• 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • Although a wealth of studies tracking ODA have been


    Although a wealth of studies tracking ODA+ have been done, few have provided in-depth study of how ODA+ in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health affects health outcomes, and to what extent the long-term goal of donors has been achieved through aid programmes. This panel dataset opens the window for further investigation of how ODA+ affects various health indicators such as infant mortality, neonatal mortality, mortality in children younger than 5 years, maternal mortality, HIV prevalence, and female life expectancy. Towards this objective, appropriate econometric techniques beyond correlation analysis are needed to account for endogeneity in the funding decision and controlling for confounding variables like gross domestic product growth, domestic health expenditure, etc. To enhance the application of the data, the authors could consider broadening the data tracking from reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health plus adolescent activity, which is the current focus of the field.
    This week, the global health systems research eletriptan is gathered in Vancouver, Canada, for the Fourth Global Symposium on Health Systems Research. The current movement for health systems research developed out of a need to strengthen health systems in low-income and middle-income countries. More than 25 years ago, the Commission on Health Research for Development published a report that represented a pivotal change in thinking about health research for development. The main argument of the report was that research contributed little to health in low-income and middle-income countries, because it matched poorly with needs in the global South, was dominated by researchers from the North, and had a narrow biomedical focus. While health systems research has taken off in some high-income countries, progress in low-income and middle-income countries has not kept up. The 2008 Global Ministerial Forum on Research for Health in Bamako, Mali, concluded with the recommendation to increase investments in health systems research and organise a global symposium specifically focused on improving health systems in low-income and middle-income countries. Since then, the field has expanded rapidly.
    In the closing chapter of his 2013 book , Angus Deaton—winner of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Economics—argued against international development aid, stating that government-to-government aid weakens the capacity and willingness of governments in low-income and middle-income countries to govern, raise tax revenue, and respond to their citizens. Deaton encouraged high-income countries to increase funding to develop drugs for diseases Restriction map disproportionately affect people in eletriptan poor countries, and to provide technical (as opposed to financial) support to governments of low-income and middle-income countries. Deaton also gives voice to the argument that aid should be prioritised for those living in disadvantage in high-income countries. For example, in the USA, where millions of people live on less than $2 a day, maternal mortality increased by 26·6% from 2010 to 2014, and all-cause mortality of middle-aged (especially less educated) white people increased considerably from 1999 to 2013. These important and persuasive arguments can inform how high-income countries prioritise and provide international development aid, and are in line with a long tradition of international development aid critique, from Peter Bauer in the 1970s to William Easterly in the 2000s. To determine whether such arguments might have influenced global health research funding, we did a search of the databases of the main national medical and public health research funding agencies of two high-income countries—Australia and Canada. This search was informed by an equity perspective on global health as advocated by Paul Farmer and colleagues, who define global health as an endeavour to achieve equity in health outcomes globally, whether in settings of poverty or wealth. For Australia, we obtained grants data from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council websites; for Canada, we obtained data from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the International Development Research Centre websites; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided data for selected years (2002–12) on request. Notably, these funding agencies were either created with a specific global health mandate and have global health as a priority or participate in partnerships on health that include a global health component. We examined funded grants to determine which grants were awarded with the potential to enhance global health equity (). We looked for funding in four global health categories: basic sciences, epidemiology, health policy and systems research, and research on disadvantaged populations in high-income countries.