Thursday, July 15, 2010

[EQ] Poverty and social exclusion in the WHO European Region: health systems respond

Poverty and social exclusion in the WHO European Region: health systems respond

Edited by Theadora Koller

WHO European Office for Investment for Health and Development

Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2010

Available online PDF [344p.] at: http://bit.ly/cnZ0xU

 

“…..Much about poverty is obvious enough, particularly the relationship between poverty and ill health. So evident are the links that extreme poverty is listed in the International Classification of Diseases. Far more controversial are the answers to the following questions:
How is poverty caused? How can it be measured? How can it be tackled?
What are the health status and access to health systems of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, and how do they compare to people experiencing greater wellbeing and inclusion in society?
What can health systems do to meet the needs of people in poverty and thus ensure the right to health for all?
What can be done at cross-government levels (by the health sector together with others) to address poverty and social exclusion as determinants of health?...”

 

 

“…..The authors were asked to consider how multifaceted social exclusion processes render some groups (such as Roma and migrants living in poverty, the under-employed and children living in poverty) particularly vulnerable, as evidenced in multiple national plans for social inclusion and in progress updates on poverty reduction strategies.

 

They were asked to describe interventions designed to improve the accessibility, availability, acceptability and quality of health services for populations living in poverty and social exclusion.

 

They were invited to reflect on both the proximate and distal determinants of health, and how the health sector works with other sectors to address them. The authors were also encouraged to explore other aspects of health system strengthening including financing, sustainability, service delivery networks, human resource requirements, community empowerment and political leadership….”

 

“…..In reading this book, it is opportune to refl ect on the fi ndings of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. The Commission calls for the universal provision of social protection (which includes health services as well as rights and entitlements to the conditions required for health). It states that targeted measures should only be used for those who fall through the cracks of universal services. In transition and resource-scarce environments, the progressive realization of universal services may be necessary. It recommends public sector leadership in health-care systems financing, ensuring universal coverage of health care regardless of ability to pay, and minimizing out-of-pocket health spending. The Social Exclusion Knowledge Network of the Commission calls for further action to address how exclusion – across the social, cultural, political and economic dimensions – has an impact on health…..”

Content

Part I. Case studies of actions by health systems to address poverty and social exclusion


1. Austria: neunerHAUSARZT – demand-oriented health-care services for the homeless

2. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina): Roma strategy and action plan for health

3. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republika Srpska): poverty and protecting children from family violence

4. Czech Republic: information brochures about the health care system for foreigners

5. Georgia: the Medical Assistance Programme for the Population below the Poverty Line


6. Germany: MiMi Project – With Migrants for Migrants

7. Hungary: Health Clubs for Elderly Roma

8. Ireland: Building Healthy Communities Programme

9. Italy (Tuscany Region): the Community Health Partnership of the north-west zone of Florence

10. Italy (Veneto Region): integration of social and health services for immigrants – the case of Padua 95


11. Latvia: reducing the impact of poverty on health 104

12. Montenegro: women’s health project for internally displaced Roma 113

13. Poland: poverty and health 124

14. Republic of Moldova: children living in poverty – implications for the health system 136

15. Romania: controlling TB among the Roma – a community approach 147


16. Serbia: Together for Health project 156

17. Slovakia: Healthy Communities 167

18. Spain: Health Promotion among Navarre Ethnic Minorities programme 178

19. Sweden: FRISK – addressing underemployment and sick leave 188


20. Switzerland: immigrants facing poverty and social exclusion – the Migration and Public Health Strategy 196

21. Tajikistan: the guaranteed benefi t package – an attempt to improve the poor’s access to health services 205

22. United Kingdom: tackling health inequalities for families, mothers and children in England 215


Part II. Background papers on the health of select groups disproportionately exposed to poverty and social exclusion

23. Roma health

24. Migration and health of migrants

25. Poverty and child health

Annexes

 

*      *     *

This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website

Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho

 





IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended
recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or
confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering this
transmission to the intended recipient, you may not
disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take
any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission
in error, please dispose of and delete this transmission.

Thank you.

[EQ] Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Combat Childhood Diarrhoea in Developing Countries

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Combat Childhood Diarrhoea in Developing Countries

 

Hugh Waddington, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), Birte Snilstveit, 3ie, Howard White, 3ie

Lorna Fewtrell, Aberystwyth University

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

Available online PDF [119p.] at: http://bit.ly/dmHbhI

“…..This report is a synthetic review of impact evaluations examining effectiveness of water, sanitation and hygiene (WSH) interventions in reducing childhood diarrhoea.

 

The review has been conducted to Campbell/Cochrane Collaboration standards of systematic review, as well as employing mixed methods of data analysis to assess not only which interventions are effective, or not, but why and under what circumstances. The review provides an update of previous reviews conducted in this area, notably Fewtrell and Colford (2004).

 

A comprehensive search was conducted of published and unpublished materials. Studies were identified for inclusion which employed rigorous impact evaluation

techniques, using experimental (randomised assignment) and quasi-experimental methods, and which evaluated the impact of water, sanitation and/or hygiene

interventions on diarrhoea morbidity among children in low- and middle-income countries. 65 rigorous impact evaluations were identified for quantitative synthesis,

covering 71 distinct interventions assessed across 130,000 children in 35 developing countries during the past three decades.

 

Each study was coded for a range of variables relating to type of intervention, effect size and precision, internal validity (relating to evaluation quality) and external validity (relating to context and behavioural mechanisms). Interventions were grouped into five categories: water supply improvements, water quality, sanitation, hygiene and multiple interventions involving a combination of water and sanitation and/or hygiene. Data were collected and synthesised on both quantitative and qualitative information presented in the evaluations.

 

The results challenge the notion that water quality treatment in the household (at point-of-use) and sanitation ‘software’ (hygiene) interventions are necessarily the

most efficacious and sustainable interventions for promoting reduction of diarrhoea.

While point-of-use water quality interventions appear to be highly effective – and indeed, more effective than water supply or source treatment in reducing diarrhoea – much of the evidence is from trials conducted over small populations and short time periods. More evidence is needed on sustainability, as water quality interventions conducted over longer periods tend to show smaller effectiveness, while compliance rates, and therefore impact, appear to fall markedly over time.

 

Hygiene interventions, particularly provision of soap for hand-washing, are effective in reducing diarrhoea morbidity, and there does not appear to be evidence that compliance falls over time. The analysis suggests that sanitation ‘hardware’ interventions are also highly effective. However, relatively few studies have been conducted in this area to-date and studies are particularly needed that quantify the possible environmental spillovers from sanitation provision…”

 

CONTENTS


SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

2. BACKGROUND

3. INTERVENTIONS AND THEORETICAL MODEL

4. METHODS

4.1. Inclusion criteria

4.2. Search methods for identification of studies

4.3. Data collection and coding

Interventions

Effect sizes

Internal validity

External validity

5. SEARCH RESULTS

6. EFFECTIVENESS

6.1. Pooled estimates

6.2. Impact heterogeneity

6.3. Publication bias

7. BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

8. SUSTAINABILITY

9. CONCLUSION

 

REFERENCES: INCLUDED STUDIES

REFERENCES: EXCLUDED STUDIES

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

 

ANNEX 1: SEARCH RESULTS

ANNEX 2: STUDY CODES

ANNEX 3: INCLUDED INTERVENTIONS

ANNEX 4: FOREST PLOTS

 


http://www.research4development.info/PDF/Articles/SR_Sanitation.pdf

 

 

*      *     *

This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website

Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho





IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended
recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or
confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering this
transmission to the intended recipient, you may not
disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take
any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission
in error, please dispose of and delete this transmission.

Thank you.