1. |
|
|
2. |
- Sbarra, AN, et al.
(author)
-
Mapping routine measles vaccination in low- and middle-income countries
- 2021
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 589:7842, s. 415-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1–4. Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)5–8. Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children.
|
|
3. |
- Micah, Angela E., et al.
(author)
-
Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19 : a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050
- 2021
-
In: The Lancet. - : Elsevier. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 398:10308, s. 1317-1343
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background The 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. Methods We 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. Findings In 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. Interpretation Global 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. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
4. |
- Guerrero-Casado, José, et al.
(author)
-
Assessment of the suitability of latrine counts as an indirect method by which to estimate the abundance of European rabbit populations at high and low abundance
- 2020
-
In: European Journal of Wildlife Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1612-4642 .- 1439-0574. ; 66:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Monitoring European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) populations using suitable methods is crucial, especially in those areas in which endangered predators remain and rabbits occur at low densities. We first counted the number of rabbits, the number of scattered pellets, and the number of latrines counted within 16 plots established in areas of low rabbit density, showing that the number of rabbits counted inside the plots was more closely correlated with the number of pellets counted than with the number of latrines. In addition, no latrines were found in 8 plots. In 53 walking transects, the number of pellets m−2 and the number of latrines km−1 had a positive relationship, but no significant correlation was obtained between the two methods when only the transects with a low rabbit abundance were selected. These results suggest that although counting latrines can be useful to compare areas with different abundances, it may underestimate rabbit abundance at low abundances where counting scattered pellets is, therefore, the most accurate alternative. © 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
|
|