DHB 2006/07 - Health Systems Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District Figure 71: Nevirapine uptake rate among pregnant HIV+ve women by metro district, 2006/07 Nevirapine uptake rate among pregnant HIV+ve women, 2006/07 South Africa Metro average City of Johannesburg Ekurhuleni eThekwini City of Cape Town City of Tshwane Nelson Mandela Bay Metro EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Rural Nodes Nevirapine coverage in the rural nodes varied widely from 14% in Alfred Nzo district of the Eastern Cape to 88% in Umkhanyakude district of KwaZulu-Natal. None of the rural node districts in the Eastern Cape or Free State achieved a nevirapine coverage above 50%. Overall the nevirapine coverage for the 12 rural nodes was 49.4% which is lower than the national average of 61%. Coverage in these districts will need to be greatly improved in order to reach the target of the National Strategic Plan. Figure 72: Nevirapine uptake rate among pregnant HIV+ve women by rural district, 2006/07 Nevirapine uptake rate among pregnant HIV+ve women, 2006/07 South Africa ISRDP average Umkhanyakude Zululand Kgalagadi Umzinyathi Central Karoo Greater Sekhukhune Ugu Chris Hani Ukhahlamba O.R. Tambo Thabo Mofutsanyane Alfred Nzo EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage Change in nevirapine coverage to HIV+ve women Nevirapine coverage has increased overall between 2005/06 and 2006/07 from 52% to 61%. The largest improvements were seen in Gauteng and the Northern Cape. Furthermore all districts in the North West and Mpumalanga achieved increases in coverage. The large decreases in coverage in two Eastern Cape districts (Nelson Mandela Bay Metro and Amathole) are likely to be due to poor data quality in 2005/06, where both districts had coverage rates above 90%, rather than true decreases THE DHIS INDICATORS PRESENTED HERE ARE AS RECEIVED FROM THE NATIONAL DHIS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED BY THE AUTHORS OR HST 77
Section A: Indicator Comparisons by District in coverage. The decreases in coverage in Motheo and Xhariep districts of the Free State should be examined more closely to determine the reasons for this drop in coverage. The imminent change in the PMTCT regimen from single dose nevirapine to a more effective dual drug regimen will likely lead to improvements in the coverage of the antiretroviral component of the programme as this will no longer be an all-or-nothing single dose regimen but a daily regimen from 28 weeks gestation. In addition more women who are eligible should be accessing HAART so overall coverage of HIV+ve women with ARVs should improve. It will be important to monitor this indicator over the next few years as these protocol changes come into effect. Figure 73: Change in nevirapine uptake rate among pregnant HIV+ve women by district, 2005/06 - 2006/07 Change in Nevirapine uptake rate among pregnant HIV+ve women, 2005/06 - 2006/07 South Africa West Rand Metsweding Kgalagadi City of Johannesburg Siyanda Zululand City of Tshwane Frances Baard Ekurhuleni Sedibeng Central Bophirima Umkhanyakude Cacadu Uthukela Sisonke Gert Sibande Pixley ka Seme Ehlanzeni Namakwa Bojanala Southern Nkangala Chris Hani eThekwini Central Karoo UMgungundlovu Eden Vhembe Overberg Umzinyathi Fezile Dabi Mopani Ukhahlamba Thabo Mofutsanyane West Coast Capricorn Alfred Nzo Lejweleputswa City of Cape Town O.R. Tambo iLembe Ugu Waterberg Cape Winelands Greater Sekhukhune Amajuba Uthungulu Motheo Xhariep Nelson Mandela Bay Amathole EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC SA -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Percentage points 78 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: Section A: Indicator Comparisons by
Page 89: 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 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
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?