Hide table of contents

TLDR

  • Healthy Futures Global is a new global health charity originating from CE’s incubation program trying to prevent mother-to-child transmission of syphilis, founded by Keyur Doolabh (medical doctor with research experience) and Nils Voelker (M Sc in health economics and former strategy consultant)
  • Healthy Futures’ strategy is to elevate syphilis screening rates in antenatal clinics to the high levels of HIV screening rates by replacing HIV-only tests with a dual HIV/syphilis test
  • Keyur and Nils are currently exploring potential pilot countries, and will be in the Philippines and Tanzania soon - they invite you to subscribe to their newsletter and to reach out to volunteer, especially if you are in the Philippines or Tanzania or could connect us to people there

I. Introduction: Healthy Futures Global and its Origins

Keyur and Nils are excited to announce the launch of Healthy Futures Global, a new organisation originating from Charity Entrepreneurship's latest incubation programme, dedicated to making a positive impact on global health.

Healthy Futures’ mission is to improve maternal and newborn health by focusing on the elimination of congenital syphilis, a preventable but devastating disease that affects millions of families worldwide.

II. The Problem: Congenital Syphilis' Global Impact

Syphilis in pregnancy is a pressing global health issue. It causes approximately 60,000  newborn deaths and 140,000 (almost 10% of global) stillbirths annually, contributing up to 50% of all stillbirths in some regions (1, 2, 3, 4).  

Antenatal syphilis also causes lifelong disabilities for many surviving children, often going unaddressed in many countries. This disability can include cognitive impairment, vision and hearing deficits, bone deformity, and liver dysfunction. If a pregnant woman has syphilis, her child has a 12% chance of neonatal death, 16% chance of stillbirth, and 25% chance of disability (5).

III. The Solution: Test and Treat Strategy

The theory of change (below) is a hybrid between direct intervention, technical assistance and policy work. It involves lobbying governments for policy support, and supporting governments, local NGOs and antenatal clinics to roll out dual HIV/Syphilis tests. 

The key components of the approach involve rapid testing (RDTs) during antenatal care and immediate treatment with antibiotics (BPG) for positive cases.

The main strengths of Healthy Futures are: 

  • Cost effectiveness: The strategy has the potential to cost-effectively save lives, prevent disabilities, and reduce the burden on health systems. Our analysis gives us an expected value of $2,400 per life saved and ~10x the cost-effectiveness of direct cash transfers. The medical evidence for positive effects of treating the pregnant woman and her baby is strong (6). 
  • Monitoring and evaluation: The direct nature of this intervention offers quick feedback loops, allowing us to re-evaluate our strategy accordingly. 
  • Track record: Keyur is a medical doctor and Nils brings a background of consulting for pharmaceutical companies and global health organisations. Their backgrounds are a good fit for this type of intervention. 
  • Organisational fuel: Healthy Futures benefits from ongoing mentoring from Charity Entrepreneurship and previously incubated charities. 

IV. Challenges, Risks and Mitigation

The challenges Healthy Futures plans to address are (ranked according to severity x likelihood of occurring - highest on top):

 Implementational challenges:

  • Sustainability: The long-term success and cost-effectiveness of this intervention depend on governments making the necessary changes in the health care system and establishing mechanisms for sustainable change. -> Healthy Futures will focus on engaging with national, regional and local governments to ensure change is initiated and sustained at all levels. 
  • Data availability: Publicly available data reporting in low and middle income countries on sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis is often low quality. -> The co-founders plan to connect with independent researchers, research institutions, global and local NGOs, and the ministries of health to obtain or generate higher quality data. 
  • Local trust: Healthy Futures will be operating in foreign countries and will face unknown unknowns, such as cultural barriers and communication challenges. -> Healthy Futures prioritises meeting and collaborating with local organisations. 
  • Supply chain: Penicillin requires a cold chain and has historically been prone to stock-outs. Medical staff may be hesitant to be retrained on dual tests, e.g. due to competing priorities and lack of incentives to improve standard of care. -> Healthy Futures will collect data on stock-outs and weak links of the supply chain, and closely work with health care providers to understand and adapt to their context. 

Ethical considerations/challenges:

  • Counterfactual impact: This intervention is fairly likely to occur even without us eventually (in some countries expected within the next 5-10). Our counterfactual impact mostly stems from implementing it earlier than it would have been implemented without us. -> Healthy Futures needs to act fast, and is open to change course or cancel operations if re-evaluation meetings point to this conclusion. 
  • Ethics: The moral value of reducing stillbirths and newborn deaths can be questionable from certain ethical points of view. -> Healthy Futures will follow an approach of discounting DALYs for those moral considerations, informed by GiveWell’s methodology (7).

V. One-Year Plan: Pilot Projects in the Philippines and Tanzania

Year 1 focuses on identifying the right pilot country and preparing a country-wide roll-out of dual tests. The countries were evaluated by primarily looking at the number of preventable antenatal syphilis cases, the gap between HIV and syphilis testing in pregnancy, capability of the country's health system, policies supporting dual tests, and lack of other organisations working on antenatal syphilis. 

The Philippines and Tanzania seem most promising. In order to confirm the scale, tractability and neglectedness of antenatal syphilis testing, the co-founders will visit and try to meet with local and global NGOs, and political and health care leaders in the Philippines (24 May to 16 June) and Tanzania (19 June to 17 July). 

Within the first year of operations the co-founders expect to prevent around 7 newborn deaths and stillbirths, and over 2,000 within 5 years. 

VI. Call to Action

  • Support us!
    • Remotely: We are searching for volunteers on operational tasks, such as legal, finance, and website management. If you’re interested, please fill out this form (5min).
    • In-country: We are searching for people that can help us navigate on the ground in the Philippines (May 24th to June 16th) and Tanzania (June 19th to July 17th), e.g. translating, connecting us with people. If you’re interested, please fill out this form (5min).
  • Stay informed! Please sign up to our newsletter via our website here

Together, we can make a difference in the lives of mothers and newborns worldwide. Join us on this journey to create more healthy futures. 

 

 

VII. References

  1. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211720 (2019)
  2. https://data.unicef.org/resources/a-neglected-tragedy-stillbirth-estimates-report/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20an%20estimated%201.9,stillbirths%20per%201%2C000%20total%20births. (2019)
  3. https://www.who.int/health-topics/stillbirth#tab=tab_2 (2019)
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3893926/ (2014)
  5. https://www.scielosp.org/article/bwho/2013.v91n3/217-226/ (2013)
  6. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S9 (2011)
  7. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hOQf6Ug1WpoicMyFDGoqH7tmf3Njjc15Z1DGERaTbnI/edit# (2020)
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:
[comment deleted]1
0
0
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe