Tracking Development Assistance for Health: A Comparative Study of the 29 Development Assistance Committee Countries, 2011-2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nomura S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8394202 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Official development assistance (ODA) is one of the most important means for donor countries to foster diplomatic relations with low- and middle-income countries and contribute to the welfare of the international community.Objective: This study estimated the sectoral allocation of gross disbursements of ODA of the 29 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the duration of 2011 to 2018, by aid type (bilateral, multilateral, and both aids).Methods: Data from the OECD iLibrary were used. The sector definition was based on the OECD sector classification. For core funding to multilateral agencies that do not specialize in each aid sector, we estimated ODA and its flows based on the OECD methodology for calculating imputed multilateral ODA.Results: For all 29 countries, during the period of 2014-2018 where data were available for all the countries, the sector with the highest average annual ODA contribution was health at 20.34 billion USD (13.21%), followed by humanitarian aid at 18.04 billion (11.72%). Humanitarian aid has increased in the sectoral share rankings in both bilateral and multilateral aid, and the sectoral share for refugees in donor countries has increased in bilateral aid. While the 29 countries show relatively similar trends for sectoral shares, some countries and sectors display unique trends. For instance, infrastructure and energy sectors in bilateral aid of Japan are particularly high accounts for 48.48% of the total bilateral ODA of the country in 2018.Conclusions: This paper evaluated ODA trends by major donors of DAC countries in the pre-COVID-19 pandemic periods. We hope that our estimates will contribute to the review of the strategic decision-making and the effective implementation of future ODA policy discussions in the DAC countries while ensuring transparency.
| S-EPMC8032342 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide information on trends on official development assistance (ODA) disbursement patterns for reproductive health activities in 18 conflict-affected countries.DesignSecondary data analysis.Sample18 conflict-affected countries and 36 non-conflict-affected countries.MethodsThe Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database was analyzed for ODA disbursement for direct and indirect reproductive health activities to 18 conflict-affected countries (2002-2011). A comparative analysis was also made with 36 non-conflict-affected counties in the same 'least-developed' income category. Multivariate regression analyses examined associations between conflict status and reproductive health ODA and between reproductive needs and ODA disbursements.Main outcome measuresPatterns of ODA disbursements (constant U.S. dollars) for reproductive health activities.ResultsThe average annual ODA disbursed for reproductive health to 18 conflict-affected countries from 2002 to 2011 was US$ 1.93 per person per year. There was an increase of 298% in ODA for reproductive health activities to the conflict-affected countries between 2002 and 2011; 56% of this increase was due to increases in HIV/AIDS funding. The average annual per capita reproductive health ODA disbursed to least-developed non-conflict-affected countries was 57% higher than to least-developed conflict-affected countries. Regression analyses confirmed disparities in ODA to and between conflict-affected countries.ConclusionsDespite increases in ODA for reproductive health for conflict-affected countries (albeit largely for HIV/AIDS activities), considerable disparities remains.Tweetable abstractStudy tracking 10 years of aid for reproductive aid shows major disparities for conflict-affected countries.
| S-EPMC5066640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Little is known about the patterns of development assistance (DA) for each component of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) in conflict-affected countries nor about the DA allocation in relation to the burden of disease. Methods:We tracked DA to RMNCAH in general and to each of its four components: reproductive health (RH), maternal and newborn health (MNH), child health (CH) and adolescent health (AH), in 25 conflict-affected countries between 2003 and 2017. We compared DA and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for each component. Using keyword searching and funding allocation methods, we produced two sets of estimates: DA primarily targeting RMNCAH (lower bound) and DA both primarily and partially for RMNCAH or DA not explicitly targeting RMNCAH but benefiting it (upper bound). Findings:Between 2003 and 2017, we identified 46?833 projects among the 25 countries that targeted RMNCAH. During the study period, DA to RMNCAH increased by seven-fold from $0.5?billion to $3.6?billion, with a slowdown since 2013. Cumulatively, RH received the largest proportion of DA to RMNCAH (50%) with 84% of its funding earmarked for HIV/AIDS, which contributed to less than 6% of the total RMNCAH-related DALYs. AH received 3% of the DA-RMNCAH but contributed 15% to the RMNCAH-related DALYs. Non-communicable diseases caused more than one-third of the DALYs among adolescents, but received only 3% of DA to AH. RMNCAH-inclusive estimates showed consistent results. Conclusion:While there was a substantial increase in funding to RMNCAH in conflict-affected countries over the period of study, some health issues with high disease burden (eg, AH and non-communicable diseases) received a disproportionately small portion of aid for RMNCAH. We recommend that donors increase investment to RMNCAH in conflict-affected countries, particularly in areas where the burden of disease or the potential benefit of investment is likely to be high.
| S-EPMC6730579 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDevelopment assistance for health (DAH) is an important source of financing for health for many low-income and some middle-income countries. Most DAH has predominantly been contributed by high-income countries. However, in the context of economic progress and changing global priorities, DAH contributions from countries of the Global South such as India have gained importance. In this paper, we estimate DAH contributed by India between 2009 and 2020.MethodsWe leveraged data from budgetary documents, databases, and financial reports of the Ministry of External Affairs and multilateral organizations to estimate DAH contributions. The proportions of development assistance that go towards health in major recipient countries were estimated and reported by recipient country and year.ResultsBetween 2009 and 2020, DAH contributed by India to bilateral and multilateral partners totaled $206.0 million. South Asian countries including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar received the most DAH from India. DAH contributed relative to DAH received ranged from 1.42% in 2009 to 5.26% in 2018, the latest year with country-level data. Health focus areas prioritized by India included technical training and innovation, health care infrastructure support, and supply of medications and medical equipment.ConclusionIndia is an important development partner to many countries-particularly to those in the South Asian region. India's DAH allocation strategy prioritizes contributions toward neighboring countries in the South Asia region in several health focus areas. Detailed project-level data are needed to estimate DAH contributions from India with greater precision and accuracy.
| S-EPMC9744314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDevelopment assistance for health (DAH) is one of the most important means for Japan to promote diplomacy with developing countries and contribute to the international community. This study, for the first time, estimated the gross disbursement of Japan's DAH from 2012 to 2016 and clarified its flows, including source, aid type, channel, target region, and target health focus area.MethodsData on Japan Tracker, the first data platform of Japan's DAH, were used. The DAH definition was based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) sector classification. Regarding core funding to non-health-specific multilateral agencies, we estimated DAH and its flows based on the OECD methodology for calculating imputed multilateral official development assistance (ODA).ResultsJapan's DAH was estimated at 1472.94 (2012), 823.15 (2013), 832.06 (2014), 701.98 (2015), and 894.57 million USD (2016) in constant prices of 2016. Multilateral agencies received the largest DAH share of 44.96-57.01% in these periods, followed by bilateral grants (34.59-53.08%) and bilateral loans (1.96-15.04%). Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) was the largest contributors to the DAH (76.26-82.68%), followed by Ministry of Finance (MOF) (10.86-16.25%). Japan's DAH was most heavily distributed in the African region with 41.64-53.48% share. The channel through which the most DAH went was Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (20.04-34.89%). Between 2012 and 2016, approximately 70% was allocated to primary health care and the rest to health system strengthening.ConclusionsWith many major high-level health related meetings ahead, coming years will play a powerful opportunity to reevaluate DAH and shape the future of DAH for Japan. We hope that the results of this study will enhance the social debate for and contribute to the implementation of Japan's DAH with a more efficient and effective strategy.
| S-EPMC7161223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020.MethodsWe estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050.FindingsIn 2019, health spending globally reached $8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7-8·8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5-0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0-25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and $1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied.InterpretationGlobal health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC8457757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Comparable estimates of health spending are crucial for the assessment of health systems and to optimally deploy health resources. The methods used to track health spending continue to evolve, but little is known about the distribution of spending across diseases. We developed improved estimates of health spending by source, including development assistance for health, and, for the first time, estimated HIV/AIDS spending on prevention and treatment and by source of funding, for 188 countries. METHODS:We collected published data on domestic health spending, from 1995 to 2015, from a diverse set of international agencies. We tracked development assistance for health from 1990 to 2017. We also extracted 5385 datapoints about HIV/AIDS spending, between 2000 and 2015, from online databases, country reports, and proposals submitted to multilateral organisations. We used spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to generate complete and comparable estimates for health and HIV/AIDS spending. We report most estimates in 2017 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars and adjust all estimates for the effect of inflation. FINDINGS:Between 1995 and 2015, global health spending per capita grew at an annualised rate of 3·1% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1 to 3·2), with growth being largest in upper-middle-income countries (5·4% per capita [UI 5·3-5·5]) and lower-middle-income countries (4·2% per capita [4·2-4·3]). In 2015, $9·7 trillion (9·7 trillion to 9·8 trillion) was spent on health worldwide. High-income countries spent $6·5 trillion (6·4 trillion to 6·5 trillion) or 66·3% (66·0 to 66·5) of the total in 2015, whereas low-income countries spent $70·3 billion (69·3 billion to 71·3 billion) or 0·7% (0·7 to 0·7). Between 1990 and 2017, development assistance for health increased by 394·7% ($29·9 billion), with an estimated $37·4 billion of development assistance being disbursed for health in 2017, of which $9·1 billion (24·2%) targeted HIV/AIDS. Between 2000 and 2015, $562·6 billion (531·1 billion to 621·9 billion) was spent on HIV/AIDS worldwide. Governments financed 57·6% (52·0 to 60·8) of that total. Global HIV/AIDS spending peaked at 49·7 billion (46·2-54·7) in 2013, decreasing to $48·9 billion (45·2 billion to 54·2 billion) in 2015. That year, low-income and lower-middle-income countries represented 74·6% of all HIV/AIDS disability-adjusted life-years, but just 36·6% (34·4 to 38·7) of total HIV/AIDS spending. In 2015, $9·3 billion (8·5 billion to 10·4 billion) or 19·0% (17·6 to 20·6) of HIV/AIDS financing was spent on prevention, and $27·3 billion (24·5 billion to 31·1 billion) or 55·8% (53·3 to 57·9) was dedicated to care and treatment. INTERPRETATION:From 1995 to 2015, total health spending increased worldwide, with the fastest per capita growth in middle-income countries. While these national disparities are relatively well known, low-income countries spent less per person on health and HIV/AIDS than did high-income and middle-income countries. Furthermore, declines in development assistance for health continue, including for HIV/AIDS. Additional cuts to development assistance could hasten this decline, and risk slowing progress towards global and national goals. FUNDING:The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC5946845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:To estimate the level and trend of development assistance for community health worker-related projects in low- and middle-income countries between 2007 and 2017. Methods:We extracted data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's creditor reporting system on aid funding for projects to support community health workers (CHWs) in 114 countries over 2007-2017. We produced estimates for projects specifically described by relevant keywords and for projects which could include components on CHWs. We analysed the pattern of development assistance by purpose, donors, recipient regions and countries, and trends over time. Findings:Between 2007 and 2017, total development assistance targeting CHW projects was around United States dollars (US$) 5?298.02 million, accounting for 2.5% of the US$ 209?277.99 million total development assistance for health. The top three donors (Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America) provided a total of US$ 4 350.08 million (82.1%) of development assistance for these projects. Sub-Saharan Africa received a total US$ 3?717.93 million, the largest per capita assistance over 11 years (US$ 0.39; total population: 9?426.25 million). Development assistance to projects that focused on infectious diseases and child and maternal health received most funds during the study period. Conclusion:The share of development assistance invested in the CHW projects was small, unstable and decreasing in recent years. More research is needed on tracking government investments in CHW-related projects and assessing the impact of investments on programme effectiveness.
| S-EPMC6933433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the increasing interest in China's development assistance for health (DAH) in African countries, little is known regarding the distribution and determinants of China's DAH project allocation among the principle subdivisions (provinces & states) within African countries. METHODS:We mapped the distribution of China's DAH projects in 670 principle subdivisions of 50 African countries during 2006-2015 using web-based information. The political, demographic, health and socioeconomic indicators of DAH allocation were analyzed using conditional logistic regression models. The national capital city and political leader's birth place were selected as the main political indicators, and health indicators were selected according to different fields of the DAH projects. RESULTS:China's DAH projects (mainly China medical teams [CMTs], hospitals and anti-malaria centers) were mostly allocated to the western and eastern coasts of Africa, although CMTs were also dispatched to northern Africa. National capital cities were significantly associated with the allocation of China's DAH projects (P?<? 0.001). Anti-malaria centers were more likely to be allocated to principle subdivisions with larger populations (OR?=?1.35), and CMTs were allocated to subdivisions with high population densities (OR?=?79.01). No health-related indicators were identified to affect project allocation except for the facility delivery rate and under-five mortality rate, which were associated with hospital allocation. We also found an association between CMT allocation and the use of artemisinin-based combination therapy in children. CONCLUSIONS:Allocation of China's DAH projects is strongly affected by political and demographic factors. Implementation of China's new DAH projects should target health and socio-economic indicators and impact metrics in scaling up tailored and cost-effective programs in Africa.
| S-EPMC6307275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The distributions of income and health within and across countries are changing. This challenges the way donors allocate development assistance for health (DAH) and particularly the role of gross national income per capita (GNIpc) in classifying countries to determine whether countries are eligible to receive assistance and how much they receive. Informed by a literature review and stakeholder consultations and interviews, we developed a stepwise approach to the design and assessment of country classification frameworks for the allocation of DAH, with emphasis on critical value choices. We devised 25 frameworks, all which combined GNIpc and at least one other indicator into an index. Indicators were selected and assessed based on relevance, salience, validity, consistency, and availability and timeliness, where relevance concerned the extent to which the indicator represented country's health needs, domestic capacity, the expected impact of DAH, or equity. We assessed how the use of the different frameworks changed the rankings of low- and middle-income countries relative to a country's ranking based on GNIpc alone. We found that stakeholders generally considered needs to be the most important concern to be captured by classification frameworks, followed by inequality, expected impact and domestic capacity. We further found that integrating a health-needs indicator with GNIpc makes a significant difference for many countries and country categories-and especially middle-income countries with high burden of unmet health needs-while the choice of specific indicator makes less difference. This together with assessments of relevance, salience, validity, consistency, and availability and timeliness suggest that donors have reasons to include a health-needs indicator in the initial classification of countries. It specifically suggests that life expectancy and disability-adjusted life year rate are indicators worth considering. Indicators related to other concerns may be mainly relevant at different stages of the decision-making process, require better data, or both.
| S-EPMC5886059 | biostudies-literature