http://www.thelancetstudent.com/2007/10/06/the-case-for-free-mass-distribution-of-bednets-against-malaria/ Thelancetstudent.com is a recently established website for students in medicine and related health areas, with a particular emphasis on global health. In the student podcast, Editor Rhona MacDonald highlights new content and interviews student authors of a key article published that week. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:56:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.thelancetstudent.com/2007/10/06/the-case-for-free-mass-distribution-of-bednets-against-malaria/#comment-750 manuel Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:33:16 +0000 http://www.thelancetstudent.com/2007/10/06/the-case-for-free-mass-distribution-of-bednets-against-malaria/#comment-750 Just read this nice synthesis. While I agree that free bednet distribution can very rapidly achieve high and equitable coverage, the point made towards the end - that free mass distribution "is the only way to achieve sustained high density net coverage" is most likely not the case. Mass distribution can for instance not reach out to those children born after a campaign (or between campaigns), and sustainability of free distribution can not be guaranteed because eternal funding cannot be taken for granted. This is nicely demonstrated by the outcomes of the rolling continuation funding process at the Global Fund. Existing projects can be changed or ended after every funding period. If countries have to switch to commercial distribution because they cannot afford financing free distributions with their own budget, the lack of a commercial distribution chain may backfire on any previous efforts. That's where the argument for programme diversity originates. It's not about either - or. It's about finding the best solutions for each setting. Just read this nice synthesis. While I agree that free bednet distribution can very rapidly achieve high and equitable coverage, the point made towards the end - that free mass distribution “is the only way to achieve sustained high density net coverage” is most likely not the case. Mass distribution can for instance not reach out to those children born after a campaign (or between campaigns), and sustainability of free distribution can not be guaranteed because eternal funding cannot be taken for granted. This is nicely demonstrated by the outcomes of the rolling continuation funding process at the Global Fund. Existing projects can be changed or ended after every funding period. If countries have to switch to commercial distribution because they cannot afford financing free distributions with their own budget, the lack of a commercial distribution chain may backfire on any previous efforts. That’s where the argument for programme diversity originates. It’s not about either - or. It’s about finding the best solutions for each setting.

]]>