A model for use by local public health departments to evaluate pandemic influenza plans

The events of the 1990's and early 2000's demonstrated the need for effective planning and response to natural and man-made disasters. One of those potential natural disasters is pandemic flu. Once defined, the CDC stated that program, or plan, effectiveness is improved through the process of program evaluation. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999) Program evaluation should be accomplished not only periodically, but in the course of routine administration of the program. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999) Accomplishing this task for a "rare, but significant event" is challenging. (Herbold, John R., PhD., 2008) To address this challenge, the RAND Corporation (under contract to the CDC) developed the "Facilitated Look-Backs" approach that was tested and validated at the state level. (Aledort et al., 2006).^ Nevertheless, no comprehensive and generally applicable pandemic influenza program evaluation tool or model is readily found for use at the local public health department level. This project developed such a model based on the "Facilitated Look-Backs" approach developed by RAND Corporation. (Aledort et al., 2006) Modifications to the RAND model included stakeholder additions, inclusion of all six CDC program evaluation steps, and suggestions for incorporating pandemic flu response plans in seasonal flu management implementation. Feedback on the model was then obtained from three LPHD's—one rural, one suburban, and one urban. These recommendations were incorporated into the final model. Feedback from the sites also supported the assumption that this model promotes the effective and efficient evaluation of both pandemic flu and seasonal flu response by reducing redundant evaluations of pandemic flu plans, seasonal flu plans, and funding requirement accountability. Site feedback also demonstrated that the model is comprehensive and flexible, so it can be adapted and applied to different LPHD needs and settings. It also stimulates evaluation of the major issues associated with pandemic flu planning. ^ The next phase in evaluating this model should be to apply it in a program evaluation of one or more LPHD's seasonal flu response that incorporates pandemic flu response plans.^

A review of the Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program at ExxonMobil Corporation

ExxonMobil, a Fortune 500 oil and gas corporation, has a global workforce with employees assigned to projects in areas at risk for infectious diseases, particularly malaria. As such, the corporation has put in place a program to protect the health of workers and ensure their safety in malaria endemic zones. This program is called the Malaria Control Program (MCP). One component of this program is the more specific Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program (MCCP), in which employees enroll following consent to random drug testing for compliance with the company's chemoprophylaxis requirements. Each year, data is gathered on the number of employees working in these locations and are selected randomly and tested for chemoprophylaxis compliance. The selection strives to test each eligible worker once per year. Test results that come back positive for the chemoprophylaxis drug are considered "detects" and tests that are negative for the drug and therefore show the worker is non-compliant at risk for severe malaria infection are considered "non-detect". ^ The current practice report used aggregate data to calculate statistics on test results to reflect compliance among both employees and contractors in various malaria-endemic areas. This aggregate, non-individualized data has been compiled and reflects the effectiveness and reach of ExxonMobil's Malaria Chemoprophylaxis Compliance Program. In order to assess compliance, information on the number of non-detect test results was compared to the number of tests completed per year. The data shows that over time, non-detect results have declined in both employee and contractor populations, and vary somewhat by location due to size and scope of the MCCP implemented in-country. Although the data indicate a positive trend for the corporation, some recommendations have been made for future implementation of the program.^