Table 3 Status of AFR conditions during delivery of malaria services and ITNs: Period 2006 to 2008
AFR condition | Explanation |
|---|---|
Relevance | Reasons for deviating ITNs elsewhere were not given. Reasons for difficulties accessing available qualified health-providers and whether or not they were adequate were not given, neither were reasons for not prioritizing children <5 years old when delivering malaria services. |
Publicity | One-way ineffective communication mechanisms regarding ITNs seemed to be in place. Feedback channels to support exchange of any information regarding malaria services were not identified. |
Revisions/appeals | Non-responsive appeal mechanisms (suggestion box) for malaria services were reported. No appeal mechanisms during delivery of ITNs were identified. |
Enforcement | Leadership was a monopoly of health staff and managers, who were not regarded as fair by many of the patients due to poor respect of them and poor response to their needs and demands. Policy guidelines and district activity plans for equitable ITN distribution and other malaria services were also poorly managed. Although the application of AFR was being introduced through the district health leadership, there was not yet evidence from patients and informal decision-makers of explicit enforcement of AFR conditions. |