Abstract

The scale-up of malaria control efforts in recent years, coupled with major investments in malaria research, has produced impressive public health impact in a number of countries and has led to the development of new tools and strategies aimed at further consolidating malaria control goals. As a result, there is a growing need for the malaria policy setting process to rapidly review increasing amounts of evidence.The World Health Organization Global Malaria Programme, in keeping with its mandate to set evidence-informed policies for malaria control, has convened the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee as a mechanism to increase the timeliness, transparency, independence and relevance of its recommendations to World Health Organization member states in relation to malaria control and elimination.The Malaria Policy Advisory Committee, composed of 15 world-renowned malaria experts, will meet in full twice a year, with the inaugural meeting scheduled for 31 January to 2 February 2012 in Geneva. Policy recommendations, and the evidence to support them, will be published within two months of every meeting as part of an open access Malaria Journal thematic series. This article is a prelude to that series and provides the global malaria community with the background and overview of the Committee and its terms of reference.

Highlights

  • The World Health Organization Global Malaria Programme (WHO-GMP) has four essential roles [1] (i) to set, communicate, and promote the adoption of evidence-based norms, standards, policies, and guidelines; (ii) to keep independent score of global progress; (iii) to develop approaches for capacity building, systems strengthening and surveillance; and (iv) to identify threats to malaria control and elimination, as well as new opportunities for action.Last year, WHO-GMP embarked on a major review and re-design of its policy setting process in order to be more responsive to the rapidly evolving malaria landscape

  • They proposed a framework for a new malaria policy committee strongly modelled on the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE), which sets global policy for immunizations - to address the shortcomings of previous policy processes

  • In critically reviewing its policy setting process and implementing changes to increase the timeliness and transparency of its policy recommendations, WHO-GMP is highlighting both its willingness to engage with key partners and its commitment to assist WHO member states in meeting their goals for malaria control and elimination

Read more

Summary

Background

The World Health Organization Global Malaria Programme (WHO-GMP) has four essential roles [1] (i) to set, communicate, and promote the adoption of evidence-based norms, standards, policies, and guidelines; (ii) to keep independent score of global progress; (iii) to develop approaches for capacity building, systems strengthening and surveillance; and (iv) to identify threats to malaria control and elimination, as well as new opportunities for action. Aims and functions of the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee The mandate of MPAC is to provide independent strategic advice and technical input for the development of WHO policy recommendations on all aspects of malaria control and elimination as part of a transparent, responsive and credible policy setting process. Evidence review mechanism Time-limited and specific Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) will be established to review and provide evidence-based information and options for recommendations These options will be discussed by the full MPAC in sessions open to representatives of stakeholders interested in malaria. Selected current Technical Expert Groups (TEGs), e.g. the TEG on malaria chemotherapy, will continue to function but will fall under the umbrella of MPAC together with the shorter-term ERGs. The MPAC, together with the WHO-GMP Director, will review the need for existing TEGs, and the creation of new ones, on a regular basis. Conditional recommendations will be reviewed regularly at MPAC meetings in case adjustments need to be made based on newly available evidence

Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.