4.8 Article

Countdown to 2015: assessment of donor assistance to maternal, newborn, and child health between 2003 and 2006

期刊

LANCET
卷 371, 期 9620, 页码 1268-1275

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60561-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background To track donor assistance to maternal, newborn, and child health-related activities is necessary to assess progress towards Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 and to foster donor accountability. Our aim was to analyse aid flows to maternal, newborn, and child health for 2005 and 2006 and trends between 2003 and 2006. Methods We analysed and coded the complete aid activities database for 2005 and 2006 with methods that we developed previously to track official development assistance. For the 68 Countdown priority countries, we report two indicators for use in monitoring donor disbursements: official development assistance to child health per child and official development assistance to maternal and neonatal health per livebirth. Findings Donor disbursements increased from US$2119 million in 2003 to $3482 million in 2006; funding for child health increased by 63% and that for maternal and newborn health increased by 66%. In the 68 priority countries, child-related disbursements increased from a mean of $4 per child in 2003 to $7 per child in 2006; disbursements for maternal and neonatal health increased from $7 per livebirth in 2003 to $12 per livebirth in 2006. Nonetheless, disbursements fell in some countries. After adjustment for other determinants, countries with higher under-5 mortality received more official development assistance per child, but official development assistance to maternal and newborn health did not seem to be well targeted towards countries with the greatest maternal health needs. Interpretation Donor resource tracking should be continued to help hold donors accountable and encourage targeting of resources to countries with greatest needs. Funding Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据