The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. This is the sixth and final in a series of posts from the conference.

It’s now been a month since Forum 2009, so it’s time to wrap up any remaining thoughts from the meeting. My intention with these posts was never to provide a comprehensive view of the conference. If you’re looking for that, or simply additional insights into the meeting, I recommend the following resources:

1. Priya Shetty’s coverage of Forum 2009 for the SciDev.Net blog, five posts
2. TropIKA.net comprehensive coverage of Forum 2009, including daily reports and session reports

On my Cancún-bound flight out of Havana, on the morning of the 20th, the woman sitting next to me asked me for help with her Mexican immigration forms. As I was helping her, I asked what she did. “Terapista”. She asked what I was doing in Cuba. Attending “un congreso de investigaciones de salud pública”. She was a Cuban physical therapist going on a three month medical mission to Tecate in the Mexican state of Baja California, via Cancún, Mexico City, and Tijuana. I spent most of the short flight asking about her experiences on previous missions, all to Mexico, and probing for more details about the Cuban health system. Most memorably, she was quite proud of a unique surgical treatment the Cubans have developed for Parkinson’s disease.

I spoke about the medical assistance Cuba lends to other countries in an earlier post. The photo below of the 20 convertible peso note reinforces this. It touts Operación Milagro (Wikipedia link in Spanish), a joint program between Cuba and Venezuela with official aims similar to Cuba’s other medical mission efforts.

While I was speaking to this terapista on the plane, it occurred to me how important the setting of the conference was given the innovation theme. I don’t think that this was lost on many of the conference participants given external interest in the Cuban system, Cuban participation on panels, and various site visits. Still, there were three circumstances that limited knowledge exchange between the visitors and the Cubans:

1. Language barriers. There wasn’t very much communication between the several hundred Cuban participants and the external participants, especially those from outside Latin America. This was due in no small part to language barriers. Simultaneous translation took place during the larger sessions (UN-style headsets), but the smaller sessions didn’t have any and the informal exchange was visibly limited between the two groups.
2. An apparently flawless system. The Cuban health system may have been the talk of the week, but it was presented without fault. Even though it may be one of the best systems on the planet, it is not immune to needing improvement. Without a realistic understanding of the challenges, it was hard to understand the true effectiveness of the system. (In comparison, Minister of Health Chen Zhu was frank in talking about elements of the Chinese health system that need improvement, for example indicating in his plenary talk that many public clinics in China operate like private clinics.)
3. No U.S. government employees in attendance. There were certainly Americans at Forum 2009, but because of the restrictions associated with the U.S. embargo – it’s a bloqueo the Cubans said, since an embargo implies wrongdoing – there were almost no representatives of U.S. government institutions. I didn’t realize this myself until a colleague from the WHO pointed it out to me. He cited the example of his colleagues from the CDC who were not permitted to attend. Looking through the participant list, I only spotted one, someone from USAID. It’s unfortunate because there was a big opportunity for learning in both directions. In any case there were strong suggestions that we are months away from ending the embargo/bloqueo. Time will tell.

And here’s a post Aman wrote for Global Health Ideas about the Cuban health system two years ago: Lessons from Cuba: Healthcare Infrastructure and Information Systems.

The Global Forum for Health Research Forum 2009: Innovating for the Health of All took place in Havana, Cuba from 16-20 November. This is the fifth in a series of posts from the conference. Only one or two more after this one.

My reason for attending Forum 2009 was to participate in a session title “Innovation for Remote Populations”. This post is a about that session. What follows is taken from my recent report to the Global Forum for Health Research – edited only slightly.

Innovation for Remote Populations

Thurs-19-Nov-2009, 14:00-15:45, Global Café, Palacio de Convenciones, La Habana, Cuba

Coordinators/Facilitators:

• Patricia Mechael, mHealth and Telemedicine Advisor, Millennium Villages Project, Earth Institute, Columbia University, USA & Egypt (organizer & facilitator)
• Tim Hurson, Facilitators Without Borders (facilitator)
• Charles Gardner, Global Forum for Health Research (focal point)

Speakers (alphabetical order):

• Simon Adebola, NEPAD Council Global Health Commission, Geneva
• Najeeb al-Shorbaji, Director, Knowledge Management and Sharing, WHO
• Caren Serra Bavaresco, Student, Epidemiology, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
• Karl Brown, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation
• Arul Chib, Assistant Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication, and Assistant Director, Singapore Internet Research Center, Nanyang Technological University
• Dziedzom Komi de Souza, Ph.D. Student and Research Assistant, Parasitology, Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Ghana
• Bastiaan Hoefman, co-Founder, Text2Change
• Bernardita Labarca, Project Coordinator, Zoltner Consulting Group, Chile
• Claire O’Neill, Chairperson, Cell-Life-South Africa
• Ravi Ram, Head, Monitoring & Evaluation, African Medical Research and Research Foundation (AMREF), Nairobi Kenya
• Marco Salmen, OHR-GMCP Initiative for HIV/AIDS, Global Micro-Clinic Project, United States
• Jaspal S. Sandhu, Design Researcher, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA
• Joel Selanikio, co-Founder and Director, Datadyne.org, USA
• Garance Upham, General Secretary, Direction, Safe Observer International, France

Additional participants – from the audience:

• Elmer Zelaya – Fundación Chica/Nicaragua
• Timothy Dye – SUNY Upstate Medical School/USA
• Jane Kengeya – WHO
• Oyewale Tomori – Redeemer’s University/Nigeria
• Lishandu/Zambia (full name/affiliation not available)
• Vargas/USA (full name/affiliation not available)

Summary:

1. Diverse users and uses: The speakers presented a variety of mHealth/eHealth applications involving a wide variety of users, including both the health workforce and community members, e.g. educating teenagers about HIV/AIDS in South Africa (O’Neill), Internet access in western Kenya to improve uptake of HIV VCT (Salmen), mobile emergency response systems in Aceh (Chib), electronic IMCI in Tanzania (Brown), text-based health education and health service promotion in Uganda (Hoefman), training for health workers as a downloadable game package for phones in Kenya (Ram), telemedicine to improve the skills of health workers at primary levels in Brazil (Bavaresco), delivery of health information to communities in Chile (Labarca), a general set of tools for mobile data collection being used worldwide (Selanikio), and handheld computers to support rural healthcare delivery in Mongolia (Sandhu).
2. mHealth/eHealth is about enabling access: A common theme across diverse applications was that information and communication technologies are being used to enable access to health information and services in places where access is difficult because of remoteness and/or cost.
3. Coordination among the various players: Coordination among donors and projects is necessary to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and to share what works. This is the role of the mHealth Alliance, supported by Rockefeller Foundation among others (Brown). While there were questions from the program side as to what data donors want (Chib), there was a simultaneous sentiment that donors need “stepwise” guidance (al-Shorbaji).
4. De-emphasizing technology: The mHealth Alliance has recently been discussing development of an “mHealth Toolkit”, to provide a common technical architecture and platform for those planning to implement mHealth programs (Brown). The existence of free technology platforms – in this case DataDyne’s tool – enables programs to focus on developing health content (Labarca). It is important to have a generalizable tool, as DataDyne has done, that can be used by anyone; if individual governments must approve technology “you’ve lost the battle” (Selanikio). Programs must focus on understanding people and applications more than technology; in response to a question from Dye about the use of ethnography in this field, three examples were given: ethnography of teen chat rooms in South Africa (O’Neill), multi-year ethnographic fieldwork as the basis for the program in western Kenya (Salmen), and design ethnography of the information management practices of rural health workers in Mongolia (Sandhu).
5. Defining good evaluation: There are challenges to seeing change in population health outcomes (Chib). It is difficult to measure behavior change (Hoefman) and to evaluate systems that provide health content to people (Labarca). Ethnography should be considered more seriously as a complementary evaluation strategy in mHealth (Sandhu). In evaluation, the metrics should match the intervention – mHealth is another intervention; in addition, we want to see the unintended effects of technology (Ram).
6. New modalities of engaging people: Mobile phones enable fundamentally new ways of engaging with people. As opposed to mass communication that is often used in social marketing, phones allow for interpersonal communication that can be tailored and cost-effective (O’Neill). There are two modalities, moving messages out to people and demand-driven services, where people demand the information that they need (Ram). Salmen lent his support to the importance of demand-driven services and argued that phones will bring more equity. This is all supporting the shift to citizen-centered healthcare (Mechael).
7. Cautions moving forward: In natural disasters, the cellular network is the first to go (Zelaya). An open question: Who owns the data? (al-Shorbaji). Nobody is thinking about “real sustainability” (Adebola). Reliable phone networks are a challenge (Lishandu). We should be careful that we don’t become too dependent on one tool (al-Shorbaji).
8. Need to think more creatively: We should be bolder with approaches; if we are, poor countries “could leapfrog” in health and development terms (Upham). Many of the applications discussed focused on SMS and telephony capabilities; we should think about leveraging more advanced capabilities of mobile phones (Kengeya).
9. Who should design technology? There is an assumption that Africans cannot develop software, but that is not true (Adebola). DataDyne software was already developed by Africans (Selanikio). Africans should develop software, but they shouldn’t redesign what has already been built (Brown).

Conclusions/Recommendations:

1. There is a need for increased knowledge-sharing about mHealth/eHealth within the global health community. This should definitely include policymakers. As Prof. Tomori elegantly stated, while we are thinking about how to reach remote populations, we should think about “hard-to-reach” African leaders.
2. While there was discussion of both eHealth and mHealth, the discussion focused primarily on the latter.
3. There is a need for a continuing dialogue about mHealth. It is unrealistic to expect policy recommendations to come out of this meeting given the state of the field (many open issues) and the limited engagement at the meeting.
4. Major mHealth topics to be discussed at future meetings: definitions; standards, including how to conduct evaluation; and successes and failures from the field.
5. The value of the meeting was threefold: (1) it helped extend the network of those working in mHealth; (2) it provided those outside the field with an understanding of the opportunities and challenges of using mobile phones to improve population health; and (3) it placed a much-needed emphasis on prioritizing people and applications over technology.
6. Mechael suggested reviving the Mobile Metrics and Evaluation Group as a means of maintaining an active mHealth community discussion outside of official meetings.

Other observations:

1. The fishbowl format was successful in eliciting relevant commentary from a large group of speakers as well as from the audience. Time was an issue, though, as several invited speakers only spoke once and several audience members had comments or questions that they were unable to share.
2. One key issue that was not explored – as I stated at the end of the session – was the link between social entrepreneurship and mHealth. This is especially relevant to issues of demand, incentivization, and sustainability.
3. There is a need for an ongoing discussion of these issues at Forum 2010 and beyond – while the conversation will continue in other settings, the Global Forum for Health Research should continue to be involved because of its systems focus, its emphasis on actionable research, and the unique mix of parties (policymakers, donors, implementers) it brings together.

Nota bene: These are a few highlights from CGI – please do add your inspirations/ideas in the comments!

Clinton Global Initiative – Making things happen through Commitments

Action speaks louder than words. At CGI, you’ve got to commit – and that has an amazing impact.

What will your commitment be?

CGI was the birthplace, in past years, of projects like Matt Damon’s water program (water.org, expanding this year to Haiti), the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative, and so many more. In the five years of CGI, there have been 1,400 commitments made (participants are required to make commitments to existing projects or commit to creating new projects), valued at $46 billion dollars, and impacting the lives of 200 million people in 150 countries. This year’s meeting will give birth to 30 more of these programs – more by Andrew Mersman over at Passport Magazine/ Change by Doing blog.

Check out CGI Commitments here.

Innovation!

Business Week highlighted innovation as a top priority for the global economy, and President Obama announced a new strategy for innovation: A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs. Download white paper.

Judith Rodin of the Rockefeller Foundation identified innovation strategies that could be applied to social problems – user-driven innovation, crowd sourcing and collaborative competitions reported here by Alexandra Cheney at Fast Company.  And Innovate Today: 8 Ways Business can End Poverty - superb post by Steve Enders over at tonic.

A few people – including Muhammed Yunus and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of the World Bank at CGI had an Innovation Wish List. Yunus talked about the edible yogurt pot, and Judith Rodin announced a new initiative to help the poor – the Global Impact Investing Network. This gets my vote for one of the most exciting developments to come out of CGI – read the Economist article.

Investing in Women and Girls

Women make up half of the world’s population, but do 2/3 of the world’s work, produce 50% world’s food, earn 10% world’s income, own 1% of world’s property.

Read the rest of this entry »

In my work in the field, I am no longer surprised to see test stockouts, essential medicines stockouts, supply stockouts, broken or missing diagnostic machines, or patients who are afraid of healthcare workers. It is a complete tragedy, and as I work to help, I think of all the people who are sick or die because of failures of the healthcare system, who cannot tell anyone their stories. For those who do not work in the health system, or haven’t had an experience of health system failure, transparency and data on implementation is practically invisible – so there’s no public awareness of the issues.

So I was thrilled to see recent developments in accountability – the Stop the Stockouts campaign, and the creation of the Budget and Expenditure Monitoring Forum in South Africa.

Power to the People: Stop the Stockouts

Stop the Stock-outs , a multi-country Africa campaign, is using text messages sent by activists and members of the public to expose stock-outs of essential medicines at public health facilities and put pressure on governments to address the issue. It was launched in Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and Zambia by Health Action International (HAI) Africa. During Pill Check week in June, facilities were surveyed, and a map of stockouts was created. The image below incorporates July 2009 data. It was found that many government health facilities were routinely running out of, or just not stocking essential medicines to treat common diseases such as malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea, HIV and tuberculosis (TB).

“We were finding availability levels in rural, lower-level health facilities of 40 or 50 percent for essential medicines,” said Christa Cepuch, a pharmacist at HAI Africa. Read more from IRIN here

Show me the Money: HIV Policy AND the Budget and Expenditure Monitoring Forum in South Africa

With a new government in South Africa as of May, there have been some very positive signs. Read the rest of this entry »

This year’s Clinton Global Initiative takes place from 22 – 25 September 2009, where heads of state, government and business leaders, scholars, and NGO directors work together to analyze, discuss, and debate possible solutions to urgent global issues. Each participant is then asked to take action on one or more issues by making a Commitment to Action.

The Economist calls the meeting ‘an important part of the global elite’s calendar’, so join online and watch the live webcast!

As noted in our post on Girls Count: The Girl Effect, one of the major themes this year is Investing in Girls and Women. The four focus areas are Innovation, Human Capital, Infrastructure, and Equitable Futures.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Women hold up half the sky,” says the Chinese proverb, but in most of the world women are second class citizens – “girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it’s not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and riven by fundamentalism and chaos.” If girls and women cannot reach their full potential, then we as a world cannot either. In this century, the great moral imperative is empowering the women of the world, write Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn in an impassioned article in the New York Times Magazine special issue on Saving the World’s Women

Investing in girls and women is the new focus of foreign policy. The brilliant Girl Effect video and New York Times special were based on the report Girls Count: A Global Investment and Action Agenda by Ruth Levine and colleagues from the Center for Global Development, who are releasing a report on the global health agenda for adolescent girls today. See here for Ruth Levine’s reflections on the NYT article. And, the Clinton Global Initiative is dedicating its annual conference starting on 22 September to the issue (join online on the webcast or podcasts).

In a chilling expose today, Toxic Waters – Clean Water Laws are Neglected, at a Cost to Health, Charles DuHigg of the New York Times covers the impunity of polluters and lax regulation of clean water laws. The NYT then goes a step further – creating transparency through a public database of violations which is ‘more comprehensive than the states or the EPA‘, that you can access to find polluters near you on an interactive map. There is also a nice interactive graphic of the Clean Water Act enforcement record in all 50 states. Deep cuts were made in government funding, and now clearly our Environmental Health Monitoring system needs repair. Democracy needs a strong, free media who reports and then acts. Who knew the NYT would be a key environmental health policy innovator overnight?

Read the rest of this entry »

As promised earlier, here is a brief account about the design+water workshop I conducted in Mexico in June.

Two months ago, I was in La Paz, Mexico at NGO Fundación Cántaro Azul, helping them build organizational capacity in human-centered design (HCD).  Cántaro Azul works to improve access to safe water and sanitation for disadvantaged communities, not only in Baja California Sur, but in other parts of Mexico, and abroad. Their interest in HCD is two-fold: to improve existing initiatives and to innovate new approaches.

I recently completed the workshop final report for the organization. In the hopes that the work may be helpful to others, I’m posting the synopsis of the report here, along with some workshop photos. If you’re interested in accessing the report, please contact me directly.

Design thinking workshop final report: Safe water options with rural community stores in BCS 

Fundación Cántaro Azul • La Paz, Baja California Sur, México 

Jaspal S. Sandhu, Ph.D. • July 2009 

This document describes the outcomes of a week-long design thinking workshop held at Fundación Cántaro Azul (FCA) in La Paz in June 2009. The workshop aimed to build design thinking capacity at the organization while working on a problem of actual importance to FCA. The most important practical outcomes of this workshop were two complementary models for providing a clean, affordable drinking water choice for rural people in Baja California Sur via community stores. The primary audience for this document is FCA. It is intended to help them with ongoing activities focused on the community store model and in incorporating this approach in their various activities. The workshop was designed and facilitated by Jaspal Sandhu, the report author. Workshop funding was provided by the Blum Center for Developing Economies at the University of California, Berkeley.

Shown below: Field research during Day 2 and Day 3 of the workshop. (1) Using an auto-servicio system in La Paz (top left); (2) interviewing a user at a rural, government-run purificadora in San Antonio (top right); (3) debriefing after the San Antonio research (bottom left); (4) and obtaining water samples to test from a home in Rosario (bottom right).

Cross-posted from Design Research for Global Health:

Atul Gawande’s recent New Yorker article about the super-high costs of healthcare in McAllen, Texas has gotten lots of people talking. (If you haven’t read it, you need to.) In the White House, President Obama made the article White House required reading, as reported by the New York Times:

President Obama recently summoned aides to the Oval Office to discuss a magazine article investigating why the border town of McAllen, Tex., was the country’s most expensive place for health care. The article became required reading in the White House, with Mr. Obama even citing it at a meeting last week with two dozen Democratic senators.

Data show that increased healthcare spending does not necessarily result in better health outcomes, and that the spending varies widely within the US. The Gawande article begins to answer the question of why this is the case, but there is a counterpoint (also from the NYTimes):

In his blog last month, Mr. [Peter] Orszag wrote, “The higher-cost areas and hospitals don’t generate better outcomes than the lower-cost ones.” But other researchers and politicians are not so sure. They say it would be a mistake to cut or cap Medicare payments without knowing why spending in some places far exceeds the national average.

What’s as interesting about Gawande’s article as the story is the fact that the national discussion has been altered by a quick case study of a single town in Texas. (Aside: this is why extreme case sampling is so valuable.) What else can we learn by studying individual systems, sitting down with real providers, and talking to actual patients?

They brought the x-ray machine to me this time. I told the people from Social Services, “There’s no way I can pay for all this”. The doctor came and told me it was a pulled muscle, and to go home, elevate it, and rest. I did just as the doctor said and four days later - four days - I got a call saying “We made a mistake”. Then he said “They made a mistake”. I went to Highland – no Summit – and they showed me two x-rays side-by-side. In the last one my bone was out of its socket and my kneecap was broken in two places. I was in rehab for 12 months!

As with the last post, I’m copying the description of the session I just attended – Vouchers for Health (Session C3) - from the conference website:

Presenters Discuss: the potential of competitive vouchers in increasing access to priority services for currently underserved populations (Nicaragua); how subsidized, targeted vouchers can achieve the goal of improving health of poor women and children, elements that improve access to high quality health care services, how targeted voucher subsidies help meet the goal of contributing to development of a national social health insurance system that is accessible, affordable and acceptable (Kenya); a nationwide, high transaction distribution project for insecticide treated nets (ITNs) that has given rise to the application of technologies in the use of a relational database as a means to track each voucher transaction, ensuring security and traceability, providing spatial analysis using GPS coordinates, leveraging data from this project to others by providing a central data repository to government, and exploring SMS and mobile phones for automating voucher transactions and gathering patient information (Tanzania); and how poor pregnant women were selected for vouchers jointly by field workers and community support group members, how the institutionalization process for the voucher scheme was implemented, and how the health facilities were strengthened to provide quality maternal health care (Bangladesh).

Why should we care about voucher schemes? Three reasons from where I sit. These schemes provide:

1. An attractive model for extending the reach of services without significant infrastructural investment
2. Incentives for competition to improve the quality of service delivery
3. A mechanism for reducing financial barriers for the poor

Despite this promise, my experience over the last few years – including stumbling through a poster presentation about vouchers in Uganda for Ben at APHA in Boston a couple years back – has taught me that the concept tends to be elusive to “outsiders”. The World Bank’s Private Sector Development Blog has a concise overview of output-based aid for those that aren’t familiar. I won’t try to explain myself, since I’ll probably make some errors.

This session brought together diversity in geography – the talks covered Latin America, Africa, and Asia - and in services – anti-malarial bednets, safe motherhood, family planning, STI prevention and treatment. What was most interesting to me then was not the details of any specific program, but what we might be able to learn from having these different experts in the same room.

So what were the common themes?

1. Vouchers work. Nicaragua saw increases in service utilization, condom utilization, family planning uptake, and KAP. Much of this across different subgroup analyses – age, level of sexual activity, type of residence. The others similarly all saw positive gains in what they were trying to achieve.
2. Institutions matter. In Tanzania, the market is being flooded with free ITNs (possibly LLINs) under a new policy to achieve universal coverage – the fate of the 7000 bednet retailers under the Tanzania National Voucher Scheme (TNVS) is unknown. In Kenya, Nairobi and Kiambu saw better results for the voucher scheme because of existing infrastructure. Nairobi actually had provided more voucher-based services than vouchers sold in Nairobi because of women coming in from outlying areas. Tanzania benefits from a manufacturing base that can produce ITNs and a system that encourages people to pay for a portion of their health care.
3. The system will be gamed. The much higher reimbursement for providers of C-sections than vaginal deliveries has led in some cases to higher rates of C-sections than is necessary. April Harding who was moderating said that multiple schemes have been used/proposed for dealing with this, including capitation (e.g. for 100 women, X% will be reimbursed for C-sections). Fraud is also a problem. While nobody discussed incidences of counterfeiting, the Tanzania program has taken big steps to prevent counterfeiting, including watermarks, microprinting, and a bar code. The bigger issue with fraud is related to ineligible participants obtaining and using vouchers intended for other populations, whether by income or geography. Which leads us to the next point…
4. Equitable distribution is hard. Ineligible participants seem to be a problem with all these programs. In Bangladesh they responded by bypassing governmental decisions about who would get vouchers and relied on CSGs (community support groups) to make the decisions. Another trend is that those who are more poor tend to utilize vouchers less – it is unclear if this due to cost, education, and interaction among the two, or something we’re not thinking about.
5. Understanding redemption is complicated. This was my one question. In both Tanzania and Kenya – the others didn’t present these numbers or I didn’t catch them - the rate of redemption (number of people receiving services under the voucher scheme divided by the total number of vouchers distributed) – was around 80%. After I asked the question and before the panelists responded, my neighbors said that: (1) 80% is pretty good, and (2) the Tanzanians unlike the Kenyans don’t pay for their vouchers until they use them. In Tanzania then, the reasons are grounded speculations: perceived value of the ITNs, access, cost. In Kenya, the majority of the outstanding 20% is due to accounting. The real utilization is expected to be much higher since the cutoff for the evaluation excluded women who had received vouchers, but had not yet delivered (safe motherhood program). Still a minor portion of this is due to women who are unable to deliver at contracted facilities due to a lack of transportation or the timing of the pregnancy.