Which Top Family Planning Research Findings should be put into Practice? Vote!

Which are the most important family planning research findings that should be put into practice? Authors for an upcoming Population Reports issue on the topic invite you to vote for the top three findings from a list of seven. For example, WHO recommends that family planning clients receive up to a year’s supply of pills, or as many pill packs as feasible, at the first visit. Research finds that women who get a full year’s supply of pills are more likely to use the method effectively, without interruption. This practice is rare in many countries, however. Have a more urgent finding that should become a practice? Vote and then write a comment on INFO’s Blog.

Are Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Unfair to Africa?

“At the midway point between their adoption in 2000 and the 2015 target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, sub-Saharan Africa is not on track to achieve any of the Goals”. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/docs/MDGafrica07.pdf

Yes, according to William Easterly, author of “The White Man’s Burden”, at a February 6 event, Africa was set up to fail by the way MDG targets were set and indicators defined (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0206_africa.aspx). With wit and by taking occasional cheap shots at those who developed the MDG goals and targets, Easterly held the attention of a large audience. Using data and trends, he made a compelling case why MDGs did not give sub-Saharan Africa credit for its considerable progress, thus contributing to the stereotype of “Africa’s failure”. In his response, Danny Leipziger of the World Bank took issue with many of Easterly’s claims pointing out, for example, that Tanzania was treated no different from Nepal for most MDG goals. Here is the question: Do you believe that MDGs are fair or unfair to Africa?

Who decides what to evaluate, how and when?

A systematic review of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that 15 percent of all its reports included impact assessments, but noted that “many evaluations were unable to properly assess impact because of methodological shortcomings” (Victora 1995). A review of 127 studies of 258 community health financing programs found that only two studies were able to derive robust conclusions about the impact on access to health services (ILO 2002).

International consensus is growing that more and better impact evaluations are needed. Only by applying scientific rigor can development programs show that they produce results and offer a good return on the investment. The World Bank has made considerable investments in evaluating the impact of many of its development programs. Other donors like the UK and the Netherlands are joining forces. However, impact evaluations are expensive and not all programs need them. Here is the question: How to decide which programs should have an impact evaluation, who should decide and when? Let us know what you think!

Are you interested in the APHA Trade and Health Forum?

The APHA Trade and Health Forum was formed last April.  Some of you have asked for an update as to what the forum is, what it has done, and plans for the coming year.   

This past year’s APHA conference in Washington DC included the first face-to-face business meeting of the new Forum on Trade and Health. Over 25 people from a variety of sections gathered to discuss how global trade affects public health, and what we can do about it. The Forum sponsored three oral sessions and one poster session, and co-sponsored several other events. The Forum welcomes new participants from any section!