Go to the id21 home page   ID21 - communicating development research
Health
 
Search the whole id21 database
 

Help page and other search methods
    id21 Health
  Health systems
and economics
  Non-communicable
diseases
  Infectious
diseases
  HIV/AIDS
  Sexual and
reproductive health
  Maternal health
  Child health
  Environmental
health
 
    id21 Global Issues
 
    id21 Education
 
    id21 Urban Development
 
    id21 Natural Resources
 
    id21 Rural Development
 
    id21 Home page
 
    Gender and Violence in African Schools
 
    id21 Publications
 
    id21 Viewpoints
 
    About id21
 
    Links
 
    Contact id21
 
    id21News
 
    id21 Insights
 
    id21 Media
 
     
Fair play: removing inequities in child health

Gaps in child mortality between rich and poor are unacceptably wide and growing. Poorer children face disadvantages at every step from exposure and resistance to infectious disease, through care-seeking, to effective treatment. How can policy-makers close these gaps? An international team of researchers explore the options of targeting and universal coverage.

Socio-economic gaps in child survival are inequities – inequalities that are unjust and unfair. Compared with their better-off peers, poorer children suffer from:

  • greater exposure to disease risks through inadequate water and sanitation, indoor air pollution, overcrowding, poor housing conditions and contact with animals carrying disease
  • lower disease resistance due to poor nutrition
  • higher rates of micronutrient deficiencies, low birthweight and recurrent disease episodes
  • poorer coverage of vaccination, vitamin A supplementation and insecticide-treated nets.

Once they are sick poor children are less likely to be taken to a healthcare provider and to receive appropriate care. Even within poor rural areas, use of appropriate healthcare varies with wealth. The disadvantages linked to poverty also include lower levels of education, lack of coverage of public or private health insurance, high time costs when seeking healthcare and poorer quality health services.

The authors insist that the damaging effects of poverty on child health can be reduced by well-designed policies. Despite the need for more and better evidence, we know enough now to move ahead to reduce health inequities in children. Potential approaches include:

  • improving knowledge and changing behaviour among poor mothers
  • increasing access to water and sanitation
  • empowering poor women
  • making healthcare more accessible and affordable for low-income households
  • enhancing the resources and improving the user-friendliness of facilities serving poor people
  • making budget allocations more relevant to the burden of disease suffered by disadvantaged groups.

Effective large-scale implementation is the next challenge. Two basic approaches can raise coverage in poor population groups. Targeting focuses on directing programmes or interventions so that these mainly benefit poor communities or poor families within a community. Although often effective, targeted programmes can be difficult to administer, stigmatising or unethical. The alternative is universal coverage of activities that address conditions that particularly affect the poor. However, these initiatives may lose momentum before reaching disadvantaged groups.

The authors recommend that health policy-makers who are trying to tackle inequities in child survival should:

  • aim for high coverage of a few interventions rather than mediocre coverage of several interventions
  • take account of the local epidemiological and health system characteristics and measure health status and programme use in different socio-economic groups
  • consider both targeting and universal coverage approaches
  • build knowledge and competency among their staff on poverty and equity issues
  • ensure that equity is considered in all new projects.

Source(s):
'Applying an equity lens to child health and mortality: more of the same is not enough', The Lancet 362: 233-241, by C.G. Victora et al, 2003
'Explaining trends in inequities? Evidence from Brazilian child health studies', The Lancet 356: 1093-1098, by C.G. Victora et al, 2000
'How well do health programmes reach the poor?', The Lancet 361: 540-541, by D.R. Gwatkin, 2003

Funded by: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; UK Department for International Development

id21 Research Highlight: 28 August 2003

Further Information:
Cesar Victora
Universidade Federal de Pelotas
CP464
96001-970 Pelotas
Brazil

Contact the contributor: cvictora@terra.com.br

Other related links:
'Maternal and child healthcare reform in China: bypassing the poor?' >

'Children in least developed countries: forever mired in poverty?' >

'Health or economic growth: saving children’s lives in the developing world.' >

'Children in developing countries face new health threats' >

See id21's collection of links relevant to maternal and child health.

See id21's collection of links relevant to health systems and economics.

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Unless stated otherwise articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged.

Copyright © 2007 id21. All rights reserved.

Week beginning Monday 1st September 2008
FREE Information Delivery services from id21:
Get updates by email: id21 news
Insights: research digests
Contact id21