...

Report from Community and Country Level Consultations on

by user

on
49

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Report from Community and Country Level Consultations on
Report from Community and Country Level
Consultations on GMAP2 “Action and Investment
to defeat Malaria (AIM)” in Peru
1-2 October 2014
Prepared for
Roll Back Malaria Partnership
Submitted by:
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
Consulting LLP
Facilitated by: NAMRU -6
Version: 13 October 2014
Abbreviations
AIM
Action and Investment to defeat Malaria
CHW
Clinical Health Worker
GMAP
Global Malaria Action Plan
ENSO
El Nino-Southern Oscillations
IRS
Indoor Residual Spraying
ITN
Insecticide Treated Nets
MCH
Materna and Child health
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MINSA
Ministerio de Salud
MOH
Ministry of Health
PAHO
Pan American Health Organization
P. falciparum
Plasmodium falciparum
P. vivax
Plasmodium vivax
RDT
Rapid Diagnostic Test
Swiss TPH
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute
TB
Tuberculosis
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WHO
World Health Organization
2
1. Introduction
The country consultation in Peru was convened by the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6 (NAMRU6), Perú which organized the meeting jointly with the Ministry of Health (MoH), the Pan American Health
Organization-Peru (PAHO) and further assistance from USAID. The consultation was facilitated by Dr. J.
Luis Segura a member of the Swiss TPH/Deloitte AIM consultant team, who also helped to facilitate the
regional consultation for South and Central America in Panama earlier this year.
Malaria in Peru is endemic in the Amazonian basin and the tropical north coast. 35% of the population,
residing across a geographical expanse that makes up 75% of the Peruvian territory, are at risk of
malaria. Currently, 90% of malaria cases are caused by P. vivax.
The consultation process included engagement visits to Loreto and Piura regions. Loreto is located in the
Amazonian basin and has experienced an increasing a substantial increase of malaria during 2012-2014,
whereas Piura is located on the tropical northern coast where malaria has been mostly under control
since 2000, although it remains at risk of imported cases and possible outbreaks. During the engagement
visits community members, government representatives, health workers and health authorities were
consulted.
The consultative meeting was held in Lima, the Peruvian capital city, with 30 participants, including
officials from the MoH from the central level and from 6 regions, as well as representatives of the
Ministries of Agriculture, Housing, Construction and Sanitation, the Environment and Transport, PAHO,
USAID, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, NAMRU-6, and one oil company (PlusPetrol).
1.1 Community Consultation Overview
The engagement visits to Loreto and Piura regions were scheduled on 26-27th and 29th September
respectively.
Loreto Region covers almost one-third of Peru's territory. Located in the northeast, is by far the nation's
largest region; it is also one of the most sparsely populated regions due to its remote location in the
Amazon Rainforest, sharing extensive borders with Ecuador, Colombia and Brazil.
Piura Region is a coastal region located in the northwest of the country, just 4 degrees south of the
equator, with a warm tropical weather around the year. Because of its fragile geo-climatic situation, this
region is severely affected by El Nino-Southern Oscillations (ENSO), which has been associated with
malaria outbreaks.
Discussions were firstly held with 20 people at village level including:
• Community members
• Community Health Volunteers
• Front line workers (Lab technician, nurses, medical doctors)
• Regional Malaria control program authorities.
A list of participants can be found in Annex 1. Pictures of the engagement visits and the consultative
meeting in Lima can be found in Annex 5.
1.2 Background information
Loreto comprises nearly one-fourth of the land mass of Peru, and has the ecologic characteristics of the
Amazonian lowlands. Iquitos is its only large urban center in Loreto, is accessible only by air or river.
The total population is around 1 million people, with approximately 40% residing in Iquitos. The
remainder population is highly dispersed in 2,600 towns and villages throughout the Amazon tributary
system. Up to 28 ethnic groups are present in the region.
According to the 2013 Demographic and Health Survey 2012-13 (ENDES 2013), Loreto was the region
with the highest child mortality rate (46 per thousand live births), the second highest infant mortality rate
(33), and also the highest fertility rate (3.8). The same source reported that Piura had an infant mortality
3
of 17 per thousand live births, and a fertility rate of 3.0, where the national averages were 19 and 2.4
respectively.
Historically, Loreto contributes 80% of the national burden of malaria cases. After a re-emergence during
the decade of 1990s which reached more than 100,000 malaria cases per year, the next peak was
observed in the 2002 with 65,727 cases, with then a decreasing trend which started in 2005 and ended in
2010 (11,453). In 2013 a total of 43,456 cases were registered and so far 2014 seems will be the fourth
year with a crescent number of cases. Since 2011, ases of P. falciparum tripled and P. vivax doubled.
The main malaria control activities include passive surveillance, and the screening and treatment of
villages with parasite rates higher than 5%. Focalized IRS and bednets distribution are also implemented
in certain periods. Since 2010 when PAMAFRO, a regional project funded by Global Fund, ended, there
was a long delay until a process for establishing RDTs could be established.
Piura is historically considered an important focus of malaria transmission in Peru, however a sharp
reduction in the number of cases has been experienced (2,153 cases in 2010 to 15 cases in 2013). The
decrease in the number of cases and the emergence of another outbreaks (dengue) has led to a
considerably reduction in malaria control activities in the region.
1.3 Summary of key themes emerging from engagement visit and implications for AIM
Malaria is not a priority for local and regional governments or the general population, even in
areas with a re-emergence. All those consulted agreed not enough sustained efforts are oriented to
control malaria. At the regional government level, malaria and other transmissible diseases only receive
attention under the pressure of the media when outbreaks become out of control; and at the
district/community level, malaria control activities are rarely prioritized.
As consequence of the decentralization process which was completed in 2008, the MoH activities in
Loreto and Piura Regions are funded, as in other regions of the country, via a budget that is under the
control of the Regional Government. Since 2010, the budget for control of transmissible diseases – which
is a packet, and not specific disease based-, is included among the strategic programs to be funded
through the “results based budget”; which is approved after a cost/benefit assessment of the Ministry of
Finances.
Under this setting the allocation of budget to malaria control activities depends upon the amount of money
obtained for transmissible diseases, and the regional prioritization among transmissible diseases.
According to senior MoH officers at the regional level, the budget available for malaria is limited by the
Ministry of Finance’s tendency to provide less than requested funds, and the intra-regional allocation of
funds to the outbreaks that gain most visibility in terms of public opinion.
According to MoH officers, regional governments lack the political will and/or the technical capabilities to
negotiate these budgets effectively with the Ministry of Finance; and there are no targets for malaria
control activities beyond those related to budget execution. In consequence, resources to keep malaria
control efforts in absence of outbreaks or political visibility are scarce and at high risk of being reassigned.
The health workers and highly experienced community health workers who were consulted, reported that
communities only become involved in malaria control activities under external leadership provided by
special projects (e.g. PAMAFRO) or charismatic local health authorities. This would be related to the
multiple and intense challenges related to the economic activities (e.g. transport for crops), limited access
to services (e.g. schools), and another diseases (e.g. dengue) in a context where malaria severe is
uncommon.
Implications: AIM must provide a framework for investing in malaria in regions where malaria is
not a public opinion priority, given that the occurrence of severe cases is uncommon, the
4
presence of other outbreaks, and constraints on economic activities of population on risk. It is
particularly important that AIM highlights the economic returns of investments in malaria, in
messages oriented to regional, local and community decision makers. AIM should also provide
guidance about how to leverage domestic resources, by making the case to Ministry of Finance
officers about the high return of malaria control activities, using evidence based advocacy. AIM
could propose an operational research agenda to the countries to strengthen the evidence
needed to guide the choice and intensity of interventions.
Not enough awareness about the relationship between malaria control and development.
Community health volunteers and front line health workers both highlighted how malaria control is not
included among the regional/local/community investments considered contributory to local development.
In the rural community visited in Loreto, some families depend on ecological lodges receiving tourists and
the production of handcraft; yet it seems that the risk of the dissuasive effect of malaria on tourism is not
clearly perceived at the community, local or regional level. In the peri-urban community visited in Piura,
social problems such as violence, drug consumption, unemployment, or health problems resulting from
dengue outbreaks, are given more priority than malaria by the general population.
The discussions with community members showed that families see issues related transport, security,
education and employment as being more immediately related to community development, than current
or previously endemic diseases like malaria. Government funded malaria control actions are reactive to
resurgence of cases. This seems to be broadly in line with population expectations and considered to be
yet another suboptimal public service.
In the communities visited, no private actors were involved in malaria control.
Implications: AIM must provide guidance about how to raise awareness about malaria control
as a cost/effective intervention to further development at the community, district and regional level
in settings where severe malaria is uncommon, or malaria is under control but the risk of
resurgence persists.
Long experience of community participation: Due to the high dispersion of population in the
Amazonian basin and the limited availability of health services, the MoH has called, recruited and trained
community health volunteers since many years. Front line health workers expressed many times their
satisfaction with their collaboration, and rely on them for diverse activities, including but not limited to
malaria control.
Community health volunteers in turn expressed their dissatisfaction as they no longer receive incentives
as in the past, to cover their transport and food expenses. In Loreto, the previous experience with a
project (PAMAFRO) which used to provide this kind of support to community volunteers was mentioned
as having been the ideal situation. Aside of PAMAFRO, the mobilization of community members to
perform environmental management activities were reported to be the consequence of the leadership of
specific health service authorities, and not as regular MoH activities. Additionally, with the improvement of
Peruvian economy, now community health workers more frequently find paid employment opportunities,
so completely unpaid volunteer work is becoming a less viable scenario.
In both settings (Loreto and Piura), community health workers acknowledge MoH staff as their
“superiors”, and showed their readiness to follow instructions. There are no mechanisms in place to make
the MoH staff accountable to the community health workers, or to the community in general. The MoH
services performance is reported internally only, and these reports are oriented to monitor budget
execution and the number of services provided, do not including the accomplishment of public health
targets.
Implications: AIM must provide guidance on how to empower communities to ensure a more
horizontal participation and to strengthen their involvement in monitoring the achievement of
public health targets and performance assessments. AIM should also acknowledge the economic
5
costs related to community participation in malaria control, as well as the non-financial
motivations of community health workers.
Diagnosis and treatment need to be available when and where required. In Loreto the community
health workers and front line health workers mentioned the challenges to provide timely diagnosis and
treatment to every fever case. Many villages are hours away of health facilities, and those with higher
parasite rates are screened by field teams 2-3 times per year at best. The high cost of this last activity is
evident for everybody, but there was little evidence of its impact on the disease burden.
Community health workers expressed their willingness to use rapid diagnostic tests, and to provide
treatment, as many of them did during PAMAFRO project. However, the MoH is not procuring RDTs any
more, relying in microscopy testing offered by health facilities and by mobile teams.
Implications: AIM must provide adequate guidance to choose malaria control activities taking in
consideration the available resources, in particular where specific challenges such as dispersed
populations prevail.
2. Overview of the consultative meeting
nd
The consultative meeting was convened in Lima-Peru on 1-2 October 2014. A total of 30 participants
took part from Loreto, Junín, Ayacucho, Tumbes, Madre de Dios, Lambayeque, and the central level from
diverse organizations. The participants came from central and regional government sectors, a large
private company, research and academia, as well as from amongst the development partners. The
agenda of the two day meeting can be found in Annex 2.
2.1 Objectives of the consultative meeting
The main objectives of the community level consultation were to:
Enable participants to set the agenda for the next iteration of the Global Malaria Action Plan
Help to better understand how to position malaria within the country’s broader development
context
Learn how other programs have successfully engaged communities e.g. Polio, HIV/AIDS, TB,
MCH etc.
Create a shared understanding of the current status of the country’s response to malaria
Identify high priority actions for progress towards control/ elimination goals
Identify areas where the AIM could usefully provide guidance to accelerate action
Sensitize country stakeholders for the future implementation of AIM
Network, build relationships, and identify new opportunities for partnership.
2.2 Key national opportunities and challenges prioritized for discussion
After the official opening and introduction to the AIM process, a presentation was given on the
engagement visits and the observations from the discussions with community members, community
development workers, first line health workers and district and state level respondents during the
engagement visit. In addition, the findings from the PAHO regional consultation were also briefly
presented. In a moderated session the participants jointly agreed on three topics that they thought it
would be most beneficial to discuss during the consultation.
These topics were:
1. Multisectorial actions in malaria control
2. Management and Budget
3. Access to health services
6
2.3 Summary of key points emerging from the consultative meeting
The participants worked in two multi-constituency groups including for example, representatives of
Government, Development Partners, Research, Civil Society and the Private Sector. Firstly, the different
ways being invested in the fight against malaria were outlined by various constituencies.
After this, each topic was discussed in the group. The participants described what was currently being
done from their constituency and how well it was working. After each session the groups did a gallery
walk and looked at the results of the discussions from the other groups. The participants then proceeded
to prioritise actions to enable them to move forward on this topic. The list of priority actions is in Annex 3.
Leveraging resources from all sectors with a role in malaria control: Attendants acknowledged that
collaboration between sectors are bilateral, sporadic, related to specific interests, and not following
broader priorities or a multisectoral plan. The MoH at the central level was considered to be the natural
leader for calling for greater multisectoral participation, at the central and regional level. The performance
based budget was identified as a space where multisectoral action, using domestic funds already
available. So the audience for these efforts include at least the Ministries of Finance, Housing,
Environment and Education.
The participants emphasized the importance of academia’s contribution regarding best practice of
multisectoral action as well as evidence of its benefits. Development partners could provide technical
assistance and resources to the MoH on how to more effectively lobby the Ministry of Finance and
Regional Governments about investment in malaria control/elimination.
Management and budget: An urgent need for improvements was noted to be required in the malaria
planning (central and regional planning is not articulated enough), budgeting (vector transmitted diseases
offices at the regional and central level lack enough human resources), and procurement (procurement of
ITN took three years). Moreover, some critical malaria control activities (e.g. epidemiological surveillance)
are not eligible to be funded by the performance based budget, which is the main available budget
source. Currently the Minister of Finances does not support sustained investments in malaria control,
when the number cases is reduced; probably because the economic benefits of this has not been
adequately elaborated or communicated.
Sometimes, by the time the budget becomes available it is too late to execute a preventive approach, or
to ensure continuity in the availability of supplies and human resources. These uncertainties also increase
the turnover of the MoH staff, affecting its managerial capacity.
Accessibility of health and malaria services: The combination of the high dispersion of population in
the Amazonian basin and the lack of health infrastructure in these remote settings on Peru’s territory
presents a formidable challenge to health service delivery. Currently private companies provide logistic
support to the MoH, but the impact of those contributions could be enhanced by improved planning and
coordination.
In the context of decentralization, local governments could take steps to incentivize a territory based
management approach which could help to ensure adequate coverage of services to dispersed
populations.
The experience involving community health workers was considered successful by all participants, but
this has not been supported adequately since the end of PAMAFRO project. The allocation of public
resources through the performance based budget to support CHW working in other diseases (e.g. TB,
1
HIV/AIDS ) was proposed as a model to follow.
1
Community-based DOT-HAART accompaniment in an urban resource-poor setting. Muñoz M, Finnegan K, Zeladita J, Caldas A,
Sanchez E, Callacna M, Rojas C, Arevalo J, Sebastian JL, Bonilla C, Bayona J, Shin S.AIDS Behav. 2010 Jun;14(3):721-30. doi:
10.1007/s10461-009-9559-5. Epub 2009 Apr 16.
7
After the three group discussions, the plenary considered where action could be taken immediately, and
where guidance from AIM or another source would first be needed. Given the interest of MoH officers in
the meeting, the participants decided to produce a document with recommendations that could be
implemented immediately, and others that could be pursued after the launch of AIM.
2.4 AIM could potentially provide useful guidance on how to:
Position malaria control/elimination activities as cost effective interventions so to make the case for
these investments convincing the Ministry of Finances and other sectors.
Advocate effectively to the multiple government sectors, regional and local governments and general
population.
Encourage operational research which provides evidence immediately useful to malaria control
implementers.
Implement accountability mechanisms for investments in health and development from public and
corporate sources
To generate evidence, and establish best practices and ensure that these are taken up in policy
recommendations
Incorporate community based resources in an effective way.
3. Assessment of the success of the consultative process
Feedback given by the participants was positive. Both the
organisers and the participants were grateful to have been
consulted and thought that the discussions had been very rich.
A contact list was shared with all participants and the meeting
already seemed to have tangible benefit by providing a platform
for convergence of stakeholders from different regions and
sectors.
“The challenges imposed by
malaria control in our country
requires we continue these
discussions beyond this meeting, so
to find innovative and effective ways
of collaboration”
Consultation participant’s feedback
The attendants decided to produce a document with main
conclusions of the event proposing actions to the Ministry of
Health, organized in two periods: before and after the availability of AIM.
A total of 21 people were spoken to during the engagement visits of which 11 were women (52%). In
addition to five organizers, a total of 32 people from 47 invited attended that national consultative meeting
(70% attendance rate). This may in part be explained by only one representative per institution attending
(the case for many MoH regional officers), or by their involvement in the regional elections (representative
of productive organizations as loggers).
Among the total of participants 35%(13/37) were female, 41% (15/37) of them were from national MOH
central level (vice-minister, other senior officers, national malaria program, other departments), 16%
(6/37) were from MOH regional level, 16% (6/37) from academy/research, 14% (5/37) from another
government sectors (environment, housing, agriculture, transport), 8% (3/37) from private sector and 5%
(2/37) from technical agencies (PAHO and USAID). The participants list can be found in Annex 4.
8
Annex 1: Engagement visit participant list
Engagement visit in Loreto 1 (San Andres)
Dr. Wilder Arbildo
Malaria Control Program - Coordinator
Dra. Wilma Casanova
Dr. Carlos Alvarez
Vector Transmitted Disease Strategy
Director
Epidemiologist
Paolo Colompo
Community Health Volunteer
Irene Mozambite
Community Health Volunteer
Roldan Muanze
Community Health Volunteer
Emilia Malapara
Community Health Volunteer
Engagement visit in Loreto 2 (Padre Cocha)
Ma Eugenia Ricopa
Community Health Volunteer
Leonardo Portocarrero
Community Health Volunteer
Delia Rosa
Community Health Volunteer
Oscar Noriega
Community Health Volunteer
Walter Cayche
Community Health Volunteer
Dr. David Hidalgo Macedo
HC Responsible
Tec. Lab. Aida Esther Quiroz Herrera
Lab Technician
Lic. Enf. Rosario del Jesus Lopez Pacaya
Nurse
Engagement visit in Piura
Dr. Edward Pozo
Regional Epidemiology Director
Dr. Walter Wong
Health Region Director
Dra. Mónica de Belen Melendez
Dra Elizabeth Carbajal
Sub-Region Sullana Epidemiology
Director
Bellavista HC – Clinician
Juan Nunjar Castillo
Community Health Volunteer
Norma Gutierrez Sanchez
Community Health Volunteer
Rosa Elena Chavez
Community Health Volunteer
Edith Ruez
Bellavista
HC
(responsable of
activities)
9
–
Technician
malaria control
Annex 2: Agenda of consultative meeting
Tiempo
Requerido
Mie 1 Oct
8:30-9:00
Sesión
Comentarios
Llegada y registro de participantes
Bienvenida oficial y presentaciones.
Mie 1 Oct Dr. Martin Clendenes, Estrategia
9:00-9:45
Metaxénicas
Dr. Willy Lescano, NAMRU-6
Se solicitará a los participantes que
presenten información relativa a las
actividades que realizan actualmente y así
proveer una base para las discusiones
durante
la
consulta.
Se les pedirá de antemano que aporten
material adicional para comentar con otros
participantes (posters, trípticos, etc.).
¿Porque considera que la lucha contra la
Mie 1 Oct
malaria es una prioridad?
9:45-10:00
Moderador: Dr. Willy Lescano, NAMRU-6
Ejercicio de lluvia de ideas, los participantes
indicaran sus opiniones hasta llegar a un
punto de saturación en el que se repitan
ideas previamente planteadas.
Orientación sobre el AIM, incluyendo:
· Resumen sobre el proceso de
desarrollo del AIM.
Mie 1 Oct Dr. Segura, Swiss TPH
10:00-10:30 · Nexo con la Estrategia Técnica Global
. Dr. Guillermo Gonzalvez, OPS
· Propósito de la Consulta de País. Dr.
Martin Clendenes, MINSA
Antes de la reunión se entregará esta
información a los participantes en un
resumen
de
una
página.
El facilitador valorará brevemente el grado de
conocimiento de los participantes con
respecto al actual GMAP y en qué modo lo
han utilizado.
Presentación de las principales
conclusiones de la Consulta
Regional/análisis de documentos.
Mie 1 Oct
Metodología para la consulta en Peru.
10:00-11:05
Hallazgos de visitas a comunidades
endémicas.
Dr. Luis Segura, Swiss TPH
Mie 1 Oct
Pausa para café
10:05-11:20
Avances en el control y manejo de la
malaria en la última década
Representante Loreto (10 min). Dr.
Cristiam Carey
Mie 1 Oct Representante Tumbes (10 min). Dr.
11:20-12:05 Rommel Gonzales
Representante Junín (10 min). Dr. Daniel
Chuchón
Moderador: Dr. Jorge Escobedo, MINSA
Preguntas y discusión
10
25 min de presentación, 10 de preguntas
30 min de presentaciones, 15 de preguntas
Discusión relativa a los desafíos y
oportunidades específicas del país.
Dr. Jaime Chang, USAID
· ¿Qué tan importantes son esos
hallazgos (los de la consulta regional) en
tu país?
· ¿Existen otros desafíos u
oportunidades en la respuesta a la malaria
Mie 1 Oct en tu país que también consideres
12:05-12:50 importante discutir?
Priorización de desafíos/oportunidades
específicas del país. Dr. Willy Lescano,
NAMRU-6
· ¿Cuáles son los tres mayores
desafíos u oportunidades que tu país
afronta en el trabajo para reducir y
eliminar la malaria?
Mie 1 Oct
Almuerzo
12:50-14:05
Sesión 1: Discusión facilitada sobre el
primer desafío / oportunidad tal y como ha
sido priorizado por los participantes.
· ¿Qué haces actualmente para abordar
ese desafío o aprovechar esa oportunidad
y cómo está funcionando?
· Roles principales y posibles
contribuciones de los diferentes actores
Mie 1 Oct en la implementación del AIM: MINSA,
14:05-15:05 Instituciones académicas/de investigación,
otros actores (gobierno, poblaciones
afectadas, etc.)
· Sabiendo lo que todos los actores
están haciendo a este respecto, ¿qué
acciones futuras ves ahora necesarias
para progresar en tus objetivos de
reducción o eliminación de la malaria?
Facilitador, Dr. Jorge Escobedo, MINSA
Sesión 2: Discusión facilitada sobre el
segundo desafío / oportunidad tal y como
ha sido priorizado por los participantes.
· ¿Qué haces actualmente para abordar
ese desafío o aprovechar esa oportunidad
y cómo está funcionando?
· Roles principales y posibles
contribuciones de los diferentes actores
Mie 1 Oct en la implementación del AIM: MINSA,
15:05-16:05 Instituciones académicas/de investigación,
otros actores (gobierno, poblaciones
afectadas, etc)
· Sabiendo lo que todos los actores
están haciendo a este respecto, ¿qué
acciones futuras ves ahora necesarias
para progresar en tus objetivos de
reducción o eliminación de la malaria?
Facilitador, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalvez, OPS
11
El facilitador solicitará a los participantes
validar y ampliar las conclusiones de la
consulta regional. Después, el grupo
priorizará los tres mayores desafíos u
oportunidades. Si hay tres sesiones se
fomentará la inclusión de al menos una
oportunidad. Éstas serán discutidas en las
siguientes sesiones.
Las sesiones facilitadas ofrecerán, en primer
lugar, una oportunidad para los diferentes
actores de intercambiar sus experiencias
con respecto al punto que se está
discutiendo y cómo está funcionando en su
entorno. Posteriormente, los actores
considerarán acciones futuras necesarias
para seguir avanzando (ej. que necesitan
cambiar, tanto si se requiere incrementar o
disminuir los esfuerzos como cambiarlo
completamente).
Igual que la anterior
Mie 1 Oct
Pausa para café
16:05-16:20
Sesión 3: Discusión facilitada sobre el
tercer desafío / oportunidad tal y como ha
sido priorizado por los participantes.
· ¿Qué haces actualmente para abordar
ese desafío o aprovechar esa oportunidad
y cómo está funcionando?
· Roles principales y posibles
contribuciones de los diferentes actores
Mie 1 Oct en la implementación del AIM: MINSA,
16:20-17:20 Instituciones académicas/de investigación,
otros actores (gobierno, poblaciones
afectadas, etc)
· Sabiendo lo que todos los actores
están haciendo a este respecto, ¿qué
acciones futuras ves ahora necesarias
para progresar en tus objetivos de
reducción o eliminación de la malaria?
Facilitador, Dr. Jaime Chang, USAID
Resumen de lo avanzado en el día. Retos
Mie 1 Oct
pendientes. Comentarios y discusión.
17:20-17:35
Dr. Luis Segura
Mie 1 Oct
Fin del día de trabajo.
17:35-17:45
Plan de acción local, siguientes seis
meses, antes de la siguiente ‘temporada’
de malaria
Moderador: Martin Clendenes, MINSA
• Teniendo en cuenta la lista de acciones
identificadas, ¿con cuáles podrías
empezar a trabajar inmediatamente como
país, con los recursos que tienes
disponibles?
• Roles principales y posibles
Jue 2 Oct
contribuciones de los diferentes actores
09:00-10:00
en la implementación del AIM: MINSA,
Instituciones académicas/de investigación,
otros actores (gobierno, poblaciones
afectadas, etc)
• ¿Qué acciones se beneficiarían de la
orientación, buenas prácticas, u otros
recursos incluidos en el AIM?
• ¿Podrías comentar alguna lección
aprendida que pudiera ser relevante para
otros países?
12
Igual que la anterior
Todos los participantes
Esta sección ofrece a los participantes la
oportunidad de discutir sobre cómo
aprovechar el impulso generado por el
encuentro sobre la consulta.
Además, provee al Equipo de Consultores
del AIM de ejemplos específicos sobre lo que
los países necesitan del documento AIM, así
como de una oportunidad para identificar
posibles estudios de caso para incluir en el
documento.
30 min para trabajo en tres grupos,
presentación de 5m cada grupos, 15m
discusión y preguntas
Plan de acción local, siguientes 18 meses,
pre-lanzamiento AIM
· Que acciones futuras son necesarias
para lograr los objetivos de reducción o
eliminación de la malaria
· Roles principales y posibles
contribuciones de los diferentes actores
en la implementación del AIM: MINSA,
Instituciones académicas/de investigación,
Jue
2 otros actores (gobierno, poblaciones
30 min para trabajo en tres grupos,
Oct10:00afectadas, etc)
presentación de 5m cada grupos, 15m
11:00
· ¿Cuáles de esas acciones se pueden discusión y preguntas
empezar a llevar a cabo de forma
inmediata con los recursos que hay
disponibles?
· En relación a aquellas que no se
pueden empezar a llevar a cabo, ¿qué se
necesitaría de otros sectores,
organizaciones, empresas o comunidades
para iniciar esas acciones?
Moderador: Jorge Escobedo, MINSA
Jue 2 Oct
Cierre. Dr. Martin Clendenes, MINSA
11:00-11:10
Jue 2 Oct
Fin del evento.
11:10
13
Annex 3: Priority Actions identified at the consultation
Priority Actions for great multisectoral involvement in malaria
•
National level of Ministry of Health does advocate to other Government sectors at the national, as
well as to the regional governments to call for multisectoral action in the malaria
control/elimination.
•
By including specific items in the performance based budget, to ensure domestic funds provide
financial support to activities in public health, education and housing sectors oriented to the
malaria control/elimination
•
To guide multisectoral strategies and actions with high quality evidence (research).
Priority Actions to overcome challenges in the availability of funds and its management
•
To advocate for malaria control/elimination, raising its priority in the national, regional and local
development agenda, based in available evidence and proposing realistic, mid and long term
targets.
•
To enhance technical and financial capabilities of the Ministry of Health regarding incidence on
decision makers and population, so they can effectively advocate for additional and sustained
resources in malaria control/elimination.
•
To develop a National Plan of Malaria Control/elimination with clear identification of specific roles
across sectors.
•
To enhance technical staff and capabilities of malaria control programs at the national and
regional levels.
Priority Actions to overcome challenges in the access to malaria related services.
•
To include cultural, financial and geographical dimensions in definition of access.
•
To ensure financial support for outreach activities in malaria control.
•
To provide enough incentives, including money, to community health volunteers.
•
Low transmission areas should also be included in malaria control activities.
•
To coordinate with another sectors looking for enhanced coverage and synergies
14
Annex 4: List of participants at consultative meetings
ID
NAME
ORGANIZATION
1 Dr. Luis Miguel Leon
Dra. María Paulina Esther Giusti
2
Hundskopf
Despacho Vice-ministerial - MINSA
Viceministra De Prestaciones Y Aseguramiento En Salud MINSA
3 Dr. Guillermo Gonzalvez
Organización Panamericana de la Salud - OPS
4 Dr. Jaime Chang
U.S. Agency for International Development - USAID
5 Dr. Armando Cotrina
6 Dra. Caroline Chang
Dr. Henry Rebaza Iparraguirre
7
(Director General)
Dr. Orlando Martin Clendenes
8
Alvarado
U.S. Agency for International Development - USAID
ORAS-CONHU
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
Dirección General de Salud de las Personas (DGSP) MINSA
9 Dr. Jorge Escobedo Paredes
10 Dra. Domitila Huamán Baltazar
Dra. Edith Magaly Rodriguez
Muñoz
Dr. Constantino Severo Vila
12
Córdova
Dra. Elízabeth Karon Saavedra
13
Rodríguez
11
14 Dra. Margarita Arias Vargas
15 Dra. Estela Ramirez Montoya
Dr. Martín Javier Alfredo Yagui
Moscoso
17 Dr. Juan Carlos Arrasco Alegre
18 Dra. María Elena Ogosuku Asato
19 Dra. Marlene Flores Ching
16
Dirección General de Epidemiologia (DGE) - MINSA
20 Dra. Sonia Loarte Céspedes
22 Lic. Estela Aurora Roeder Carbo
Dirección General de Epidemiologia (DGE) - MINSA
Dirección General de Salud Ambiental (DIGESA) - MINSA
Dirección General de Salud Ambiental (DIGESA) - MINSA
Dirección General para la Promoción de la Salud (DGPS) MINSA
Dirección General para la Promoción de la Salud (DGPS) MINSA
Oficina General de Comunicaciones (OGC) - MINSA
23 Dra. Silvia Adriana Yopla Sosa
Oficina General de Comunicaciones (OGC) - MINSA
21 Dr. Bernardo Elvis Ostos Jara
24 Q.F. Judy Castañeda
25 Blga. Nancy Arrospide Velasco
Dr. Luis Fernando Donaires
26
Toscano
Dirección General de Medicamentos, Insumos y Drogas
(DIGEMID) - MINSA
Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS)
Instituto Nacional de Salud (INS)
15
27 Blgo. Daniel Chuchon
DIRESA - Junín
28 Dr. Cristian Armando Carey Angeles DIRESA - Loreto
Rommell Veintimilla Gonzalez
29
DIRESA - Tumbes
Seminario
30 Dr. Jorge Luis Asencios Rivera
DIRESA - Madre de Dios
31 Lic. Halder Isla
DIRESA - Lambayeque
32 Dra. Tania Cardenas Gomez
Med. Vet. Amelia Palomino
33
Huamani
Sra. Blanca Magali Silva Velarde
34
Alvarez
Ing. Edgar Martin Romero La
35
Puerte
36 Dra. Jessica Oliva
DIRESA - Ayacucho
37 Sr. Carlos Soraluz
Junta Nacional de Regantes de Agua (ANA) - MINAGRI
Superintendencia de Transporte Terrestre de Personas,
Carga y Mercancia (SUTRAN) - MITRAN
Programa Nacional de Innovación Agraria en Arroz (INIA) MITRAN
Directora de la Dirección de Educación Comunitaria y
Ambiental - MINEDU
38 Sr. Alfredo Yañez Pajuelo
39 Ing. Orlando Palacios Agurto
40 Lic. Aurora Rubi Zegarra Huapaya
DIRESA - Ayacucho
Ministra, Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo MINCETUR
Ministerio del Ambiente - MINAM
Ministerio de Vivienda - MINVI
41 Dr. Alejandro Llanos Cuentas
Instituto de Medicina Tropical - UPCH
42 Dra. Dionicia Gamboa
Instituto de Medicina Tropical - UPCH
43 Dr. Jorge Alarcón Villaverde
Instituto de Medicina Tropical - UNMSM
44 Dr. Manuel Francisco Muro Cortez
PlusPetrol
45 Carlos Justino Priale Pinillos
PlusPetrol
46 Guillermo F. Redhead Bustamante
PlusPetrol
Asociacion de Mineros Artesanales de Bajo Pukiri
(AMACUP)
47 Sr. Pedro Donayre Purilla
48 Dr. Luis Segura
Swiss TPH
49 Dr. Andres G. Lescano
NAMRU-6
50 Dr. Edward Smith
NAMRU-6
51 Dr. Salomon Durand
NAMRU-6
52 Lic. Vanessa Cabellos
53 Flor Lopez Valdez-Hinvi
NAMRU-6
Ministerio de Vivienda
54 Dr. Ruben Figueroa
MINSA
55 Lic. Liz Ampudia Ruiz
DGSPS-MINSA
56 Martin Barrera Tello
MINSA
16
Annex 5: Pictures of the engagement visits and
the consultative meeting
Rural village in the Amazon basin
Community engagement visit in Loreto
Community engagement visit in Piura
17
Country consultation opening speech by the
Vice-Minister of Health
Country consultation first day
Workgroup discussion
consultation
Workgroup discussion
consultation
during
the
country
18
during
the
country
Workgroup discussion
consultation
Ministry of Health endorsement to country
consultation
19
during
the
country
Fly UP