Important: The POPLINE website will retire on September 1, 2019. Click here to read about the transition.

Your search found 2 Results

  1. 1
    Peer Reviewed

    Global cost of child survival: estimates from country-level validation.

    van Ekdom L; Stenberg K; Scherpbier RW; Niessen LW

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2011 Apr 1; 89(4):267-77.

    OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate the global cost of scaling up child survival interventions to achieve the fourth Millennium Development Goal (MDG4) as estimated by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2007 by using the latest country-provided data and new assumptions. METHODS: After the main cost categories for each country were identified, validation questionnaires were sent to 32 countries with high child mortality. Publicly available estimates for disease incidence, intervention coverage, prices and resources for individual-level and programme-level activities were validated against local data. Nine updates to the 2007 WHO model were generated using revised assumptions. Finally, estimates were extrapolated to 75 countries and combined with cost estimates for immunization and malaria programmes and for programmes for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). FINDINGS: Twenty-six countries responded. Adjustments were largest for system- and programme-level data and smallest for patient data. Country-level validation caused a 53% increase in original cost estimates (i.e. 9 billion 2004 United States dollars [US$]) for 26 countries owing to revised system and programme assumptions, especially surrounding community health worker costs. The additional effect of updated population figures was small; updated epidemiologic figures increased costs by US$ 4 billion (+15%). New unit prices in the 26 countries that provided data increased estimates by US$ 4.3 billion (+16%). Extrapolation to 75 countries increased the original price estimate by US$ 33 billion (+80%) for 2010-2015. CONCLUSION: Country-level validation had a significant effect on the cost estimate. Price adaptations and programme-related assumptions contributed substantially. An additional 74 billion US$ 2005 (representing a 12% increase in total health expenditure) would be needed between 2010 and 2015. Given resource constraints, countries will need to prioritize health activities within their national resource envelope.
    Add to my documents.
  2. 2

    Essential medicines for reproductive health: developing evidence based interagency list.

    Logez S; Jayasekar S; Moller H; Ahmed K; Patel MU

    Southern Med Review. 2011 Dec; 4(2):15-21.

    Objectives: Although poor reproductive health constitutes a significant proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, essential medicines for reproductive health are often not available to the population. The objective was to analyze the guiding principles for developing national Essential Medicines Lists (EML). The second objective was to compare the reproductive health medicines included on these EMLs to the 2002 WHO/UNFPA list of essential drugs and commodities for reproductive health. Another objective was to compare the medicines included in existing international lists of medicines for reproductive health. Methods: The authors calculated the average number of medicines per clinical groups included in 112 national EMLs and compared these average numbers with the number of medicines per clinical group included on the WHO/UNFPA List. Additionally, they compared the content of the lists of medicines for reproductive health developed by various international agencies. Results: In 2003, the review of the 112 EMLs highlighted that medicines for reproductive health were not consistently included. The review of the international lists identified inconsistencies in their recommendations. The reviews' outcomes became the catalyst for collaboration among international agencies in the development of the first harmonized Interagency List of Essential Medicines for Reproductive Health. Additionally, WHO, UNFPA and PATH published guidelines to support the inclusion of essential medicines for reproductive health in national medicine policies and EMLs. The Interagency List became a key advocacy tool for countries to review their EMLs. In 2009, a UNFPA/WHO assessment on access to reproductive health medicines in six countries demonstrated that the major challenge was that the Interagency List had not been updated recently and was inconsistently used. Conclusion: The addition of cost-effective medicines for reproductive health to EMLs can result in enhanced equity in access to and cost containment of these medicines, and improve quality of care. Action is required to ensure their inclusion in national budget lines, supply chains, policies and programmatic guidance.
    Add to my documents.