Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

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

T. Jezek

. 2021 ; 6 (1) : 4. [pub] 20210203

Language English Country Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

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.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22004629
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220127145113.0
007      
ta
008      
220113s2021 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s41256-020-00176-x $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)33531079
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Jezek, Tomas $u Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia. tomas.jezek@volny.cz
245    10
$a Country size bias in global health: cross-country comparison of malaria policy and foreign aid / $c T. Jezek
520    9_
$a 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.
650    12
$a osobní újma zaviněná nemocí $7 D017281
650    _2
$a celosvětové zdraví $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D014943
650    _2
$a zdravotní politika $x zákonodárství a právo $7 D006291
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a mezinárodní spolupráce $7 D007391
650    _2
$a malárie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D008288
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
773    0_
$w MED00208715 $t Global health research and policy $x 2397-0642 $g Roč. 6, č. 1 (2021), s. 4
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33531079 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220113 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220127145110 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1751938 $s 1155778
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 6 $c 1 $d 4 $e 20210203 $i 2397-0642 $m Global health research and policy $n Glob Health Res Policy $x MED00208715
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220113

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...