr. Williams, Dr. Connolly and representatives of USAID and OFDA, possibly in January 2000. Meetings will be coordinated with ongoing work between RBM and USAID.
3. Dr. Connolly will follow?up with RBM to develop a web site for the network, or to add network information to the RBM site which would:
   • Educate and sensitize PVOs/NGOs to the problem of malaria in complex emergencies.
   • Outline what NOT to do in the situations of complex emergencies, such as outdoor spraying.
   • Provide guidelines or suggestions for the best ways to use malaria control principles in order to develop strategies for malaria control programs.
4. Additional advocacy activities could include:
   • Development of a flyer to promote the types of assistance offered by the network.
   • Development of a one?page brief that describes activities of both RBM in general and the network in specific, with country representatives listed for RBM access.

   Back to Malaria Update
   Back to CORE Meetings