From: Malaria control in South Sudan, 2006–2013: strategies, progress and challenges
Strengths | Weaknesses |
---|---|
• Strong government leadership, political commitment and advocacy for malaria control. | • Minimal government/domestic funding for malaria control and over dependency on donor funding. |
• Presence of active multi-sectoral (UN agencies, NGOs/FBOs) national MTWG and thematic groups led by the NMCP. | |
• Storage of malaria commodities at the central and facility levels are in adequate. | |
• Availability of policies, guidelines and strategic plans for malaria control and prevention. | • Weak partner linkage and coordination for malaria control at state and county levels. |
• A national drug regulatory authority has been inaugurated. | • Inadequate skilled personnel for all aspects of malaria control and frequent staff turnover at all levels. |
• Pharmaceutical management TWG to quantify and procurement of WHO prequalified malaria commodities. | |
• There are no appraisal systems to document non performance and also to motivate those that are performing well. | |
• Adoption and roll pout of HMM as part of the ICCM. | • Lack of quality assurance and control for malaria commodities and equipment. |
• Funding from GFATM and other partners to scale malaria interventions. | • Weak communication system and infrastructure with irregular supervision and feedback mechanisms. |
• Availability of capacity to conduct operational research for vector and drug resistance. | |
• Lack of public health reference laboratory infrastructure and services at central level. | |
• Good mass media in the country to facilitate health education, promotion and BCC/IEC. | |
• Limited package and low coverage and utilization of proven malaria vector control tools to attain universal coverage. | |
• Availability of information sources: HMIS, IDSR, MIS, LQAS and SSHHS. | |
• Functional sentinel sites for monitoring and surveillance to regularly guide decision making. | • Minimum entomological data to guide evidence-based deployment of tools. |
• Adoption of IVM strategy as a platform for vector control in the country. | • Limited technical support, guidance and coordination on health promotion, BCC and IEC. |
• Constrained health system that may not cope with added pressures of a national programme expansion. | |
• Limited definitive diagnosis, frequent stock outs of commodities and unregulated private sector. | |
Opportunities | Threats |
• Availability of high donor funding to support scale-up of interventions. | • Reducing government financial commitment. |
• Resistance of malaria parasites and vectors to anti-malarials and insecticides respectively. | |
• Active RBM partnership and large net work of NGOs and private sector to support malaria programming. | |
• Sustainability of funding. | |
• Insecurity and inaccessibility. | |
• Recently established food and drug authority to regulate and facilitate quality control. | • Increasing populations and availability of displaced populations. |
• High technical assistance support. | • Influx of untreated nets and abuse/misuse of nets. |
• Great potential for higher-level political support. | • Lack of adherence to national treatment guidelines by the private sector clinics and pharmacies. |
• Increasing partner commitment and collaboration to establish an entomological laboratory and operations research. | |
• Low levels of literacy. | |
• The IVM strategy allows for deployment of additional tools and integration with other vector-borne diseases. | • Uncoordinated supply of commodities, availability of fake drugs and unregulated donations of drugs. |
• Availability of electronic and print media and coverage of mobile phones and community FM radio stations to support BCC/IEC. | • Weak overall health systems. |
• Limited research and academic institutions with requisite infrastructure to support malaria research. | |
• Communities that are willing to be key partners in operations and planning for successful outcomes. |