DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District 5.3 Diarrhoeal incidence in children under 5 Morris Mathebula Diarrhoeal incidence in children under 5 years is one of the key indicators in the monitoring of child health as diarrhoeal disease is one of the important contributors to morbidity and mortality in young children. Diarrhoeal incidence under 5 measures the number of new cases of children with diarrhoea per 1 000 children in the catchment population. Although diarrhoea is formally defined as three or more watery stools in 24 hours, in practice any complaint by the mother that the child is suffering from diarrhoea is used as the means to define a case of diarrhoea. This lack of standardisation in the definition may make the indicator less reliable. It is generally felt that access to clean water is one of the factors that decrease the incidence of diarrhoea. However, access to water is one of the determinants of disease that is largely out of the control of the health departments, but is an important component of the Integrated Development Planning of all the districts in South Africa. The incidence of diarrhoeal disease tends to be seasonal with a high number of cases in the summer months (Nov - Jan in South Africa) and low levels in the winter months (May - July). District View Figure 101 shows that the average incidence of diarrhoea in South Africa in 2006/07 was 219 new cases per 1 000 children under 5 years of age. The distribution of the incidence varied widely with the highest rates in UMgungundlovu district (KZN) with 612 cases per 1 000 children under 5. The Eastern Cape had three of the five districts with the lowest (best) diarrhoeal incidence rates whilst the Northern Cape had two of the lowest five districts. It is probable that these Eastern Cape diarrhoeal rates are due to poor data quality as there are many households without access to piped water. Similarly the districts in the Northern Cape are out of alignment with the other districts in the province and are also probably due to poor data quality. All eleven KwaZulu-Natal districts are in the 15 districts with the worst incidence rates in the country. Of note is the fact that Metsweding district in Gauteng features in the 10 districts with the highest diarrhoeal incidence rates. Map 20: Diarrhoeal incidence in children under 5 years in South Africa, 2006/07 Diarrhoeal incidence under 5 years, 2006/07 Legend Per 1000 DIAR_06 no data under 100 100 - 199 200 - 299 300 - 399 over 400 THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST 103
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District Figure 101: Diarrhoeal incidence in children under 5 years by district, 2006/07 Diarrhoeal incidence under 5 years, 2006/07 South Africa Cacadu Amathole Chris Hani Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Namakwa Alfred Nzo Siyanda Sedibeng Eden Ekurhuleni Bojanala Southern Central Karoo Overberg West Rand O.R. Tambo West Coast City of Cape Town Cape Winelands Motheo City of Tshwane Central Bophirima City of Johannesburg Lejweleputswa Nkangala Thabo Mofutsanyane Fezile Dabi Gert Sibande Frances Baard Ukhahlamba Pixley ka Seme Greater Sekhukhune Xhariep Waterberg Ehlanzeni Capricorn Kgalagadi Uthukela eThekwini Amajuba Umkhanyakude Ugu Mopani Sisonke Metsweding Vhembe Umzinyathi Uthungulu Zululand iLembe UMgungundlovu no data 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Number of cases per 1000 children EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA 104 THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST
Page 1 and 2:
0 100 200 300 400 500 2006/07
Page 3 and 4:
Team for the Preparation of the Dis
Page 5 and 6:
Section B - District and province p
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword The District Health Barome
Page 9 and 10:
Variables included in the analysis
Page 11 and 12:
Data quality varies for a number of
Page 13 and 14:
Figure A: Provincial values affecte
Page 15 and 16:
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 115: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 139 and 140: 126 Indicator Type Demographic and
Page 141 and 142: Section B: District and Province Pr
Page 167 and 168:
Section B: District and Province Pr
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Appendices Appendix 2 Deprivation I
Page 217 and 218:
Appendices Interpreting negative an
Page 219 and 220:
Appendices Appendix 4: Indicator De
Page 221 and 222:
Appendices Group ``Type Level Indic
Page 223 and 224:
Appendices Group ``Type Level Indic
show all

DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?