Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 September 2021 | Story Dr Jan du Plessis and Dr Mampoi Jonas

Opinion article by Dr Jan du Plessis, Head of the Paediatric Oncology Unit, and Dr Mampoi Jonas, senior lecturer in the Paediatric Oncology, University of the Free State 


For many years childhood cancer has remained a taboo subject in our communities, mainly because too little was or is known about it. Many have known or come across an adult with cancer but for a child to be diagnosed with cancer is totally unheard of. No parent wants to hear the news that their ‘heartbeat in human form’ has fallen ill. One moment they are OK, the next, waves of emotions flood the parents. Mixed in all this are feelings of guilt, anxiety, uncertainty, constant wondering if they could have done anything differently. Most importantly the question, often unuttered remains “Is my child dying/ how much time do I have”.

Most young cancer patients live in developing countries

Childhood cancer is rare and involves only 1% of all cancers. It is reported that globally approximately 70% of all childhood cancer cases occur in low- and middle-income countries. If diagnosed early, approximately 70-80% of childhood cancers are curable in developed countries. Unfortunately, most children with cancer live in developing countries with limited resources and the cure rate does not reflect the same success. The low survival rates can be attributed to poor diagnosis coupled with too few specially trained doctors and nurses and the misbelief that child cancer is too difficult to cure. However, even in resource-poor environments at least 50% of childhood cancers can be cured.

Numerically, childhood cancer is not a significant cause of death in sub-Saharan African countries, which leaves childhood cancer less of a priority. In Africa, the most common paediatric health problems are malnutrition, infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Whereas in Western countries, after accidents, cancer is the second leading cause of death in children and is a burden to the health system.

A study done by Stones et al in 2014 published the survival rates for children with cancer in South Africa at two different Units (Universitas and Tygerberg Hospitals) to be around 52%. The conclusion was that the children present late and with advanced-stage disease, which obviously affects their outcome. They also concluded that strategies to improve awareness of childhood cancer should be improved. Identifying early warning signs of childhood cancer is critical for parents and healthcare workers to ensure early diagnosis and improved cure rates. We often refer to these as red flag signs that should raise suspicion of the possibility of cancer as a diagnosis for the presenting patient.

Almost 85% of childhood cancers will present with the red flag signs, which could suggest the possibility of a childhood cancer, namely:
1. Pallor and purpura (bruising)
2. Bone and joint pain
3. Lymphadenopathy
4. Unexplained masses on any body part
5. Unexplained neurological signs
6. Changes in the orbit or eye
7. Persistent unexplained fever and weight loss

The most common cancer in children is leukaemia (blood cancer). Brain tumours are the most common non-haematological cancers, followed by nephroblastomas (kidney cancers) and neuroblastomas (sympathetic chain cells, the adrenal glands the most common site of origin).

We honour the children currently battling cancer and their families 

Once there is clinical suspicion of cancer, the child should be investigated or referred for the relevant investigations to be conducted to get to the right diagnosis. Treatment for childhood cancer includes chemotherapy, surgery or radiotherapy. These may be given separately or in combination depending on the diagnosis. Many models of care exist, but regardless of the outcome, children and families who receive compassionate, holistic care of symptomatology and address their non-physical needs are able to face their illness with dignity and energy.  

Childhood Cancer should not remain a taboo subject in South Africa and should be a topic of conversation more often so that people can be educated regarding the early warning signs and become more aware of its occurrence amongst children. Get the word out that a cure is possible. This month, which is known as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and throughout the year, we honour the children currently battling cancer, the families who love them, the clinicians and other caregivers treating them, the survivors of childhood cancer and the children who lost their lives to childhood cancer. 

Authors

Dr Jan Du Plessis for web 
Dr Jan du Plessis is the Head of the Paediatric  Oncology Unit in the Faculty of Health Sciences at
the University of the Free State (UFS).  


DrJonas for web
Dr Mampoi Jonas is a senior lecturer in the Paediatric Oncology, University of the Free State (UFS).

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept