New York Times columnist Nick Kristof is likely a well-known voice to New Security Beat readers. His ground-level development stories from around the world expose a range of neglected issues that usually struggle for mainstream media coverage: maternal health, microcredit, human trafficking, family planning, sanitation, micronutrients, and poverty, among others.

Kristof brought many of these threads together Half the Sky, a book he coauthored with his wife Sheryl WuDunn. I asked about the challenges of addressing these connected problems when I interviewed the couple and two frontline White Ribbon Alliance maternal health practitioners this fall at the Wilson Center.

While the negotiators failed to reach a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen, the population and reproductive health community might find a silver lining in the stormclouds that derailed COP-15.

Developing countries’ strong protests of their lack of culpability for the climate problem, on one hand, and the dramatic examples of their vulnerability on the other, have focused the world on the problems of poor people—and on potential solutions, including family planning.

Integrating maternal health and HIV/AIDS services “includes organizing and providing services that meet several needs simultaneously…focusing not only on the condition, but also the individual,” argued Dr. Claudes Kamenga, Senior Director of Technical Support and Research Utilization at Family Health International, during the first event of the Advancing Policy Dialogue on Maternal Health series co-convened by the Wilson Center’s Global Health Initiative, Maternal Health Task Force (MHTF), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and technical support from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Joined by Michele Moloney-Kitts, assistant coordinator at the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, and Harriet Birungi, a program associate with the Population Council in Kenya, the panelists discussed how integration of HIV/AIDS and maternal health services not only improves health outcomes, but also increases program efficiencies, strengthens health systems, and saves money.

On Friday, November 20th, 120 representatives from the maternal health community, the U.S. and around the world, gathered for an all day meeting at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars to discuss the report, Tackling the Biggest Maternal Killer: How the Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage Initiative Strengthened Efforts Around the World. This report describes the challenges and successes of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funded Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage Initiative (POPPHI).

The five-year POPPHI project was executed through the support of many partners whose main goal was to catalyze the expansion of active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL) worldwide. The conference convened experts and advocates in the field of maternal health, to share best practices, new innovations, and future challenges for tackling maternal health’s leading killer: postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Panelists included POPPHI field partners such as International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The International Confederation of Midwives, the World Health Organization, and international researchers.

Preventing Postpartum Hemorrhage: AMTSL

“We need to work on women postpartum–after birth we leave them,” argued Deborah Armbruster, POPPHI Project Director. Due to the fact that many women in the developing world give birth at home or in local clinics that lack the sufficient resources to prevent postpartum hemorrhaging, approximately 132,000 women die annually. Fortunately, effective and feasible interventions such as those established by POPPHI have been proven to save lives.

Active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL) includes three factors that, when used together, can avert postpartum hemorrhage, including:

1. Administration of uterotonic drugs (including oxytocin – the most preferred drug)
2. Controlled cord contraction
3. Uterine massage after the delivery of the placenta

POPPHI’s “BOLD” Approach

In collaboration with its partners, POPPHI implemented country-level and global programs to scale up AMTSL. Driven by the “BOLD” approach, Armbruster described how the initiative provided overall frameworks and approaches for strengthening PPH interventions by Building on evidence, Obtaining consensus, Linking partners, and Demonstrating to policymakers AMTSL’s feasibility.

Additionally, POPPHI provided learning materials such as toolkits, fact sheets, posters, and guides that were used to train providers and increase their use of AMTSL. A pilot project on Uniject (a single use needle pre-prepared with oxytocin) was also executed in Mali. Uniject was shown to be acceptable and successful with birth attendants there, and the study is now being replicated in Honduras.

Voices from the Field

Representatives from Argentina, Bangladesh, Ghana, Guatemala, Peru, and Mali presented their country results with the POPPHI project–concluding that the initiative served as a catalyst for upscaling AMTSL. Dr. Abu Jamil Faisel, Project Director and Country Representative of EngenderHealth in Bangladesh, discussed how the project helped to break through misperceptions that often prevented women from wanting to use misoprostol. In Ghana, policymakers worked with program managers and drug suppliers to register misoprostol in the country’s essential medicine list and updated guidelines to reflect best practices. While each country’s experiences were unique, the importance of partnerships was common to successfully upscaling AMTSL in all locations.

Partnerships: Critical to Success

Integrating maternal health indicators directly into program design is imperative to upscaling AMTSL, argued Niamh Darcy, Director of POPPHI Monitor and Evaluation. Additionally, Darcy argued that the success of POPPHI is due to the project’s emphasis in working with all levels of partners, particularly facility providers. Working with the supportive supervisors at facilities is necessary according to Darcy because this group is ultimately responsible for executing active management and recording project outcomes.

Identifying African experts who have taken leadership and ownership of the project has been instrumental in POPPHI successfully disseminating results at the regional, national and international levels argued Doyin Oluwole, Director, Africa’s Health in 2010. Partnering with local champions as well as policymakers has enabled many of the country projects to build capacity and upscale AMTSL.

Building on Lessons Learned

“A key lesson we have learned is that, when there is political commitment, AMTSL is rapidly scalable,” stated Lily Kak, Senior Maternal and Newborn Health Advisor, USAID. Changing behaviors and practices takes significant amount of resources and time commitment, however, POPPHI demonstrates that partnerships and research can be used to upscale AMTSL and change policies more efficiently.

Photo: Women wait outside a maternity ward in Chad. Courtesy of Flickr user mknobil.

Stabilizing and rebuilding state infrastructure in post-conflict settings has been increasingly recognized as critical to aiding the population and preventing renewed conflict. The United States has increasingly invested in rebuilding health systems, and in some cases assisting in the delivery of health services for the first time.

While global health concerns have recently received significant attention, as witnessed by President Obama’s Global Health Initiative, the importance of health system reconstruction to stabilization efforts remains unevenly recognized. On November 10, 2009, experts met at the Global Health Council’s Humanitarian Health Caucus to discuss investing in health services in the wake of war and the challenges of funding this investment.

“Deconstruction from violence extends beyond the time of war and often leads to severe damage of health infrastructure, decreased health workers, food shortages, and diseases…resulting in increased morbidity and mortality from causes that are not directly related to combat,” shared Leonard Rubenstein, a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Rubenstein argued that while relieving suffering in post-conflict settings should be a sufficient reason to include health reconstruction in U.S. foreign policy, policymakers narrowly define rationales for engagement based on claims that investments increase peace and improve the image of the U.S. government.

Investing in Health Systems Builds State Legitimacy

The evidence for investing in health systems to deter future conflict is limited and this approach is dangerous, according to Rubenstein, because it distorts spending decisions and fails to consider comprehensive capacity development strategies. Additionally, the Department of Defense’s approach of “winning the hearts and minds” is too short-term and neither linked to “system-building activities that are effective and sustainable…nor consistent with advancing the health of the population,” he said.

Instead, Rubenstein recommended that the United States invest in health systems after conflict because it advances state legitimacy. Although additional evidence is necessary, Rubenstein maintains that the promotion of state legitimacy enhances the perception that the government is responding to their long-term needs and encourages local ownership and accountability. Developing health systems in post-conflict settings is complex and cannot be done quickly, he noted, and thus increased financial and human resource capacities will be essential.

Coordination and Transition Funding

“We need to recognize that the U.S. is not the only funder, as there are many stakeholders involved,” argued Stephen Commins, strategy manager for fragile states at the International Medical Corps. Commins argued that there is a “desperate need to coordinate donor funding … both within and across government systems, as well as an increased need for transparent donor tracking systems.”

As countries come out of conflict and start to gain government legitimacy, they need increased support to stabilize conflict and avoid collapse. Transition funding for health systems needs to support both short and long-term efforts, maintained Commins, but unfortunately the donors driving these timelines are often driven by self-interest, not the rights of the individual living in conflict.

Without a transparent donor tracking system, it is hard to demonstrate actual monetary disbursements versus commitments, so Commins called for a system that tracks allocations and spending in real time. These are not our countries, he argued, and responding to health systems in post-conflict settings should be tailored to the country’s needs, not the donor’s. He also called for increased research that describes, over time, the costs for rebuilding and transitioning from international NGO-driven systems to self-sustained governments.

Rebuilding Health Systems in Sudan

George Kijana, health coordinator in southern Sudan for the International Rescue Committee, discussed reasons for why Sudan’s health system remains poor five years after conflict. According to Kijana, the government in Southern Sudan has not been held accountable by its donors, leading to a breakdown in infrastructure and a lower quality of health workers.

Additionally, a majority of the available health data comes from non-state actors that are not easily accessible. Kijana shared that in order for Sudan to move forward, more research and data are needed to help target long-term capacity building projects, as well as short-term interventions that address infant and maternal mortality. While progress is slow, he pointed out encouraging signs of progress, as the Ministry of Health now recognizes their weaknesses and positively engages with its development partners such as the United Nations.

Photo: Romanian Patrol administers medical treatment to Afghan communities, courtesy of Flickr user lafrancevi.

MORE

The Center for Global Development’s latest report, Start With A Girl: A New Agenda For Global Health, sheds light on the risks of ignoring the health of adolescent girls. Like other reports in the Girls Count series, it links broad social outcomes with adolescent health. “Adolescence is a critical juncture for girls. What happens to a girl’s health during adolescence determines her future–and that of her family, community, and country,” state coauthors Miriam Temin and Ruth Levine.

Between childhood and pregnancy, adolescent girls are largely ignored by the public health sector. At the same time, programs and policies aimed at youth do not necessarily meet the specific needs of girls. Understanding the social forces that shape girls’ lives is imperative to improving their health.

Like recent books by Michelle Goldberg and Nicholas Kristof, the report argues for increased investment in girls’ education to break down the social and economic barriers that prevent adolescent girls from reaching their full potential. Improving adolescent girls’ health will require addressing gender inequality, discrimination, poverty, and gender-based violence.

“For many girls in developing countries, well-being is compromised by poor education, violence, and abuse,” say Temin and Levin. “Girls must overcome a panoply of barriers, from restrictions of their movement to taboos about discussion of sexuality to lack of autonomy.” The report points to innovative government and NGO programs that have successfully changed negative social norms, such as female genital cutting and child marriage. However, the authors urge researchers to examine the cost-effectiveness and scalability of these programs.

In the last five years, the international community has become increasingly aware of the importance of youth to social and economic development. Some new programs are focused on investing in adolescent girls, such as the World Bank’s Adolescent Girls Initiative and the White House Council on Women and Girls, but significant additional investment and support is needed.

“Big changes for girls’ health require big actions by national governments supported by bilateral and multilateral donor partners, international NGOs…civil society and committed leaders in the private sector,” maintain Temin and Levin. They offer eight recommendations:
1. Implement a comprehensive health agenda for adolescent girls in at least three countries by working with countries that demonstrate national leadership on adolescent girls.
2. Eliminate marriage for girls younger than 18.
3. Place adolescent girls at the center of international and national action and investment on maternal health.
4. Focus HIV prevention on adolescent girls.
5. Make health-systems strengthening and monitoring work for girls.
6. Make secondary school completion a priority for adolescent girls.
7. Create an innovation fund for girls’ health.
8. Increase donor support for adolescent girls’ health.

“We estimate that a complete set of interventions, including health services and community and school-based efforts, would cost about $1 per day,” say the authors of Start With a Girl. There is no doubt in my mind that this small investment would indeed have a high return for the entire global community.

“Family planning is one of the biggest success stories of development cooperation,” said Bert Koenders, Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, via video at a Wilson Center roundtable discussion on the future of family planning funding. Koenders was followed by representatives of three of the field’s largest donors, Musimbi Kanyoro, director of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation’s Population and Reproductive Health Program; José “Oying” Rimon, senior program officer for Global Health Policy and Advocacy at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; and Scott Radloff, director of USAID’s Office of Population and Reproductive Health.

“We have a new administration that places a priority on family planning and reproductive health,” Scott Radloff, director of the Office of Population and Reproductive Health at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), tells ECSP Director Geoff Dabelko after a discussion on the future of family planning at the Woodrow Wilson Center.