DOCSLIB.ORG

USAID OFFICE of FOOD for PEACE SIERRA LEONE FOOD Security Country Framework Fy 2010-2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USAID OFFICE of FOOD for PEACE SIERRA LEONE FOOD Security Country Framework Fy 2010-2014 USAID OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE USAID OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE SIERRA LEONE FOOD SECURITY COUNTRY FRAMEWORK FY 2010-2014 OCTOBER 2009 This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the support of the Office of Food for Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID/Sierra Leone, and the Of- fice of Health, Infectious Disease, and Nutrition, Bureau for Global Health, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), under terms of Cooperative Agreement No. GHN-A-00-08-00001-00, through the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project (FANTA-2), managed by the Academy for Educational Development (AED). The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Recommended citation: Woldt, Monica, Marie Cadrin and Abdulai Jalloh. USAID Office of Food for Peace Sierra Leone Food Security Country Framework FY 2010 – FY 2014. Washington, D.C.: Food and Nutrition Technical As- FANTA 2 sistance II Project (FANTA-2), Academy for Educational Development (AED), 2009. FOOD AND NUTRITION This document may be reproduced without written permission by including the full citation of the source. An TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE electronic version is available for download from www.fanta-2.org. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project Academy for Educational Development 1825 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20009-5721 Tel: 202-884-8000 Fax: 202-884-8432 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.fanta-2.org TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. VI 1. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMMING STRATEGY ......................................................................... 1 2. DEFINITION OF FOOD SECURITY ....................................................................................................... 1 3. OVERVIEW OF THE COUNTRY CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 2 4. FOOD SECURITY SITUATION IN SIERRA LEONE .........................................................................12 4.1 FOOD INSECURITY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................ 12 4.1.1 Food Availability .............................................................................................................................................. 12 4.1.2 Food Access ..................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.1.3 Food Utilization............................................................................................................................................... 32 4.2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD INSECURITY .......................................................................... 41 4.2.1 Food Availability .............................................................................................................................................. 41 4.2.2 Food Access ..................................................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.3 Food Utilization............................................................................................................................................... 48 4.2.4 Risks and Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................................ 50 5. STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS RELATED TO REDUCING FOOD INSECURITY IN SIERRA LEONE .......................................................................................................................................... 54 5.1 GOSL POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS ........................................................................................ 55 5.1.1 CAADP.............................................................................................................................................................. 60 5.2 USG STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................... 61 5.2.1 Alignment with Foreign Assistance Framework ...................................................................................... 61 5.2.2 USAID Mission Strategies and Programs ................................................................................................... 62 5.2.3 USAID Food for Peace 2006-2010 Strategic Plan ................................................................................... 66 5.2.4 The FY 2007-2009 Title II MYAP in Sierra Leone ................................................................................... 66 5.2.5 Lessons Learned and Recommendations from Past and Current FFP- and DA-Funded Projects in Sierra Leone .......................................................................................................................................... 68 5.3 ACTIVITIES OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS ................................................................................. 74 5.3.1 UN Programs ................................................................................................................................................... 75 5.4 NGO PROGRAMS IN SIERRA LEONE ............................................................................................................. 76 6. COUNTRY FRAMEWORK TO REDUCE FOOD INSECURITY ...................................................80 6.1 ROLE OF MISSION PROGRAMS FUNDED BY OTHER ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORTING IMPROVEMENTS IN FOOD SECURITY .................................................................................................................. 80 6.2 ROLE OF THE TITLE II MYAP IN ADDRESSING FOOD INSECURITY .................................................. 80 6.2.1 Objectives and Desired Outcomes and Indicators ................................................................................. 80 6.2.2 Program Priorities ........................................................................................................................................... 81 6.2.3 Key Design Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 99 6.2.4 Cross-Cutting Issues .................................................................................................................................... 111 7. COLLABORATION AND RESOURCE INTEGRATION ...............................................................112 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 114 ANNEXES ANNEX 1. MAPS OF SIERRA LEONE ............................................................................................................122 ANNEX 2. FFP STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR 2006 - 2010....................................................................125 ANNEX 3. FFP EXPANDED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING FOOD INSECURITY .................................................................................................................................................... 126 ANNEX 4. ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF NGOS WORKING IN SIERRA LEONE............................................. 127 ANNEX 5. PREVENTION OF MALNUTRITION IN CHILDREN UNDER 2 APPROACH (PM2A).......... 129 ANNEX 6. DESCRIPTIONS OF COMMUNITY-BASED NUTRITION PROGRAMS ................................. 131 ANNEX 7. RESOURCES ON COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAMMING ............................................................................................................................................. 138 ANNEX 8. MAP OF PROPOSED FOOD-INSECURE DISTRICTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN NEW TITLE II PROGRAM (2010-2014) AND CURRENT PAGE OPERATIONAL AREA (2008-2012) .............. 140 BOXES BOX 1: PRIORITY OUTCOMES AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE SIERRA LEONE TITLE II PROGRAM ....................................................................................................................................................... VIII BOX 2: PM2A LESSONS LEARNED. .............................................................................................................. 93 TABLES TABLE 1: SELECTED BASIC ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL INDICATORS... .............................................. 4 TABLE 2: RICE AND WHEAT IMPORTS ...................................................................................................... 27 TABLE 3: POVERTY BY CHARACTERISTIC (2003/04) .............................................................................. 29 TABLE 4: POVERTY BY EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD (2003/04) ....................................... 31 TABLE 5: NUTRITION AND HEALTH INDICATORS FOR CHILDREN UNDER-5 AND WOMEN 15-49 YEARS AND CHANGES OVER TIME, AS AVAILABLE. .................................................................. 34 TABLE 6: PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS CITING CONSTRAINT TO IMPROVED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ebola Synthesis Reference Document August 2017
    Ebola Synthesis Reference Document August 2017 The IFRC is committed to upholding its Framework for Evaluation. The framework is designed to promote reliable, useful, ethical evaluations that contribute to organizational learning, accountability, and our mission to best serve those in need. It demonstrates the IFRC’s commitment to transparency, providing a publicly accessible document to all stakeholders so that they may better understand and participate in the evaluation function. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Case postale 372 1211 Genève 19 Suisse Tel: +41 22 730 4222 Fax: +41 22 733 0395 http://www.ifrc.org/MandE Africa Regional Office Woodlands Road, off Dennis Pritt Road | P. O. Box 41275, 00100 | Nairobi | Kenya. Tel: +254 202835000 Fax: +254202712777 Find out more on www.ifrc.org/africa Acknowledgement This synthesis reference document was prepared by Steve Powell, IFRC consultant, with support and editorial review by IFRC staff, Dr. Adeiza Ben Adinoyi, Gabriel Pictet, Amanda McClelland and Josse Gillijns. Thanks are owed to the individuals within the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and partner organization who gave their input into the background documents for this report. 2 | Key to coloured highlighting: Findings Analyses Lessons Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................... 8 Purpose, scope, background ........................................................ 11 Purpose .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ebola Outbreak – Monthly Overview April
    ACAPS: Ebola Outbreak – Monthly Overview April 4 May 2015 Ebola continues to have a negative impact on food security and livelihoods. The recovery of markets and trade should be supported by the lifting of movement Ebola Outbreak restrictions and reopening of borders. Household (HH) incomes remain below average across the region, due to decreased employment opportunities. Weak Monthly Overview April purchasing power is expected to be the main driver of food insecurity. Need for international Not required Low Moderate Significant Urgent assistance X Key Findings Insignificant Minor Moderate Significant Major Expected impact X Anticipated scope and Health systems continue to struggle to provide non-Ebola care. Crisis Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Capacity remains limited and fear of Ebola is still preventing scale Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 1 people from seeking healthcare. Regional ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as measles, are being Guinea ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 reported in the three most affected countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of the West African Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak on Food Security
    Impact of the West African Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak on Food security Anne- Claire THOMAS Tharcisse NKUNZIMANA A n a P EREZ HOYOS François KAYITAKIRE D e c e m b e r 2014 European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Contact information François Kayitakire Address: Joint Research Centre Via Fermi, 2749 / TP266 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +: +39 0332786580 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc Legal Notice This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Main Conclusions . The exceptional extent and duration of the 2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa has had significant adverse effects on food security in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, the countries most affected. Despite these adverse effects on food security, food availability is not expected to be significantly reduced on average compared to a normal year. Overall production in affected countries is expected to decline slightly, essentially because of labour shortages. In addition, all borders other than the Guinea-Senegal border had been re-opened by the end of November 2014. Food imports may thus resume and food availability may improve starting December 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impacts of Ebola on Firms in Sierra Leone
    Final report The economic impacts of Ebola on firms in Sierra Leone Katherine Casey Rachel Glennerster Tavneet Suri April 2017 When citing this paper, please use the title and the following reference number: F-39204-SLE-1 Project Report: The Economic Impacts of Ebola on Firms in Sierra Leone1 Katherine Casey Rachel Glennerster Tavneet Suri Stanford GSB MIT J-PAL MIT Sloan [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1. Introduction and Motivation In 2014, Sierra Leone was hit by the emergence of Ebola, a deadly and terrifying disease. In an effort to control the spread of the disease, national and international agencies took drastic action: land borders were closed; several international airlines stopped service to the country; cordons were placed around particularly affected districts; schools were closed for nine months; and bars, nightclubs and restaurants were restricted for over a year. The economic consequences of the fear and disruption caused by the outbreak have been hard to estimate, not least because Sierra Leone simultaneously suffered a reduction in the price of iron ore, one of its main exports. Few would contest, however, that the economic impacts were substantial. In previous work, we used nationally representative household surveys to document how hours worked fell for those in informal employment and that nonfarm household businesses were badly hit during the worst of the crisis (Fu et al., 2015). However, little is known about how formal sector firms reacted to the crisis. As in other low income countries, formal sector firms represent a relatively small fraction of employment in Sierra Leone (91% of the labor force is self-employed), but a much higher proportion of taxes and exports (corporate tax alone makes up 11% of tax revenues).
    [Show full text]
  • Fears and Misperceptions of the Ebola Response System During the 2014-2015 Outbreak in Sierra Leone
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Fears and Misperceptions of the Ebola Response System during the 2014-2015 Outbreak in Sierra Leone Thespina Yamanis1,2*, Elisabeth Nolan1, Susan Shepler1 1 School of International Service, American University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, 2 Center on Health, Risk and Society, American University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America * [email protected], [email protected] a11111 Abstract Background OPEN ACCESS Future infectious disease epidemics are likely to disproportionately affect countries with Citation: Yamanis T, Nolan E, Shepler S (2016) weak health systems, exacerbating global vulnerability. To decrease the severity of epi- Fears and Misperceptions of the Ebola Response demics in these settings, lessons can be drawn from the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. System during the 2014-2015 Outbreak in Sierra There is a dearth of literature on public perceptions of the public health response system Leone. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10(10): e0005077. that required citizens to report and treat Ebola cases. Epidemiological reports suggested doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0005077 that there were delays in diagnosis and treatment. The purpose of our study was to explore Editor: Matthew Kasper, Armed Forces Health the barriers preventing Sierra Leoneans from trusting and using the Ebola response system Surveillance Center, UNITED STATES during the height of the outbreak. Received: February 25, 2016 Accepted: September 27, 2016 Methods Published: October 18, 2016 Using an experienced ethnographer, we conducted 30 semi-structured in-depth interviews Copyright: © 2016 Yamanis et al. This is an open in public spaces in Ebola-affected areas. Participants were at least age 18, spoke Krio, and access article distributed under the terms of the reported no contact in the recent 21 days with an Ebola-infected person.
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Note West Africa Ebola
    ACAPS Briefing Note EBOLA OUTBREAK IN SIERRA LEONE DATE: 26 June 2014 Insignificant Minor Moderate Important Major Priorities for humanitarian interventions in the coming weeks Expected impact X Immediate needs include qualified medical staff, the organisation of training on how to treat Ebola, and increasing number of contact tracing and awareness-raising Need for international Not required Low Moderate Important Urgent activities among the population. There is need for socioeconomic and psychological assistance x support to cases, their families and communities. There is social disruption and stigma associated with the illness. Most of the people affected by Ebola in Sierra Leone are women, as they are the ones who take care of sick family members, Crisis overview deceased and relatives. An Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak, which started in Guinea in early 2014, Humanitarian constraints has now spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone. As of 23 June, the total cumulative The upcoming rainy season is expected to hamper humanitarian access. number of cases reported in the three countries was 635 out of which 399 died, a Case Fatality Rate (CFR) of 62.8%. (WHO, 25/06/2014). Ebola patients Need for humanitarian assistance have been identified in more than 60 separate locations across the three There is an urgent need to intensify response efforts, and to promote cross-border countries, complicating efforts to treat patients and curb the outbreak (MSF, collaboration and information sharing (WHO 25/06/2014). Bringing the epidemic under 25/06/2014). control will require a massive deployment of resources by governments in West Africa and aid organisations (MSF 24/06/2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Magnitude of Ebola Relative to Other Causes of Death in Liberia, Sierra
    Correspondence Magnitude of Ebola We used the most recent (2013) In Liberia, for virtually all model relative to other causes national estimates of non-EVD parameters, EVD deaths exceeded the mortality,2,7 together with projections expected number of deaths due to of death in Liberia, of population growth, to calculate the the leading non-EVD cause of death Sierra Leone, and Guinea expected number of deaths from non- (fi gure). In Sierra Leone, a broad range EVD causes in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and of model parameters also indicated With more than 20 000 cases reported, Guinea in 2014. For all combinations that EVD might have killed more the outbreak of Ebola virus disease of model parameters, we mapped how people in 2014 than the leading non- (EVD) in west Africa is by far the largest the estimated number of EVD deaths EVD cause of death (ie, malaria). In in recorded history. Despite the scale ranked relative to the expected number other sets of model parameters, EVD of the current outbreak, EVD is often of deaths from non-EVD causes. still killed more people than the second perceived as a “small-scale killer”.1 By comparison, malaria caused an Liberia Sierra Leone Guinea estimated 854 000 deaths world wide 2·5 2 10k 15k in 2013. However, although limited 5k at the global level, the impact of EVD on mortality could be substantial in 10k countries with intense transmission. We thus aimed to compare EVD with 2·0 other causes of death in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of the Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak on Market Chains And
    FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Dakar, 2016 The conclusions given in this information product are considered appropriate at the time of its preparation. They may be mod- ified in the light of further knowledge gained at subsequent stages of the project. In particular, the recommendations included in this information product were valid at the time they were written, during the FAO workshop on the market chains and trade of agricultural products in the context of the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa, organized in December 2014 in Dakar, Senegal. The views expressed in this information product are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not men- tioned. ISBN 978-92-5-109223-1 © FAO, 2016 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise in- dicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.
    [Show full text]
  • After Ebola: Why and How Capacity Support to Sierra Leone's Health
    Researching livelihoods and services affected by conflict After Ebola: why and how capacity support to Sierra Leone’s health sector needs to change Report 7 Lisa Denney and Richard Mallett with Ramatu Jalloh June 2015 Written by Lisa Denney and Richard Mallett with Ramatu Jalloh SLRC reports present information, analysis and key policy recommendations on issues relating to livelihoods, basic services and social protection in conflict affected situations. This and other SLRC reports are available from www.securelivelihoods. org. Funded by DFID, Irish Aid and the EC. Disclaimer: The views presented in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of DFID, Irish Aid, the EC, SLRC or our partners SLRC reports present information, analysis on issues relating to livelihoods, basic services and social protection in conflict affected situations. This and other SLRC reports are available from www.securelivelihoods.org. ©SLRC 2015. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from SLRC for their own publications. As copyright holder SLRC, requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium Overseas Development Institute (ODI) 203 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJ United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 7922 8249 F +44 (0)20 7922 0399 E [email protected] www.securelivelihoods.org Researching livelihoods and services affected by conflict i About us Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium (SLRC) aims to generate a stronger evidence base on how people make a living, educate their children, deal with illness and access other basic services in conflict-affected situations (CAS). Providing better access to basic services, social protection and support to livelihoods matters for the human welfare of people affected by conflict, the achievement of development targets such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and international efforts at peace- and state-building.
    [Show full text]
  • WFP Sierra Leone | Brief
    WFP Sierra Leone | Brief Reporting period: 01 April – 30 June Country Director: Gon Myers COUNTRY STRATEGY WFP’s regional Emergency Operation (EMOP) focuses on food and nutritional support under three pillars – care, Brief contain, protect – to support the health response in | bringing Sierra Leone to an Ebola free status. The regional Special Operation augments the capacity of the humanitarian response by providing logistics, engineering, air service, coordination, and telecommunications support to enhance the efficiency of the humanitarian response. The Country Programme (CP, currently on hold) focused on school feeding, supplementary feeding for vulnerable populations and livelihood support; targeted support to HIV patients is ongoing. WFP has been present in Sierra Leone since 1968. Sierra Leone Sierra OPERATIONS WFP 6 Months Planned Total Total Total Project Net Funding number requirements received Funded Top 5 Donors Duration Requirements of people (in USD) (in USD) (%) (in USD)* Japan, Republic of CP 200336 Jan 2013 – Sierra Leone, UK, Country Programme 337,382* 45,388,138 2,343,947 European Dec 2015 35,481,917 78% Sierra Leone (2013- Commission, 2015) Multilateral EMOP 200761.SL USA, Republic of Support to Sierra Leone, Populations in Areas Aug 2014 – Canada, 1,473,675 65,499,329** n/a n/a 2,694,772 Affected by the Germany, UN Sept 2015 Ebola Outbreak in CERF Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone SO 200773.SL UN Common Logistics Common Funds & Agencies Services for the (excl. CERF), Oct 2014 – Humanitarian n/a 76,557,478** n/a n/a n/a USA, Republic of Community’s Dec 2015 Sierra Leone, Response to the Germany, Ebola outbreak in European West Africa Commission *July – December, **Sierra Leone part of the Regional Ebola Response Project only Summary of WFP assistance WFP’s Emergency Operation is focused on supporting the health response to stop the spread of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) by meeting the basic food and nutrition needs of affected families and communities in Sierra Leone.
    [Show full text]
  • Part I: Results Achieved
    8 PART I: RESULTS ACHIEVED The government of Liberia, WFP and WorldBank deliver rice, cereal and USAID vegetable oil to an Ebola-quarantined household in Monrovia. The 7 people living in the house had been quarantined since March 1 were medically monitored for 21 days and received psycho social counselling. Photo: World Bank/Dominic Chavez PHASE ONE: TAKING THE HEAT OUT OF THE OUTBREAK At the height of the outbreak between August and October 2014, hundreds of people were getting sick and dying each week. Until this time, national and international partners, including frontline non-governmental actors, particularly Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), members of the UN country teams and the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), had been active on the ground in responding to the outbreak, but the growth in transmission continued to outpace response capacity. Significantly more financial resources, trained medical personnel and clinical capacities were needed to rise to the challenge. On 29 August 2014, the Presidents of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone jointly wrote to the Secretary-General, requesting a UN resolution on a comprehensive response to the Ebola outbreak and calling for the United Nations to take the lead in coordinating the international response. In response to this letter, and with the unwavering support of the General Assembly, on 17 September, the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly of his intent to establish the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER), which deployed to the region ten days later with the objective of supporting the scaling up of the UN system in response to this unprecedented outbreak.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Labs in Action for Ebola Control in Sierra Leone
    Infectious Diseases and Translational Medicine • Letter: Field Laboratory • Field labs in action for Ebola control in Sierra Leone Infect Dis Transl Med, 2015;1(01):2-5. DOI:10.11979/idtm.201501002 Dear Editor, To cope with the challenges of newly emerging or re- used to compare the proportion of confirmed EVD cases emerging infectious diseases, timely diagnosis is critical among total cases between Sierra Leone and Liberia. A for triage of suspected patients. The outbreak of Ebola- matched-pairs t-test was used to compare the number virus disease (EVD) in West Africa in late 2013 and the of confirmed EVD cases during the first three weeks of subsequent out-of-control situation compelled the World operation at the five laboratories with the previous three Health Organization (WHO) to declare the epidemic to weeks. The SPSS 18.0 software package for Windows be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analy- (PHEIC)[1]. As of 8 February 2015, a total of 10, 958 ses. confirmed, probable, and suspected EVD cases with 3, LTWG of the Ministry of Health and Sanitation of 344 deaths had been reported by the Ministries of Health Sierra Leone coordinated the Ebola laboratory service and Sanitation of Sierra Leone. Ebola diagnostic labo- response through a special organization, the Director- ratories, supported by international partners, confirmed ates of Hospital and Laboratory Services and Disease 8, 149 cases (74.4%) and 2, 978 deaths (89.1%)[2]. Here Prevention and Control. The goal of the laboratory re- we highlight the critical role played by internationally sponse effort was to ensure a 24-hour turnaround time supported field labs during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra from initial collection of the specimen to result reporting.
    [Show full text]