Malaria remains one of the leading health problems of the developing world, and Uganda bears a particularly large burden from the disease. Our understanding is limited by a lack of reliable data, but it is clear that the prevalence of malaria infection, incidence of disease, and mortality from severe malaria all remain very high. Uganda has made progress in implementing key malaria control measures, in particular distribution of insecticide impregnated bednets, indoor residual spraying of insecticides, utilization of artemisinin-based combination therapy to treat uncomplicated malaria, and provision of intermittent preventive therapy for pregnant women. However, despite enthusiasm regarding the potential for the elimination of malaria in other areas, there is no convincing evidence that the burden of malaria has decreased in Uganda in recent years. Major challenges to malaria control in Uganda include very high malaria transmission intensity, inadequate health care resources, a weak health system, inadequate understanding of malaria epidemiology and the impact of control interventions, increasing resistance of parasites to drugs and of mosquitoes to insecticides, inappropriate case management, inadequate utilization of drugs to prevent malaria, and inadequate epidemic preparedness and response. Despite these challenges, prospects for the control of malaria have improved, and with attention to underlying challenges, progress toward the control of malaria in Uganda can be expected.

These data demonstrate the effectiveness of ART in a low-resource setting. Children and patients of all ages taking the d4T/3TC/NVP regimen were more likely to have viral failure. Our data suggest that viral failure occurring 6 months or more after the start of ART regimens commonly used in Uganda is likely to be associated with NNRTI- and 3TC-resistant virus.

No abstract

Background In 2000 Uganda adopted the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response (IDSR) strategy, which aims to create a co-ordinated approach to the collection, analysis, interpretation, use and dissemination of surveillance data for guiding decision making on public health actions.Methods We used a monitoring framework recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-Atlanta to evaluate performance of the IDSR core indicators at the national level from 2001 to 2007. To determine the performance of IDSR at district and health facility levels over a 5-year period, we compared the evaluation results of a 2004 surveillance survey with findings from a baseline assessment in 2000. We also examined national-level funding for IDSR implementation during 2000–07.Results Our findings show improvements in the performance of IDSR, including: (1) improved reporting at the district level (49% in 2001; 85% in 2007); (2) an increase and then decrease in timeliness of reporting from districts to central level; and (3) an increase in analysed data at the local level (from 10% to 47% analysing at least one target disease, P < 0.01). The case fatality rate (CFR) for two target priority diseases (cholera and meningococcal meningitis) decreased during IDSR implementation (cholera: from 7% to 2%; meningitis: from 16% to 4%), most likely due to improved outbreak response. A comparison before and after implementation showed increased funding for IDSR from government and development partners. However, funding support decreased ten-fold from the government budget of 2000/01 through to 2007/08. Per capita input for disease surveillance activities increased from US$0.0046 in 1996–99 to US$0.0215 in 2000–07.Conclusion Implementation of IDSR was associated with improved surveillance and response efforts. However, decreased budgetary support from the government may be eroding these gains. Renewed efforts from government and other stakeholders are necessary to sustain and expand progress achieved through implementation of IDSR.