...
首页> 外文期刊>The Lancet >WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis.
【24h】

WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis.

机译:世卫组织的预算拨款和疾病负担:比较分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Ministers of health, donor agencies, philanthropists, and international agencies will meet at Bamako, Mali, in November, 2008, to review global priorities for health research. These individuals and organisations previously set health priorities for WHO, either through its regular budget or extra-budgetary funds. We asked what insights can be gained as to their priorities from previous decisions within the context of WHO. METHODS: We compared the WHO biennial budgetary allocations with the burden of disease from 1994-95 to 2008-09. We obtained data from publicly available WHO sources and examined whether WHO allocations varied with the burden of disease (defined by death and disability-adjusted life years) by comparing two WHO regions-Western Pacific and Africa-that are at differing stages of epidemiological transition. We further assessed whether the allocations differed on the basis of the source of funds (assessed and voluntary contributions) and the mechanism for deciding how funds were spent. FINDINGS: We noted that WHO budget allocations were heavily skewed toward infectious diseases. In 2006-07, WHO allocated 87% of its total budget to infectious diseases, 12% to non-communicable diseases, and less than 1% to injuries and violence. We recorded a similar distribution of funding in Africa, where nearly three-quarters of mortality is from infectious disease, and in Western Pacific, where three-quarters of mortality is from non-communicable disease. In both regions, injuries received only 1% of total resources. The skew towards infectious diseases was substantially greater for the WHO extra-budget, which is allocated by donors and has risen greatly in recent years, than for the WHO regular budget, which is decided on by member states through democratic mechanisms and has been held at zero nominal growth. INTERPRETATION: Decision makers at Bamako should consider the implications of the present misalignment of global health priorities and disease burden for health research worldwide. Funds allocated by external donors substantially differ from those allocated by WHO member states. The meeting at Bamako provides an opportunity to consider how this disparity might be addressed.
机译:背景:卫生部长,捐助机构,慈善家和国际机构的部长将于2008年11月在马里巴马科开会,审查全球卫生研究重点。这些个人和组织先前通过世卫组织的正常预算或预算外资金为世卫组织确定了卫生优先事项。我们询问在世卫组织范围内从先前的决定中可以得到哪些关于优先事项的见解。方法:我们将世界卫生组织两年期预算拨款与1994-95年至2008-09年的疾病负担进行了比较。我们从世界卫生组织的公开来源获得数据,并通过比较处于流行病学转变不同阶段的两个世界卫生组织区域-西太平洋和非洲,检查了世界卫生组织的分配是否随疾病负担而变化(由死亡和残疾调整生命年定义)。我们根据资金来源(分摊款和自愿捐款)以及决定资金使用方式的机制,进一步评估了拨款是否有所不同。结论:我们注意到世卫组织的预算拨款严重偏向于传染病。在2006-07年度,世卫组织将其总预算的87%用于传染病,将12%用于非传染性疾病,将不到1%用于伤害和暴力。我们在非洲记录了类似的资金分配情况,非洲有将近四分之三的死亡率来自传染病,而西太平洋地区的四分之三的死亡率来自非传染性疾病。在这两个地区,受伤仅获得了总资源的1%。与世卫组织经常预算相比,世卫组织预算是由捐助者分配的,并且近年来已大大增加,对传染病的倾斜要大得多,世卫组织经常预算是由成员国通过民主机制决定的,并且一直保持不变。名义增长为零。解释:巴马科的决策者应考虑目前全球卫生重点和疾病负担的失调对全世界卫生研究的影响。外部捐助者分配的资金与世卫组织成员国分配的资金有很大不同。在巴马科举行的会议为考虑如何解决这种差距提供了机会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号