Skip to main content

Table 3 SWOT analysis of the malaria control programming in South Sudan

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.