BackgroundNamibia is now ready to begin mass drug administration of praziquantel and albendazole against schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths, respectively. Although historical data identifies areas of transmission of these neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), there is a need to update epidemiological data. For this reason, Namibia adopted a new protocol for mapping of schistosomiasis and geohelminths, formally integrating rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for infections and morbidity. In this article, we explain the protocol in detail, and introduce the concept of ‘mapping resolution’, as well as present results and treatment recommendations for northern Namibia.Methods/Findings/InterpretationThis new protocol allowed a large sample to be surveyed (N = 17 896 children from 299 schools) at relatively low cost (7 USD per person mapped) and very quickly (28 working days). All children were analysed by RDTs, but only a sub-sample was also diagnosed by light microscopy. Overall prevalence of schistosomiasis in the surveyed areas was 9.0%, highly associated with poorer access to potable water (OR = 1.5, P<0.001) and defective (OR = 1.2, P<0.001) or absent sanitation infrastructure (OR = 2.0, P<0.001). Overall prevalence of geohelminths, more particularly hookworm infection, was 12.2%, highly associated with presence of faecal occult blood (OR = 1.9, P<0.001). Prevalence maps were produced and hot spots identified to better guide the national programme in drug administration, as well as targeted improvements in water, sanitation and hygiene. The RDTs employed (circulating cathodic antigen and microhaematuria for Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium, respectively) performed well, with sensitivities above 80% and specificities above 95%.Conclusion/SignificanceThis protocol is cost-effective and sensitive to budget limitations and the potential economic and logistical strains placed on the national Ministries of Health. Here we present a high resolution map of disease prevalence levels, and treatment regimens are recommended.
Thanks also to Dominic Byatt, an editor's editor, who guided the manuscript deftly through the review and publication process, and to three anonymous reviewers for Oxford University Press, each of whom made many helpful comments and suggestions. As a result of their assistance, the book you have before you is much better than the manuscript that they were sent.My final thanks go to my wife Della Davidson, whose loving support and encouragement I was lucky enough to enjoy for twenty-seven years. Her faith in me and her enthusiasm for my work never faded, even when she was forced to embark on a merciless battle with breast cancer during the last year of the book's creation. I could not have written this book without her. I miss her very, very much.
When faced with multiple claims to a particular good, what does distributive justice require? To answer this question, we need a substantive moral theory that will enable us assign relative moral weights to the parties' claims. But this is not all we need. Once we have assessed the moral weight of each party's claim, we still need to decide what method of distribution to employ, for there are two methods open to us. We could take the winner-take-all approach, and award the good to the party with the strongest claim. On the other hand, we could divide the good proportionally, according to the relative strength of each party's claim. Because the choice between these two methods of distribution can have a dramatic impact on the resulting pattern of distribution, the choice presents a question of justice. But this is a question of justice that is often overlooked. As a result, we currently employ the principle of proportionality far less often than justice actually requires. If we focus on the question of distributive method, however, we are not only better able to understand how certain reasons enter into our all-things-considered moral judgments, we are also able to explain some perplexing but common aspects of our moral beliefs: how rights can be said to have peremptory force, yet still be balanced against other important interests; how justice can sometimes require compromise, yet sometimes require victory; and how a moral theory can avoid being too demanding while still being demanding enough.
For years now, public education, and especially public higher education, has been under attack. Funding has been drastically reduced, fees increased, and the seemingly irresistible political force of ever-tightening austerity budgets threatens to cut it even more. But I am not going to take the standard line that government financial support for public higher education should be increased. I view that battle as already lost. What I am going to propose is that we stop arguing about the allocation or reallocation of ever more scarce public resources and think of another way to fund public higher education. It is time for a new approach, one that satisfies the left's claim that higher education should be affordable for all, yet one that does not involve increasing the expenditure of public funds or committing the government to entitlement programs that it cannot now or at least cannot long afford. What we need is a new proposal that is acceptable to both sides if we are to bring public education into the twenty-first century. And this is what this article is devoted to providing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.