RHA course announcement

A good assessment is the key to a successful emergency response. A disaster needs assessment serves two primary purposes. First, it will assist in the development of the response priorities and plans. Second, it can support the resource mobilization activities for external assistance should the disaster be of such a magnitude that the humanitarian obligations cannot be met within the limits of budgeted resources. Assessment of health needs is one of the most important areas that disaster need assessment should cover.

South East Asian countries, with more or less similar geographic, topographical and climatic characteristics, are very prone to disasters from natural hazards such as typhoons, floods, landslides, drought, etc. Timely and effective response to such emergencies is of great importance. In order to plan and implement aid in an emergency, it is essential to know the health status of the affected population and to assess its vital needs.

While the needs of rapid health assessment implementation obviously exist, expertise in this area in
Vietnam in particular and in the South East Asian region in general is still limited. Conspicuously, capacity building for people working in this area is imperative. Moreover, expertise and practical operational experience sharing among the countries in the region is indispensable.

In order to meet the needs of capacity building and of networking enhancement in this field in the region, a 4-day intensive course on rapid health assessment will be jointly organized by the World Health Organization and Hanoi School of Public Health, the leading public health institution in Viet Nam, in
Hanoi from 27-30, November, 2007.

Regular BPH program

Subject objective

General objectives:
Student will be equiped by basic definition in disaster management, impacts to community health and public health system. Therefore, they can apply absorbed knowledge and disaster preventive principle for community health protection. 
Specific objectives: after finishing this course, students will have ability to:
1.      Present basic definition about disaster prevention: disaster definition, disaster classification, disaster risk, vunerable situation, disaster management definition.
2.      Describe disaster prevention network in health system and over the country.
3.      Present public health impacts of disaster.
4.      Make a plan for rapid health need assessment for community affected by disaster.
5.   Present all steps in making disaster prevention plan in health system

Assisstants:
Msc. Đỗ Thị HạnhTrang
BPH. Công Ngọc Long

Student obligation:
Reading this material: "Study on drug donations in the province of ACEH in Indonessia" and discuss among the group.
Reference books to read (available in the school library)
1.      Lê Thế Trung 2002, The community prepare for disaster prevention
2.      Lê Thế Trung 2003, Health emergency responses in disaster
3.      WHO 1989, Coping with disaster: roles of local health worker and community
4.      WHO 1999, Community emergency preparedness: a manual for managers and policy-makers
5.      WHO 1999, Rapid health assessment protocols for emergencies
6.      Noji, EK (ed) 1997, The public health consequences of disasters, Oxford University Press, New York.
7.      WHO/WPRO 2006, Field Manual for capacirty assessment of health facilities in responding to emergencies

Related website:
www.undp.org.vn/dmu/
www.who.int/disasters
www.ccfsc.org.vn
www.adpc.net
www.ifrc.org
www.paho.org

In-service BPH students

                                         TRAINING PLAN FOR IN-SERVICE BPH STUDENT

                                                           (25^th April to 9^th May 2007) Department: Disaster prevention

Trainee: Second year in-service student

Time: 8h00-11h00AM 25/April; 2, 7 and 9 May 2007

Venue: Room 6.3

Subject objective

General objectives:

   Student will be equiped by basic definition in disaster management, impacts to community health and public health system. Therefore, they can apply absorbed knowledge and disaster preventive principle for community health protection.

Specific objectives: after finishing this course, students will have ability to:

1. Present basic definition about disaster prevention: disaster definition, disaster classification, disaster risk, vunerable situation, disaster management definition.

2. Describe disaster prevention network in health system and over the country.

3. Present public health impacts of disaster.

4. Make a plan for rapid health need assessment for community affected by disaster.

5. Present all steps in making disaster prevention plan in health system.

Nội dung

Post test: Multi choices question
Lecturers:

Prof. Lê Thế Trung
PHD. Hà Văn Như

Assisstants:
Msc. Đỗ Thị HạnhTrang
BPH. Công Ngọc Long

Student obligation:
- Reading disaster course book “Emergency medicine”
- Each student collect information about disaster prevention plans, some preventive activities in their working place. These information will be presented and discussed in the class. Agenda for this action is announced to students 2 weeks before the subject start.

Reference books to read (available in the school library)
1. Lê Thế Trung 2002, The community prepare for disaster prevention
2. Lê Thế Trung 2003, Health emergency responses in disaster
3. WHO 1989, Coping with disaster: roles of local health worker and community
4. WHO 1999, Community emergency preparedness: a manual for managers and policy-makers
5. WHO 1999, Rapid health assessment protocols for emergencies
6. Noji, EK (ed) 1997, The public health consequences of disasters, Oxford University Press, New York.
7. WHO/WPRO 2006, Field Manual for capacirty assessment of health facilities in responding to emergencies

Related website:

www.undp.org.vn/dmu/
www.who.int/disasters
www.ccfsc.org.vn
www.adpc.net
www.ifrc.org
www.paho.org
www.cdc.gov

MICRODIS Health Group Meeting Hanoi 30th Sep - 1st Oct

 

1. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: 
 
Group 
 
Name 
 
Organization 
 
Contact in Hanoi 
 
All 
Debarati Guha-Sapir 
University Catholique de Louvain (UCL), CRED - Belgium 
Horison Hotel, 
integr 
Terry Cannon 
University of Greenwich, School of Humanities - United Kingdom Tel: 044-7808940276 
Ha Noi Hotel, Rm: 1419 
integr 
Alexandre Borde 
Ferurbat University de Paris 4 - France 
Ha Noi Hotel, Rm: 605 
health 
Marita Luotamo 
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) -Finland 
health 
 
Valerie Louis 
<Valerie.Louis@urz.uni-heidelberg.de> 
EVAPLAN, University of Heidelberg, Department of Tropical and Public Health – Germany 
Ha Noi Hotel, Rm: 318 Tel: 0934245298 
health 
Michael Marx 
EVAPLAN, University of Heidelberg, Department of Tropical and Public Health  - Germany 
Ha Noi Hotel 
Tel: 0934240529 
health 
M.Meghachandra Singh 
Department of Community Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi-110002 - India 
Can not attend 
health 
P.C. Bhatnagar 
Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI) - India 
Can not attend 
health 
Renti Mahkota 
University of Indonesia, Health Research Center for Crisis and Disaster  - Indonesia 
Daewoo Hotel 
health 
Mondastri 
University of Indonesia, Health Research Center for Crisis and Disaster - Indonesia 
Daewoo Hotel 
health 
Tran Huu Bich
Deputy, Hanoi School of Public Health -Vietnam 
health 
Ha Van Nhu < hvn@hsph.edu.vn> 
Director of Disaster Management Dept.,  Hanoi School of Public Health - Vietnam
Tel: 0978762802 
health 
Tran Thi Kim Ngan tkngan2003@yahoo.com 
Microdis project, Hanoi School of Public Health - VN 
Tel: 0912311099 
health 
Tran Thi Tuyet Hanh <tth2@hsph.edu.vn) 
Department  of Environment Health, Hanoi School of Public Health - Vietnam
Tel: 0912955078 
admin 
Do Thi Hanh Trang dtht@hsph.edu.vn 
Hanoi Schoo of Public Health - Vietnam 
Tel: 0904320132
admin 
Cong Ngoc Long cnl@hsph.edu.vn 
Hanoi School of Public Health - Vietnam 
Tel: 0902091208 
 
Objectives of the  workshop 






§   To make significant headway in developing a health conceptual model (work package WP1.1) to be integrated with the other two thematic areas (social and economic) keeping in mind that this will lead to a concrete outcome of methodology development (WP2) and field survey (WP3). 
§   To draft out a clear path to achieve the WP1.1 deliverables leading to WP2.1 (Development of assessment protocols, i.e. methodology) and WP3.1 (field survey) 

Specific goals of the workshop

§   Define scope of the study
§   Define objectives and sub-objectives
§   Link to methodology
§   Discuss the choice of study sites
§   Elaborate a Plan of action
§   Discuss partner collaboration and human resources (expertise)

2. PARTICIPANTS BRIEFING ON ACTIVITIES SINCE KICK-OFF MEETING

Valerie Louis: Reports on kick-off meeting in Brussels. Reports on MICRODIS workshop: Evaplan, Dept of tropical hygiene, Asia, visitors etc.  

Terry Cannon: Integration Group had a 1-day meeting in Paris, June 2007 (Meeting minute already sent to everyone). Briefing list of recommendations from this meeting. 

Alexander Borde: Economic working group is still weak, need to strengthen our group. Intend to organize thematic group meeting in November 2007 to clarify types of research questions, concepts, questionnaires, and data to collect next year. Started with WP1.3. It would be very good to have somebody from Vietnam, Asia to involve in our team to assess economic impacts of natural disasters. Suggested to have survey after health and social surveys, since data from health and social surveys can be inputs for our studies. 

Mondastri & Renti Mahkota: reports a Microdis pilot project: “Analyzing the impacts of floods on leptospirosis and dengue in Jakarta. This is a part of conceptual framework development 

3. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Review of Work Plan and Deliverables

3.1.1 Work packages

§         Task 1.1. Development of conceptual model – Health impacts

3.1.2. Deliverables

D1.1.1. Thematic workshop session conclusions on the health impacts of natural disasters. This deliverable is the report of this
Hanoi workshop.

Terry provides report structure and guideline by 1st of Sept. 2007

Vietnam team will prepare and send the 1st draft to all partners by 15th Sept. 2007. Deadline for comments and feedbacks by 20th of Sept. Deadline for the final workshop report 28th Sept. 2007. 

D1.1.2. Annotated bibliography and review on the prevalence of, and risk factors for, mortality, injuries, trauma and diseases following extreme events. 


Heidelberg takes lead to prepare a conceptual framework or terms of references for literature review (deadline: 17th of September) and a specific guideline on: what to put in literature review, assign tasks to different partner. Other partners are welcome to send suggestions before this deadline. Scope of literature review can be different, do not have to follow the description strictly. Ask information and data from CRED. 

D1.1.3. Report on industrial development in disaster prone areas.


Marita works with Debarati Guha-Sapir: deliverable to be available in February 2008. HWG invites Marita to do 1 or 2 studies on natural disasters create/release toxic chemicals. 
Marita will prepare a report (3-5 pages) and present this in Deli meeting in February 2008 

D1.1.4. Preliminary conceptual model of health components that describes extreme event impacts. Deadline: May 2008, but the 1st draft should be available by February 2008. Each partners develop conceptual model for their own countries. Indonesia partner puts together and send back to all partners for comments. Debarati Guha-Sapir sends some examples for conceptual models. Conceptual models are country specific: depends on interests and characteristics of natural disasters in each country. Floods and storms can be together 
Comprehensive model and core model. Guideline from Indonesia (Mondastri) on the construction of comprehensive and core model: can be in bullet points (Deadline: 17th of Sept. 2007) 

§  In the Social Group meeting, Terry asks social and economic groups that if Health group proposes sites, can the other two groups consider to use these sites. This allows integration protocol to be implemented. 

§  Could Terry also ask social group if they can base on preliminary result of health survey to conduct follow-up qualitative study (e.g. interviews, FGDs) to complete the data. 

§   The idea of integration is great in theory. Ideally to have integrated protocol at the beginning, this is one of the purposes of Microdis. 
§   Integrated survey only captures common information at household level for all 3 groups. Each study groups may conduct separate further studies to fulfill their objectives. Data on health, social and economic impacts of natural disasters at the same sites can be linked together. 



Disadvantages: 
§   Makes 15 institutions all over the world with different expertise and interests come together, which can be difficult. 


§   Need assistant from other groups, issues of training of trainers, training for interviewers etc. Budget is not allowed to included new research members or local consultants 
§   Given the time frame, not sure if the integration team can guide this process to accomplish assigned tasks by November 2008. 


§   Each group has their own outputs, so how to integrate? E.g.: agree on the sites and the items to be done by the participatory approach? The same method could be used for all 5 sites of health impact assessment? Join investigators for household survey? How to design surveys applicable for 16 different sites? Surely a clear roadmap is critically needed for all three groups based on their own feedback. 

Future plan 


§   HWG, EWG, SWG each makes a plan, with findings and come together. HWG presents issues covered by HWG. Proposes cross cutting issues with social and economic groups. 
§   Integration Group provides guidance on how different teams work together and provide a concrete sector-by-sector guidance on crosscutting issues among 3 aspects. 


§   Integration group can produce entire research protocol based on inputs from 3 thematic groups. Lets 3 groups know clearly what variables, inputs that each group need to give the integration group. 
§   Deli February meeting helps to allow common understanding among all teams and derives concrete conclusions. 


§   Pilot integrated survey protocol in Deli February 2008 meeting to decide where the pilot study should be implemented. Use semi-structured questionnaires, rather than large structured questionnaires. 
§   Workshop or individual assistant for explaining, training the integrated protocol since the integrated protocol needs to be adapted to the local situations. 1st priority is internal resources. 2nd priority is inviting local experts. Integration group should provide recommendations/ suggestions of appropriate experts. MICRODIS has enough travel budget for members to travel to other country to assist partners if needed. 


§   Health group only analyses data on health issues. Other data on social and economic issues are analyzed by other groups. 
§   Methods and tools should be applicable to all partners 

§   Helping to answer, amend, formulate research questions, identify gaps 
§   To provide access and inspiration to other conceptual and research frameworks in order to use them, to critic them or improve them, to help us develop our conceptual model. 


§   Assess and evaluate existing data 

Key categories: country specific 


§   Health policy and legal frameworks 
§   Baseline data for studied sites: health services (public, private): structure/input, process, output (part of survey, not belonged to literature review) 


§   Disaster management plan 
§   Emergency response (actors, stakeholders, resources) 


§   Types of disasters, impacts on health and health providers 
§   Health status data 


§   Interactions between health, social and economic aspects §   Risk factors/vulnerability 

Key words


§   Uses Cochcrane criteria to evaluate data used in the review: could limits number of documents to be used, but this is necessary. 

Sources


§   Scientific papers §   Previous research: national/international published documents, unpublished documents, data from academic institutions 
§   Governmental data (relevant ministries, e.g. MOH) 


§   NGOs, international organizations, WHO, etc. 
§   Disaster preparedness agencies 



Databases for searching information: uses Ovid Medline, etc. 

Work allocation


Heidelberg takes lead to prepare a guideline on: what to put in literature review, and assign tasks to different partner. TOR for literature review should be available to all partners by 17th of Sept. 2007 3.3.3 Primary research questions 

1.      What are the health impacts of floods, storms and earthquakes? (Each hazard has different health consequences, according to different time frames. Quantitative and qualitative questions) 


2.      What is the significant of insurance in dealing with health issues in disasters 
3.      Comparison in existing insurance systems in different countries 


4.      What factors make people become vulnerable and how to reduce these? Why some people are more vulnerable than others? (age, gender, education level, urban/rural..) 
5.      What factors reduce vulnerability through preparedness measures? 


6.      What are the impacts of natural disasters on health system/health services? 
7.      What is the significant of emergency health care in disaster response? 


8.      In preparedness, what general factors (health system) and hazard-specific factors are important (e.g. early warning system)? 
9.      Are there differences in health seeking behaviors before and after disasters? 


10.  What impacts does health status after disasters have on economic and social status? 
11.  Is there a mechanism for institutional learning in disaster preparedness? What are the barriers to the learning? 

3.3.5 Assessment of data requirements for thematic group to fulfill research questions (see Annex 3) 3.3.6 Crosscutting issues (see Annex 4) 
3.3.7 Preparation for surveys 

All partners in HWG suggest all interesting and logistically sites for study Population based survey requires enormous preparation for baseline data: administration procedure: usually 1-3 months. Recruiting and training for interviewers. All these need 3 to 4 months. If a survey to be carried out in Summer 2008, sites’ details should be available by January-Feb. 2008. Survey should not be undertaken too closely after disasters. Should be a large, important disaster in the countries. Types of disasters are flexible, can be changed, but need to report to the meeting in Feb. 2008 in Deli. 

Requirements for selection of study sites: (a) disasters results in deaths, (b) urban and rural, (c) rich and poor areas, (d) levels of vulnerability, frequency of disasters, and predictability, (e) timeframe should be within 6 months-12 months, based on the literature review! recall period. 


No international agreements on timeframes: short, medium, long terms. HWG defines these on its own. 
Different methods can be used in different sites. Cross-sectional and prospective 


Specific attention for industrial sites in affected areas (any industrials, any scales). Descriptions of industrial sites in the affected areas: types of chemicals hazards, scales of the industry etc. 

Control sites: important, but this will double study sites, budget? Suggested solution: reduce original sample size. 



Annex studies 

1. Natural disasters and toxic hazards (Finland, India,...) 


2. Earthquake studies: Indonesia, Philippines, and India can study this. Timeframe can be extended. 

Milestones 


Month 7th M2.1.1. Identification of health assessment methodology to be analyzed. This actually is the literature review and research questions. (Milestones are less important; the most important things are deliverables) 
Month 12th M2.1.2. Selection of assessment methodologies and tools 


Month 15th Deliverable D2.1.1 Field protocol for health impact assessment 
In February meeting in Deli, each partners of health group brings along with all