There are now nine days left to enter the Healthy Mothers, Strong World competition, billed as THE NEXT GENERATION OF IDEAS FOR MATERNAL HEALTH. The best innovations will be awarded prizes totaling US$600,000. More information is available at the competition website.

Two early entry prizes have already been awarded. One of the prizes went to Aadharbhut Prasuti Sewa Kendra, a privately-run birthing center led by nurse-midwives in Nepal. It is described “the first and only initiative taken by Nepalese nurses in a low resource setting, where they have never ever taken such a step independently”. The other prize went to Maternova, an portal for innovations in maternal and neonatal health that we first reported on in November 2008.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The New National Health Plan Is Texting (science.slashdot.org)

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.

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!

Presenters Discuss: possible risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and the impact of active management of the third stage of labor and its components on postpartum blood loss (Global: Egypt, Ecuador, Turkey, Burkina Faso and Turkey); a demonstration project to assess feasibility, acceptability, and safety of oxytocin in Uniject as a first step to introducing the device on a national scale, and strategies for scaling up use of oxytocin-Uniject™ devices with time-temperature indicator (TTI) for the prevention of PPH (Mali); techniques for estimating blood loss for the early and accurate diagnosis of PPH and cost-effective and reliable techniques for improved blood loss estimation in rural settings (India, Tanzania) and the importance of obstetric hemorrhage as a cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in low-resource settings, the potential contribution of the non-pneumatic anti-shock harment (NASG) to reducing death and disability from obstetric hemorrhage (Nigeria). 

The session was moderated by Suellen Miller of UCSF – who works on NASG among other projects. The panelists, in order of presentation:

• Jill Durocher – Gynuity Health Projects, Determinants of Postpartum Hemorrhage [AMTSL]
• Stacie Geller, PhD – University of Illinois-Chicago, Accessible Techniques for Improved Estimation of Blood Loss [blood drape]
• Dosu Ojengbede – University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria, Non-pneumatic Anti-shock Garment’s Potential for Obstetric Hemorrhage in Africa for Improved Estimation of Blood Loss [NASG]
• Susheela Engelbrecht, CNM – PATH, Implementation Challenges on a Larger Scale [Uniject+oxytocin]

If you think you don’t know enough about PPH, check out this wikipedia entry.

By this point in the conference, I’m sure I’ve exposed my biases- I’m interested in exploring themes across projects, with a particular emphasis on opportunities for innovation. This session was no different. Two key themes emerged: (1) these innovations are not magic bullets – larger supporting systems need to be in place for them to be effective, and (2) there are opportunities for improving outcomes by improving the usability of these products.

No magic bullets

Susheela Engelbrecht’s wording in reference to Uniject syringes preloaded with oxytocin was a bit different: “It is a magic bullet, but many other things need to be in place”. With the NASG, the technology buys critical time but is not a “definitive treatment” alone – it still requires patient monitoring, for which appropriate staffing and essential drugs are essential. The multi-country AMTSL (active management of the third stage of labor) study suggests that steps such as controlled cord contraction and fundal massage are only effective in the context of uterotonic drug administration.

Improving usability

The technological innovations presented all show significant promise. The Nigeria study, using a pre/post intervention design, showed a reduction in blood loss of 61% and a reduction in mortality of 60%. The morbidity numbers were too small to make any inferences. A randomized controlled trial showed that, compared to a gold standard measure, the blood drape (Geller) was 33% more accurate than visual estimation.

Uterotonic drugs were shown to play a critical role in AMTSL and the Uniject+oxytocin solution allows administration at the point-of-care to avoid many of the pitfalls associated with ampoule+oxytocin+syringe administration; however, there are some outstanding issues with cost and policy:

• cost: the Uniject solution will “always” be more expensive, currently a bit less than US$1 based on an Argentine formulation
• policy: at what levels of the health system should this be used? should it be used only for AMTSL or also for PPH?

As we begin to move toward scaling these technologies, it will be important to understand how people will use (and misuse) these technologies in environments that are not subject to the scrutiny of research studies.

Some notes I jotted down about usability innovations and challenges from the talks:

• The blood drape had the unanticipated benefit of keeping things clean (containing blood), from the perspectives of women, birth attendants, and families
• The original blood drape showed quantities (cc) of blood using a numerical scale, but a later version simply used a yellow line (alert) and red line (action) to identify risk level
• For the blood drape, the alert and action values were not based on WHO standards, which are designed for equipped, clinical settings, but were calibrated based on data from deliveries in rural India (e.g. WHO standard was 500cc for alert, and the value used with the blood drape was 350cc)
• Birth attendants and families using the blood drape for home deliveries on the floor came up with the idea of propping up the mother’s head with a dupatta to encourage the blood to flow into the drape
• The blood drape must be placed under the women after birth, so that it doesn’t accumulate amniotic fluid (this is after all postpartum hemorrhaging)
• With NASG the challenges include washing (decontaminating), drying, and folding – if this isn’t done in time, the benefit of the garment may be lost for the next patient – whether it is sent somewhere for decontamination or if it is done locally
• The Uniject+oxytocin solution requires more space in the cold chain since the syringe and packaging takes up more space than standard ampoules for the same volume
• With Uniject+oxytocin, some women though they were receiving a contraceptive injection against their will since their prior experience with pre-loaded syringes was with Depo-Provera
• “Training was a non-issue” with Uniject+oxytocin. Those who read the instructions felt as comfortable as those who were trained by demonstration.

During the Q&A there was one more. Professor Ojengbede mentioned a case where a woman wore the NASG for four days in order to wait for a blood transfusion. As soon as the bleeding stopped, she continued to wear the garment and walked around the ward. In response to a question about complications from wearing such a garment, the team indicated that there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Note: the Nigeria study will soon be published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Presenters Discuss: the value of pictorial representation of integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) algorithms and child care best practices for the quality of care of illiterate community health workers (CHWs) (Afghanistan); steps to engage religious leaders in health promotion, capitalizing on traditional vehicles to provide funds to increase health-seeking behaviors, and building an effective rotating drug program (Ethiopia); the role of computer based tools for microplanning in routine immunization and the planning process using the tool (Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh, India); and how introducing new medicines in Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) catalyzed policy changes and drove interventions to strengthen pharmaceutical management systems (Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania). 

First a quick recap of the presenters and what they talked about – and then what was most interesting.

One theme that weaved through the first three talks – and one of the most important – was that the success of “low-tech” technology in improving child health depended on an improved understanding of the people that use the technology.

From the first talk (Aitken, Afghanistan): The approach relied on a different type of literacy – a specific symbolic literacy making use of fingers and moons for time, and drawn images of children and mothers. During the formative research, the CHWs asked, in reference to a diagram showing a child being held by her mother, “Where’s the rest of the mother?” The next revision of the C-IMCI materials showed the entire mother, not just a cropping suggesting a mother. There’s a very strong analog to the Pull-Ups diaper case from the consumer packaged goods industry in the United States. First-hand design research with Huggies in the late 1980s showed the difference in perspectives between those producing diapers – exemplified by physical model of a baby without head, arms, or legs – and parents – who were concerned not with sanitation, but childhood development. [on short time now because of the conference - can provide reference later] 

From the second talk (Roy, Ethiopia): Working together with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, CARE has been engaged in a comprehensive community-based program to improve child health in Ethiopia. The EOC priest delivers health messages after Sunday sermon, on significant holidays, and to 20-40 families that he routinely visits as a “confessor”. Within this framework there are a number of innovations that they have developed tailored to this specific program. The booklet that contains health information is a pamphlet in the same form factor as bibles that the priests carry with them (building trust). Yellow “referral tokens” allow the priest on his household visits to refer a sick child to a local clinic (utilizing non-health professionals for services). They also have a “data board” which publicly displays mortality and morbidity statistics (community information sharing) – it’s a chalkboard much like the community board from Ghana that was making the rounds recently. [can't remember where I saw this, but will add the link if I remember, or if someone reminds me] Finally, the program is extending the traditional economic practice of idir (a traditional membership-based funeral insurance scheme with democratically-elected leadership) to childhood health emergencies.

From the third talk (Sagar, India): The Microsoft Excel-based computer microplanning tool had unexpected positive consequences for those using it at district and sub-district levels. Where no microplanning had been present before, these small health organizations in Jharkand, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh have started to incorporate microplanning into routine activities. Technology for positive organizational change. And the innovation is diffusing organically – the speaker said he received word today that Bihar is starting to use a similar tool in planning routine immunizations.

http://twitter.com/jaspaldesign
http://twitter.com/kwantada

I thought I would kick off the conference blogging with some fun stuff. Heather LaGarde, IntraHealth and company have put together a phenomenal website linking together music + open source tech for health, check out the below and check out the website to hear the winner of their remix contest which was announced tonight at an event at GHC36. Some of the remixes of the song “Wake Up – It’s Africa Calling” are beautiful and powerful, make sure you tune in (one of my favorites was the 2nd place remix by Danny Hajek):

“Global non-profit IntraHealth International has launched a major campaign to raise funds and awareness for the IntraHealth OPEN initiative, a program created to address the most critical health issues in Africa by putting the latest open source technologies directly in the hands of health workers.”

“The campaign is rolling out the release of a charity album in partnership with Grammy Award-winning artist and internationally acclaimed humanitarian Youssou N’Dour.  The album titled “OPEN Remix” features remixes of N’Dour’s song “Wake Up – It’s Africa Calling” by Nas, Peter Buck of R.E.M., Duncan Sheik and other headline artists from around the world and will be released by major distributors including Rhapsody, iLike and Amazon MP3 as free downloads – a global remix contest will be launched with Indaba Music in April.”

“IntraHealth has been collaborating with African governments and private institutions to design and apply open source solutions to strengthen their ability to use health information for strategic health policy and planning.   Using mobile phones, pdas and taking advantage of growing connectivity across Africa, the initiative aims to increase fluency in open source systems and help support a new generation of eHealth workers, technology professionals and national leaders in Africa who understand, customize and apply open technologies to improve health.”

In October 2007 I was working in a place called Suhbaatar, a province in the flat and often dusty steppes of eastern Mongolia named after the hero of the 1921 revolution.  The primary activity of this trip was to hang out with community health workers in different sums (counties), a few days in each place, in order to better understand the role information played in their provision of services. The last sum I visited normally has about 4000 people, largely pastoralist nomads, living across an area 1.5 times the size of Rhode Island, with roughly half of them concentrated at the sum center during the fall months. A rough spring for the local pastures meant that many of these 4000 had left on otor, pasturing livestock up to 300km away, making it downright desolate.

On my third day in this sum, I asked the doctor managing the local clinic for a tour of the new clinic being built across the street.  GTZ and Lux-Development had both been here recently on health infrastructure projects, but this time the money was coming from the Mongolian government.  The doctor, a nurse practitioner, and I walked across the street where we met the foreman, a man who had come here from the capital Ulaanbaatar (photo).  Though the work crew was already working on the roof – the construction had started two months earlier – I was surprised to hear the doctor, who had worked here for more than 10 years, asking some critical questions about the layout of the new hospital. After several minutes of interrogation, the exasperated foreman claimed this hospital was the same design as one being completed in another sum. What the doctor knew and the foreman didn’t was that I had just visited that sum.  “Is this true?” the doctor asked me. “Does it have the same number of beds?” “Will our hospital be as big?” “No” was the answer on all counts. In consultation with the nurse, the doctor quickly realized this new hospital wouldn’t provide enough space to meet their patient demands.  So they would have to keep parts of the old hospital working to meet their needs.  So much for the touted energy efficiency of the new vakuum sunh (double-paned windows). This was the result of a top-down approach to hospital design.

Earlier this week the New York Times reported on how health outcomes are driving hospital design in U.S. settings (thanks Dr. Marwah for the article pointer):

In many new hospitals and pavilions … semiprivate rooms have vanished. Single-patient rooms are now viewed as an important element of high-quality health care. The benefits of the single room emerged through evidence-based hospital design, a new field that guides health care construction. More than 1,500 studies have examined ways that design can reduce medical errors, infections and falls — and relieve patient stress.

The idea is simple: change the design of the physical environment to reflect the needs of the people in the system – patients, visitors, administrators, caregivers, insurers – with an eye towards improving health outcomes. There are opportunities both for new construction, but also for retrofits. And the solutions are often simple. From the Times article, Princeton’s University Medical Center is installing larger windows “because studies suggest that natural light can reduce depression and that scenes of nature can reduce reported levels of pain”. From a 2007 SFGate article, Kaiser-Permanente is changing the color of the paint on the walls “to cheery spring shades of pale blue, yellow and green” in an effort to be more patient-focused.

All good and well, but what do systems with limited resources have to take from this approach? Quite a bit it seems…

As an example, consider the recent PLoS study from Peru (Escombe et al., 2007) that showed how natural ventilation – an low-cost alternative to negative-pressure isolation rooms - could be used to reduce intrahospital transmission rates of tuberculosis. The recommendation of the study? Open the doors and windows: “Even at the recommended ventilation rate, the calculated risk of airborne contagion was greater in these mechanically ventilated rooms [in modern facilities built 1970-1990] than in naturally ventilated rooms with open windows and doors [in older facilities built pre-1950]“.

As this research shows there are plenty of opportunities to change the way we work within existing facilities to improve outcomes. And there are plenty of opportunities with systems that are renovating and building new hospitals and clinics. A couple current examples: (1) the Millennium Challenge Corporation is renovating 150 health centers in Lesotho; (2) the Asian Development Bank is building 17 new clinics and renovating 7 facilities, including 3 provincial hospitals as part of the Third Health Sector Development Project in Mongolia (PDF).

The human-centered approach can improve health outcomes with simple innovations derived from a better understanding of the needs of a facility’s users. The open question is whether we’ll take advantage of such an approach or whether – in the words of   Roger Ulrich from Texas A&M’s Center for Health Systems and Design - we’ll simply “pay lip service to the evidence”.

—-

I was alerted to the newly launched donation mapping tool by Jessica over at GHP (Global Health Progress). Thanks to her I got to sit in on a presentation of the tool which I found fascinating (but not sure anyone else did based on the lack of questions in the audience). The tool is a mashup of Google maps and donation metrics globally (location, type of donation, organizations involved, what type of supplies, volume, staffing on the ground to name some). The goal is to help collaboration, answer questions and facilitate the process of identifying who is working where and what are they doing? Second they wanted to bring to life the impact of donations (places, faces and outcomes). Other things I took away from the presentation:

• Massive unmet need for medical supplies. Poor infrastructure & distribution are key challenges
• Donations are meeting up to 40% of health needs in some areas
• PQMD has 27 members total (non cash EX US dollar volume was $4 Billion dollars, including non PQMD members)
• Private sector + NGO + Academia combo mix: The tool was incubated at Loma Linda School of Public health and is a joint effort with PQMD and industry.

They have put a lot of work into this and I think they have lots of neat information. The data comes from primary and secondary data sources. For example they use actual donor member shipping records and augment that with onsite data collection, interviews and site visits on ground with facility staff (location, staffing, needs). The public view is different from the private view so as not to compromise security of the facilities. There is a lot more I could write about this, but I’ll stop here and let you play around with the tool yourself:

A few other things to note – the PQMD site has various interesting resources. Here are some more notes, and things to check out:

• PQMD case studies
• PQMD fellowships
• PQMD educational resources on proper documentation, storage, distribution, see their basic primer on health care logistics

Have comments about the tool, leave them here:

]]> http://globalhealthideas.org/2008/12/donation-mapping-tool/feed/ 0 http://globalhealthideas.org/2008/08/rapid-hiv-cd4-counter-8-minutes/ http://globalhealthideas.org/2008/08/rapid-hiv-cd4-counter-8-minutes/#comments Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:38:11 +0000 thdblog http://thdblog.wordpress.com/?p=614 With slight modifications I lifted the below from the CIMIT Blog (note Video on their blog), certainly a needed innovation for global health:

Via CIMIT: Microfluidic CD4 Cell Counting for Resource-Limited Settings

“The HIV pandemic has created an unprecedented global health emergency. In response, the price of effective, life-saving HIV drug treatment has been reduced by 99%. More than $10 billion is now invested each year to treat people suffering from HIV and AIDS…BUT Treatment is only half the battle. “

“Of the 33 million people living with HIV worldwide, fewer than 10% have access to CD4 counts, the critical blood test used by clinicians to decide when to start treatment. Fewer than 1% have access to viral load assays, which are used for infant diagnosis and for patient monitoring. Both tests are considered essential to effective treatment. The Use Case for appropriate CD4 and viral load tests appropriate for resource-limited settings is clear”:

• Tests need to be performed by a minimally skilled health worker,
• A the true point of care,
• Reliably and inexpensively, and
• Wth reasonable accuracy and precision. The HIV pandemic thus represents an unprecedented opportunity to drive technology development in point-of-care diagnostics.

“Based on this Use Case, William Rodriguez’s lab has developed a series of technologies for an integrated CD4 cell count device, with microfluidics as the key platform…Integrating these microfluidic technologies has led to a prototype handheld device that can accurately capture CD4 cells from a 10 microliter fingerstick sample of whole blood, and accurately measure CD4 counts in under 8 minutes.”

From The Economist (link):
“Using an elaborate system of colour-coded boxes to convey over 170,000 meals to their destinations each day, the 5,000-strong dabbawala collective has built up an extraordinary reputation for the speed and accuracy of its deliveries. Word of their legendary efficiency and almost flawless logistics is now spreading through the rarefied world of management consulting. Impressed by the dabbawalas’ “six-sigma” certified error rate—reportedly on the order of one mistake per 6m deliveries—management gurus and bosses are queuing up to find out how they do it.” Full story link here.

Hat tip Intangible Economy.