Article Sidebar
Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Global health strategies versus local primary health care priorities - a case study of national immunisation days in Southern Africa
Abstract
Building on the successful eradication of smallpox, the World Health Organisation, together with other agencies, is now moving quickly to the eradication of poliomyelitis, originally aimed for the year 2000. Plans for the subsequent global eradication of measles are in an advanced stage. Eradication of both polio and measles incorporate as a fundamental strategy high routine coverage, surveillance and special national immunisation days (NIDs), which are supplementary to routine vaccination services. There has been a lively debate on whether poor countries, with many health problems that could be controlled, should divert their limited resources for a global goal of eradication that may have low priority for their children. From a costeffectiveness perspective, NIDs are fully justifiable. However, field observations in sub-saharan Africa show that NIDs divert resources and, to a certain extent, attention from the development of comprehensive primary health care (pHC). The routine immunisation coverage rates dropped on average since the introduction of NIDs in 1996, which is contrary to what was observed in the western Pacific and other regions. The additional investment to be made when moving from disease control to eradication may exceed the financial capacity of an individual country. Since the industrialised countries benefit most from eradication, they should take responsibility for covering the needs of those countries that cannot afford the investment. The WHO's frequent argument that NIDs are promotive to PHr: is not confirmed in the southern African region. The authors think that the WHO should, therefore, focus its attention on diminishing the negative side-effects of NIDs and on getting the positive sideeffects incorporated in the integrated health services in a sustainable way.
