Victora Cesar G, Fenn Bridget, Bryce Jennifer, Kirkwood Betty R
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, CP 464, 96001-970 Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Lancet. 2005;366(9495):1460-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67599-X.
In most low-income countries, several child-survival interventions are being implemented. We assessed how these interventions are clustered at the level of the individual child.
We analysed data from Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Cambodia, Eritrea, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, and Nicaragua. A co-coverage score was obtained by adding the number of interventions received by each child (including BCG, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, and measles vaccines), tetanus toxoid for the mother, vitamin A supplementation, antenatal care, skilled delivery, and safe water. Socioeconomic status was assessed through principal components analysis of household assets, and concentration indices were calculated.
The percentage of children who did not receive a single intervention ranged from 0.3% (14/5495) in Nicaragua to 18.8% (1154/6144) in Cambodia. The proportions receiving all available interventions varied from 0.8% (48/6144) in Cambodia to 13.3% (733/5495) in Nicaragua. There were substantial inequities within all countries. In the poorest wealth quintile, 31% of Cambodian children received no interventions and 17% only one intervention; in Haiti, these figures were 15% and 17%, respectively. Inequities were inversely related to coverage levels. Countries with higher coverage rates tended to show bottom inequity patterns, with the poorest lagging behind all other groups, whereas low-coverage countries showed top inequities with the rich substantially above the rest.
The inequitable clustering of interventions at the level of the child raises the possibility that the introduction of new technologies might primarily benefit children who are already covered by existing interventions. Packaging several interventions through a single delivery strategy, while making economic sense, could contribute to increased inequities unless population coverage is very high. Co-coverage analyses of child-health surveys provide a way to assess these issues.
在大多数低收入国家,多项儿童生存干预措施正在实施。我们评估了这些干预措施在个体儿童层面是如何聚集的。
我们分析了来自孟加拉国、贝宁、巴西、柬埔寨、厄立特里亚、海地、马拉维、尼泊尔和尼加拉瓜的数据。通过将每个儿童接受的干预措施数量(包括卡介苗、白喉-百日咳-破伤风疫苗和麻疹疫苗)、母亲的破伤风类毒素、维生素A补充剂、产前护理、熟练接生和安全饮用水相加,得出联合覆盖率得分。通过对家庭资产进行主成分分析评估社会经济地位,并计算集中指数。
未接受任何一项干预措施的儿童比例从尼加拉瓜的0.3%(14/5495)到柬埔寨的18.8%(1154/6144)不等。接受所有可用干预措施的比例从柬埔寨的0.8%(48/6144)到尼加拉瓜的13.3%(733/5495)不等。所有国家内部都存在严重的不平等现象。在最贫困的财富五分位数中,31%的柬埔寨儿童未接受任何干预措施,17%的儿童仅接受了一项干预措施;在海地,这些数字分别为15%和17%。不平等现象与覆盖率水平呈负相关。覆盖率较高的国家往往呈现底部不平等模式,最贫困的群体落后于所有其他群体,而低覆盖率国家则呈现顶部不平等,富裕群体大幅高于其他群体。
儿童层面干预措施的不平等聚集增加了新技术引入可能主要使已接受现有干预措施的儿童受益的可能性。通过单一实施策略打包多项干预措施,虽然在经济上有意义,但可能会加剧不平等,除非人群覆盖率非常高。儿童健康调查的联合覆盖率分析提供了一种评估这些问题的方法。