Discourse on malaria elimination: where do forcibly displaced persons fit in these discussions?

Malaria Journal (Impact Factor: 3.49). 04/2013; 12(1):121. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-121
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background
Individuals forcibly displaced are some of the poorest people in the world, living in areas where infrastructure and services are at a bare minimum. Out of a total of 10,549,686 refugees protected and assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees globally, 6,917,496 (65.6%) live in areas where malaria is transmitted. Historically, national malaria control programmes have excluded displaced populations.

The current discourse on malaria elimination rarely includes discussion of forcibly displaced persons who reside within malaria-eliminating countries. Of the 100 malaria-endemic countries, 64 are controlling malaria and 36 are in some stage of elimination. Of these, 30 malaria-controlling countries and 13 countries in some phase of elimination host displaced populations of ≥50,000, even though 13 of the 36 (36.1%) malaria-elimination countries host displaced populations of ≥50,000 people.

Now is the time for the malaria community to incorporate forcibly displaced populations residing within malarious areas into malaria control activities. Beneficiaries, whether they are internally displaced persons or refugees, should be viewed as partners in the delivery of malaria interventions and not simply as recipients.

Until equitable and sustainable malaria control includes everyone residing in an endemic area, the goal of malaria elimination will not be met.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although population mobility is frequently cited as a barrier to malaria elimination, a comparatively small body of literature has attempted to systematically examine this issue. This article reviews the literature on malaria and mobile populations in order to critically examine the ways that malaria elimination experts perceive the risks surrounding population mobility. The article brings in perspectives from HIV/AIDS and other infectious disease control programmes working in areas of high population mobility. The article aims to move beyond the current tendency to identify mobile populations as a risk group and suggests ways to reconceptualize and respond to population mobility within malaria elimination.
    Malaria Journal 08/2014; 13(1):307. DOI:10.1186/1475-2875-13-307 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This commentary offers a note of caution about the negative social impact that may be inadvertently generated through malaria elimination activities. In particular, the commentary is concerned with the practice of describing people who remain at risk of malaria in low transmission settings as 'hotpops' or 'reservoirs of infection.' The authors argue that since those at risk of malaria in elimination settings are often already socially marginalized - such as migrants, indigenous groups, ethnic minorities and poor rural communities - that care should be taken to avoid implementing programmes in ways that may inadvertently add to the social stigmatization of those most at risk of malaria in a low transmission setting. Programmes should avoid using language that identifies particular groups as a source of infection, and instead begin a broader shift in orientation toward engaging constructively with communities within elimination strategies. Programmes should promote monitoring and evaluation to ensure that unintended negative consequences such as stigma do not occur; advocate for appropriate resourcing (human, financial, other) to minimize the risk of short cuts being used to achieve an end game that may discriminate against specific groups; and strengthen community engagement activities in elimination setting to avoid targeting stigmatized groups and to empower communities to prevent outbreaks and re-introduction of malaria. In this way malaria elimination can be achieved without stigmatization.
    Malaria Journal 09/2014; 13(1):377. DOI:10.1186/1475-2875-13-377 · 3.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) are important tools in malaria control. South Sudan, like many other endemic countries, has struggled to improve LLIN coverage and utilization. In 2006, Southern Sudan - known as South Sudan after independence in 2011 - initiated a strategic plan to increase LLIN coverage so that at least 60% of households had at least one LLIN each. By 2008, the target coverage was 80% of households and the Global Fund had financed a phased scale-up of LLIN distribution in the region. South Sudan's entire population is considered to be at risk of malaria. Poor control of the vectors and the large-scale movements of returnees, internally displaced people and refugees have exacerbated the problem. By 2012, approximately 8.0 million LLINs had been distributed in South Sudan. Between 2006 and 2009, the percentage of households possessing at least one LLIN increased from about 12% to 53% and LLIN utilization rates increased from 5 to 25% among children younger than 5 years and from 5 to 36% among pregnant women. The number of recorded malaria cases increased from 71 948 in 2008 to 1 198 357 in 2012. In post-conflict settings, a phased programme for the national scale-up of LLIN coverage may not have a substantial impact. A nationwide campaign that is centrally coordinated and based on sound guidelines may offer greater benefits. A strong partnership base and effective channels for the timely and supplementary deployment of LLINs may be essential for universal coverage.
    Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 04/2014; 92(4):290-6. DOI:10.2471/BLT.13.126862 · 5.11 Impact Factor

Preview (3 Sources)

Available from