Cargando…

Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid

BACKGROUND: Foreign aid has been shown to be favourably biased towards small countries. This study investigated whether country size bias also occurs in national malaria policy and development assistance from international agencies. METHODS: Data from publicly available sources were collected with c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Jezek, Tomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33531079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41256-020-00176-x
_version_ 1783646301822386176
author Jezek, Tomas
author_facet Jezek, Tomas
author_sort Jezek, Tomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Foreign aid has been shown to be favourably biased towards small countries. This study investigated whether country size bias also occurs in national malaria policy and development assistance from international agencies. METHODS: Data from publicly available sources were collected with countries as observational units. The exploratory data analysis was based on the conceptual framework with socio-economic, environmental and institutional parameters. The strength of relationships was estimated by the Pearson and polychoric correlation coefficients. The correlation matrix was explored by factor analysis. RESULTS: Malaria burden is strongly correlated with GDP per capita, total health expenditure per capita, HDI; moderately with latitude, weakly with elevation, urban population share, per capita funding from the Global Fund, PMI USAID, UK government and UNICEF. Small country status is strongly correlated with population size, land area, island status; moderately with development assistance received per capita, weakly with funding per capita from Global Fund, government NMP and PMI USAID. Policy score 1, a variable derived from our factor analysis and related to malaria endemicity, is significantly strongly correlated with the malaria burden, moderately with HDI, GDP per capita, total health expenditure per capita, PMI USAID funding; weakly with island status, urban population share, latitude, coastal population share, total government expenditure and trade openness, Global Fund funding, World Bank funding, UK government funding, and UNICEF funding per capita. Policy score 2, which captures variation not related to malaria endemicity, is significantly weakly related to the ICRG index, PMI USAID funding per capita and small country status. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that malaria burden and economic development are bidirectionally related. Economic development can contribute to a reduction in the malaria burden. Country size does not negatively impact malaria burden, but it does account for greater development assistance per capita from selected international agencies. National malaria policy is associated with parameters related to public governance and is modified in small countries. Small country bias is present in the distribution of socio-economic resources and the allocation of foreign aid. Small countries are characterized by distinct environmental and socio-political properties. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s41256-020-00176-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7856723
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78567232021-02-04 Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid Jezek, Tomas Glob Health Res Policy Research BACKGROUND: Foreign aid has been shown to be favourably biased towards small countries. This study investigated whether country size bias also occurs in national malaria policy and development assistance from international agencies. METHODS: Data from publicly available sources were collected with countries as observational units. The exploratory data analysis was based on the conceptual framework with socio-economic, environmental and institutional parameters. The strength of relationships was estimated by the Pearson and polychoric correlation coefficients. The correlation matrix was explored by factor analysis. RESULTS: Malaria burden is strongly correlated with GDP per capita, total health expenditure per capita, HDI; moderately with latitude, weakly with elevation, urban population share, per capita funding from the Global Fund, PMI USAID, UK government and UNICEF. Small country status is strongly correlated with population size, land area, island status; moderately with development assistance received per capita, weakly with funding per capita from Global Fund, government NMP and PMI USAID. Policy score 1, a variable derived from our factor analysis and related to malaria endemicity, is significantly strongly correlated with the malaria burden, moderately with HDI, GDP per capita, total health expenditure per capita, PMI USAID funding; weakly with island status, urban population share, latitude, coastal population share, total government expenditure and trade openness, Global Fund funding, World Bank funding, UK government funding, and UNICEF funding per capita. Policy score 2, which captures variation not related to malaria endemicity, is significantly weakly related to the ICRG index, PMI USAID funding per capita and small country status. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that malaria burden and economic development are bidirectionally related. Economic development can contribute to a reduction in the malaria burden. Country size does not negatively impact malaria burden, but it does account for greater development assistance per capita from selected international agencies. National malaria policy is associated with parameters related to public governance and is modified in small countries. Small country bias is present in the distribution of socio-economic resources and the allocation of foreign aid. Small countries are characterized by distinct environmental and socio-political properties. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s41256-020-00176-x. BioMed Central 2021-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7856723/ /pubmed/33531079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41256-020-00176-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Jezek, Tomas
Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
title Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
title_full Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
title_fullStr Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
title_full_unstemmed Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
title_short Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
title_sort country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33531079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41256-020-00176-x
work_keys_str_mv AT jezektomas countrysizebiasinglobalhealthcrosscountrycomparisonofmalariapolicyandforeignaid