Many good drugs, no way to get them to the sick

Much money is spent on studying the health problems of the developing world. Only a small proportion goes on improving the effectiveness of health delivery systems. The imbalance is a distorted reflection of real needs.

There are no Nobel Prizes for ground-breaking research into the best ways of delivering health care — particularly in developing countries. Nor is a research paper on the topic, however brilliant or original, likely to get published in the top scientific journals. Indeed leading specialists in the field are unlikely to find themselves offered prestigious chairs in the world’s major research universities.

All this is despite the fact that, in terms of the world’s health needs, effective mechanisms for getting the result of biomedical research to the patients who could most benefit from it remains near the top of the priority list.

More than six million children die each year in the developing world, for example, from diseases that could be prevented by simple interventions. Even in the United States, it is estimated that one half of the population does not receive medical treatment from which it could benefit.

Yet debate on scientific priorities continues to focus primarily on the more glamorous end of the spectrum: the research leading to drugs, vaccines and treatments win prizes, are published in high-profile journals and open the door to glittering academic careers.


This distortion in research priorities is highlighted in a report published by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Claiming that half of the world’s deaths could be prevented with simple and cost-effective interventions, the report underlines the extent to which “malfunctioning health systems are at the heart of the problem”.

The principle targets of the report are health ministers and top health administrators attending an international summit in Mexico City. Hopefully, these will be persuaded that at both national and international level, research on health systems should be given much higher priority. The report recommends that about two percent of a country’s health budget should be spent in this area; at present, in many developing countries, the expenditure is less than one-twentieth of that.

Better communication

But the message needs wider acknowledgement. One group that needs to develop an adequate response is the gatekeepers of biomedical research results, and those responsible for getting such results into the hands of decision-makers. For much more attention is needed to ways of doing this effectively — not only using modern communications tools such as the internet — but also the professional skills of those expert in translating specialist knowledge into terms that non-specialists can understand.

A second group that needs to take on board the message of the WHO report is the world’s biomedical community. This is because of the central role that scientists themselves play not only in setting their research objectives, but also in establishing the criteria by which success in achieving such objectives is judged. And it has been these criteria that have been partly responsible for the low esteem in which such research is widely held in the academic community.

To some extent this has perhaps been an inevitable consequence of the nature of health systems research. Conventional academic research — particularly in the natural sciences — tends to be universal in both its subject matter and its application. In contrast, health systems research tends to be localised; it is unlikely that the best way of caring for HIV/Aids patients in Botswana is going to be immediately relevant to the situation in Thailand or Bolivia. Another related factor is the difficulty in assessing the health systems.

Far too little effort has gone into supporting efforts by those in the field to build their own, subject-specific techniques for producing the robust evidence on which to base effective health policies.

Academic research is not enough

Behind each of these factors lies the notion that the principal route to better health in the developing world lies in ensuring that diseases experienced largely in the developing world are given sufficient attention by academic researchers.

Academic research is certainly an essential dimension of the problem. As the Global Forum for Health Research is constantly reminding us, only 10% of the world’s health research funding is spent on diseases that effect the 90% of its population.

But research will only make an impact if it is applied. And this means that the work of academics must come to be seen by both policy-makers and researchers as part of ‘systems of biomedical innovation’ requiring the involvement of a range of professional expertise — including social scientists, government officials, and even the media.

Where this exists, the results can be impressive (and rewarding). Take, for example, the Tanzania Essential Health Interventions Project (Tehip) project that has been taking place for more than a decade. Financed by Canada’s International Development Research Centre, this has been looking at ways of bringing the priorities of local health care systems more closely into line with the actual distribution of disease. One result: a 40% drop in childhood mortality since the late 1990s.

The challenge of bridging the ‘know-do’ gap

The Tanzanian experience shows that health systems research, if carried out with commitment and a concern for its application, can have just as big an impact on health as new drugs or vaccines. The WHO is now examining ways in which the research results may be applied to other countries in the region. And the project has been highlighted as a convincing example of the way that carefully targeted and implemented aid projects can make a significant impact on the lives of those they seek to help.

The key challenge — and it is one which applies to the whole development scene — is finding better ways of closing what the WHO report describes as the ‘know-do’ gap. Knowledge itself and the skills to generate it are essential for development.

But knowledge can only have an impact if it is put into practice. And that requires a separate, equally essential, set of knowledge and skills. If the meeting in Mexico City provides meaningful political support for this message, it will have taken a small but significant step towards reducing the burden of disease on those who, given recent developments in biomedical science, should not still be suffering. — SciDev.Net

Subscribe to the M&G

These are unprecedented times, and the role of media to tell and record the story of South Africa as it develops is more important than ever.

The Mail & Guardian is a proud news publisher with roots stretching back 35 years, and we’ve survived right from day one thanks to the support of readers who value fiercely independent journalism that is beholden to no-one. To help us continue for another 35 future years with the same proud values, please consider taking out a subscription.

David Dickson
Guest Author

Related stories

A window of opportunity opens in the US

For several years, the United States Agency for International Development has been under growing pressure to adopt a more long-term approach to its support of science and technology in developing countries. The agency now supports a wide spectrum of activities, but many feel that all these could benefit from a more coherent commitment.

Climate change: an American farce, a global tragedy

Even a seasoned political operator like Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair will have found it difficult to swallow the relative failure of this year's Group of Eight (G8) summit meeting to produce any significant movement on the issue of climate change. Blair began his campaign for a different outcome more than a year ago, when he took over the presidency of the G8 group.

Africa learns from Aids vaccine setbacks

Disappointing results of clinical trials for a promising pair of new Aids vaccines have highlighted the dilemmas faced by those determining strategy in this field. Recently, a prominent Kenyan newspaper carried the headline "Aids vaccine trials flop". The following day, the same newspaper carried a second news story, this time with the headline "Search for Aids cure 'not a flop'". At first sight, the two headlines appear contradictory.

DRC’s long road to TRC

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) President Joseph Kabila has ratified an Act bringing the country's truth and reconciliation commission into being. The Act comes within weeks of hostilities that culminated in the seizure and pillage of Bukavu by renegade forces. Post-conflict transformation isn't possible in the DRC, a country still at war with itself.

The good — and bad — news about Aids

There was both bad and good news for delegates preparing for the International Aids Conference in Bangkok. The bad news took the form of yet another warning of the potential threat of the disease to developing countries, and of the dangers of complacency. The good news came from two papers in the scientific literature, both indicating that the costs of treating Aids patients need not be as high as widely feared.
Advertising
Advertising

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…

The best local and international journalism

handpicked and in your inbox every weekday