» Articles » PMID: 33531079

Country Size bias in Global Health: Cross-country Comparison Of malaria Policy and Foreign Aid

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2021 Feb 3
PMID 33531079
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

The economic burden of malaria inpatients and its determinants during China's elimination stage.

Chen F, Chen X, Gu P, Sang X, Wu R, Tian M Front Public Health. 2022; 10:994529.

PMID: 36388376 PMC: 9651145. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.994529.

References
1.
Hay S, Guerra C, Tatem A, Atkinson P, Snow R . Urbanization, malaria transmission and disease burden in Africa. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004; 3(1):81-90. PMC: 3130901. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro1069. View

2.
Dhiman R, Pahwa S, Dhillon G, Dash A . Climate change and threat of vector-borne diseases in India: are we prepared?. Parasitol Res. 2010; 106(4):763-73. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-010-1767-4. View

3.
Sachs J, Malaney P . The economic and social burden of malaria. Nature. 2002; 415(6872):680-5. DOI: 10.1038/415680a. View

4.
Williams H, Durrheim D, Shretta R . The process of changing national malaria treatment policy: lessons from country-level studies. Health Policy Plan. 2004; 19(6):356-70. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czh051. View

5.
Hagenlocher M, Castro M . Mapping malaria risk and vulnerability in the United Republic of Tanzania: a spatial explicit model. Popul Health Metr. 2015; 13(1):2. PMC: 4324856. DOI: 10.1186/s12963-015-0036-2. View