Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SummaryBackgroundTracking aid flows helps to hold donors accountable and to compare the allocation of resources in relation to health need. With the use of data reported by donors in 2015, we provided estimates of official development assistance and grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (collectively termed ODA+) to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for 2013 and complete trends in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health support for the period 2003–13.MethodsWe coded and analysed financial disbursements to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to all recipient countries from all donors reporting to the creditor reporting system database for the year 2013. We also revisited disbursement records for the years 2003–08 and coded disbursements relating to reproductive and sexual health activities resulting in the Countdown dataset for 2003–13. We matched this dataset to the 2015 creditor reporting system dataset and coded any unmatched creditor reporting system records. We analysed trends in ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health for the period 2003–13, trends in donor contributions, disbursements to recipient countries, and targeting to need.FindingsTotal ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health reached nearly US$14 billion in 2013, of which 48% supported child health ($6·8 billion), 34% supported reproductive and sexual health ($4·7 billion), and 18% maternal and newborn health ($2·5 billion). ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health increased by 225% in real terms over the period 2003–13. Child health received the most substantial increase in funding since 2003 (286%), followed by reproductive and sexual health (194%), and maternal and newborn health (164%). In 2013, bilateral donors disbursed 59% of all ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health, followed by global health initiatives (23%), and multilateral agencies (13%). Targeting of ODA+ to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health to countries with the greatest health need seems to have improved over time.InterpretationThe increase in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health funding over the period 2003–13 is encouraging. Further increases in funding will be needed to accelerate maternal mortality reduction while keeping a high level of investment in sexual and reproductive health and in child health.FundingSubgrant OPP1058954 from the US Fund for UNICEF under their Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

We report the case of multiple adverse reactions following HPV vaccination in Colombian adolescents in Carmen de Bolivar. In August 2012, the country introduced a school-based HPV immunization programme which successfully reached over 90% of the target population in the first year. In 2014, between May 29th and June 2nd,15 adolescent girls in one school presented adverse reactions after vaccination and were admitted to the local hospital. Soon, videos of girls fainting, twitching, and arriving unconscious at emergency rooms started to appear in national news media as well as on social media platforms such as YouTube. The viral spread of these videos and disturbing images were followed by the viral spread of symptoms, with over 600 cases reported across Colombia. Thorough epidemiological investigation by Colombian health authorities found no organic association between the teenagers' symptoms and the HPV vaccine, concluding this was a case of mass psychogenic reaction to vaccination. Scientific evidence did not appease the anxious public whose confidence in HPV immunization dropped dramatically. By 2016, HPV vaccine uptake among eligible girls declined to 14% for the first dose and 5% for the complete course, down from 98% and 88%, respectively, in 2012. We document this case and discuss the role of news and social media, particularly YouTube, as a driver of contagious psychogenic reactions. We also discuss the role of health authorities and government, and the importance of acting rapidly and appropriately to contain the spread of such symptoms and maintain public confidence in vaccines.

SummaryBackgroundFour initiatives have estimated the value of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH): Countdown to 2015, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), the Muskoka Initiative, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) policy marker. We aimed to compare the estimates, trends, and methodologies of these initiatives and make recommendations for future aid tracking.MethodsWe compared estimates of aid for RMNCH from the four initiatives for all years available at the time of our analysis (1990–2016). We used publicly available datasets for IHME and Countdown. We produced estimates for Muskoka and the OECD policy marker using data in the OECD Creditor Reporting System. We sought to explain differences in estimates by critically comparing the methods used by each approach to identify and analyse aid, and quantifying the effects of these choices on estimates.FindingsAll four approaches indicated substantial increases over time in global aid for RMNCH, but estimates of aid amounts and year-on-year trends differed substantially, especially for individual donors and recipient countries. Muskoka (US$ 13·0 billion in 2013, constant 2015 US$) and Countdown's RMNCH estimates ($13·1 billion in 2013) tended to be the highest and most similar, although they often indicated different year-on-year trends. IHME produced lower estimates ($10·8 billion in 2013), which often indicated different trends from the other approaches. The OECD policy marker produced by far the lowest estimates ($2·0 billion in 2013) because half of bilateral donors did not report on it consistently and those who did tended to apply it narrowly. Estimates differed across approaches primarily because of differences in methods for distinguishing aid for RMNCH from aid for other purposes; adjustments for inflation, exchange rates, and under-reporting; whether donors were credited for their support to multilateral institutions; and the handling of aid to unspecified recipients.InterpretationThe four approaches are likely to lead to different conclusions about whether individual donors and recipient countries have fulfilled their obligations and commitments and whether aid was sufficient, targeted to countries with greater need, or effective. We recommend that efforts to track aid for the Sustainable Development Goals reflect their multisectoral and interconnected nature and make analytical choices that are appropriate to their objectives, recognising the trade-offs between simplicity, timeliness, precision, accuracy, efficiency, flexibility, replicability, and the incentives that different metrics create for donors.FundingSubgrant OPP1058954 from the US Fund for UNICEF under their Countdown to 2015 for Maternal, Newborn and Child Survival Grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background Four methods have previously been used to track aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH). At a meeting of donors and stakeholders in May, 2018, a single, agreed method was requested to produce accurate, predictable, transparent, and up-to-date estimates that could be used for analyses from both donor and recipient perspectives. Muskoka2 was developed to meet these needs. We describe Muskoka2 and present estimates of levels and trends in aid for RMNCH in 2002-17, with a focus on the latest estimates for 2017.Methods Muskoka2 is an automated algorithm that generates disaggregated estimates of aid for reproductive health, maternal and newborn health, and child health at the global, donor, and recipient-country levels. We applied Muskoka2 to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Creditor Reporting System (CRS) aid activities database to generate estimates of RMNCH disbursements in 2002-17. The percentage of disbursements that benefit RMNCH was determined using CRS purpose codes for all donors except Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the UN Population Fund; and UNICEF; for which fixed percentages of aid were considered to benefit RMNCH. We analysed funding by donor for the 20 largest donors, by recipient-country income group, and by recipient for the 16 countries with the greatest RMNCH need, defined as the countries with the worst levels in 2015 on each of seven health indicators.