Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
28 June 2023 Photo Supplied
UFS Experts
Ms Akani Baloyi is from the Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State. | Dr Olivia Kunguma is from the Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State. | Dr Arishka Kalicharan, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, UFS

 


Opinion article by Ms Akani Baloyi; Dr Olivia Kunguma, Disaster Management Training and Education Centre for Africa (DiMTEC) at the University of the Free State; and Dr Arishka Kalicharan, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State.

Since the 1800s, many countries globally have had a long history of cholera outbreaks, with several countries experiencing periodic outbreaks and the disease remaining a public health concern. In Africa, countries like Senegal, Malawi, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and many more have suffered greatly from this water-borne plague.

South Africa is among these countries – one of its major outbreaks, in 2008, killed more than 65 people, with more than 12 000 cases reported. The outbreak spread from Musina in Limpopo to the other provinces. The spread of cholera from Musina was attributed to a 2008/2009 outbreak in Zimbabwe, which affected more than 98 000 people; this was a case of disease contagion.

The 2008/2009 Zimbabwe outbreak was rated the country and the world’s largest ever recorded. Due to its political and economic crises, thousands of Zimbabweans migrated to South Africa. The movement of people from Zimbabwe helped spread the disease, as it is highly contagious. Because South Africa also had its own political and economic issues, cholera started spreading like wildfire. Similarly to Zimbabwe, South Africa is struggling with service delivery by local authorities due to poor governance and corruption.

In an effort to improve Zimbabwe’s health  system after that outbreak, the United Nations donated almost $5 million. Despite such a big cash injection, the country’s health system is still not of a standard that can help mitigate and prevent cholera. The country still finds itself losing people due to cholera outbreaks.

The challenge in Africa is that decision-makers suffer from ‘reactive syndrome’, i.e. they wait for an outbreak before intiating activities like surveillance, health promotion, encouraging of laboratory testing, assessing and maintaining boreholes/ municipal water plants, and providing temporary emergency water, sanitation and hygiene. Only when an outbreak is already under way do they remember the existence of emergency and response plans, and then start updating them.

A recent cholera outbreak in Hammanskraal, north of Tshwane in Gauteng, South Africa, had claimed 23 lives by 28 May after residents were diagnosed with diarrhoeal disease due to cholera. In the neighbouring Free State, two deaths had been reported by 9 June.

It has become common knowledge that the main source of cholera infection is poor sanitation, lack of clean water, and contaminated food. But it is important to also know that most people exposed to the cholera bacterium do not get sick. They are unaware they have been infected, unless they start displaying symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, and muscle cramps. Excessive diarrhoea can lead to dehydration, making it difficult for the body to perform basic functions. If left untreated, diarrhoea can be fatal.

The root causes are exacerbated by poor investment in public health and an unsettled political environment, in particular governance of municipalities and neglect of water treatment plants. The prevalence of this preventable infectious disease demands immediate attention from policymakers, health organisations, and society in general. Addressing the root causes, boosting preventative measures, and ensuring access to clean water and adequate healthcare services to eradicate cholera in South Africa is crucial.

How can we mitigate and prevent the spread of cholera?

While we lobby for policymakers or people who hold political power to be called to account and advocate for large-scale investment in establishing and maintaining water and sanitation facilities and the strengthening of public health community engagement, we need to consider some methods the public can explore.

Most infected people will have few to mild symptoms, which can be successfully treated with an oral rehydration solution. This solution replenishes the body’s fluid levels and can treat mild dehydration caused by diarrhoea, vomiting, or other medical conditions. Oral rehydration solutions can be made at home with the following ingredients:

  • 1 litre of preboiled water (an effective way to disinfect the water)
  • 6 level teaspoons of sugar (improves the absorption of electrolytes and water)
  • ½ teaspoon of salt (promotes water absorption, since there is significant fluid loss due to diarrhoea)
  • 1 tablespoon (or a palatable amount) of white vinegar (contains antimicrobial properties for preventing and treating infections)

This solution should be consumed after every loose stool, or as often as possible. If a child has been infected with the disease, in addition to the oral solution, give the child 20 mg (over 6 months of age) or 10 mg (under 6 months of age) zinc per day (tablet or syrup).

We should also always adhere to cost-effective habits such as routinely washing our hands and consuming preboiled water.

There are also three World Health Organisation (WHO) pre-approved oral cholera vaccines, namely Dukoral, Shanchol, and Euvichol-Plus. They all require two doses for full protection. These vaccines are available at the nearest clinic or hospital, and are relatively cost-effective.

Cholera and several other public health crises should not exist in the modern economy we are living in. Africa has the resources needed, including several medical interventions. Africa must address its issue regarding political leadership, which is its biggest challenge. There is an urgent need for proactiveness among our political leaders and government authorities which should see them take the lead in continuous multi-sectoral collaboration. They should invest in preparedness programmes that include training health workers and surveillance. And lastly, there is an urgent need for an accountability system for all the funds donated and invested towards improving a country’s healthcare system.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

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