{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019778099372889532, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012542209358417752, 'mean_word_length': 4.994219653179191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Primary health care in Senegal: lessons learned.


 USAID began funding the Rural Health Delivery Services Project (RHDS) in Sine Saloum region (later divided into 2 regions--Kaolack and Fatick) of Senegal in 1977. Its aim was to improve the health of rural inhabitants and to set up a model health care delivery system. It specifically set out to increase agricultural output by reducing illness-related absence from work. USAID funds and local taxes paid for the construction of almost 400 village health huts, each staffed by a 1st aid worker and a traditional birth attendant. In 1982, 90% of villagers sought preventive and curative services from the health huts. In 1984, USAID extended funding to a 2nd phase of the RHDS II/Child Survival (CS) project which aimed to expand preventive health efforts and to introduce new preventive services targeting pregnant women and children. These services were immunizations, malaria control, oral rehydration therapy, and growth monitoring. Other objectives were to integrate these services and to institute program sustainability. Other agencies also were involved, such as UNICEF. RHDS II/CS successfully integrated several interventions at health hut and health post levels. An evaluation team found that the spirit of village-based primary health care made the RHDS system work. No follow-up survey to a 1982-83 baseline survey occurred, making it difficult for the team to determine whether RHDS II/CS achieved child survival goals. It recommended that teams have both expatriate and native representatives who are flexible and adaptable to local conditions and constraints and that agencies be pragmatic in their objectives and expectations about what evaluation teams can accomplish and provide advance documents to team members to allow them more of their often limited time in the country to do field work. The team called for donor agencies to cooperate on reporting requirements. It also suggested that new programs should be added to existing health systems and structures instead of forsaking previous successes.
