• Justine Hsu, Peter Berman, and Anne Mills.
• Health Economics and Systems Analysis, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. justine.hsu@lshtm.ac.uk
• Lancet. 2013 May 18;381(9879):1772-82.

BackgroundInformation is scarce about the extent to which official development assistance (ODA) is spent on reproductive health to provide childbirth care; support family planning; address sexual health; and prevent, treat, and care for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. We analysed flows of ODA to reproductive health for 2009 and 2010, assessed their distribution by donor type and purpose, and investigated the extent to which disbursements respond to need. We aimed to provide global estimates of aid to reproductive health, to assess the allocation of resources across reproductive health activities, and to encourage donor accountability in targeting aid flows to those most in need.MethodsWe applied a standard definition of reproductive health across all donors, including a portion of disease-specific activities and health systems development. We analysed disbursements to reproductive health by donor type and purpose (eg, family planning). We also reported on an indicator to monitor donor disbursements: ODA to reproductive health per woman aged 15-49 years. We analysed the extent to which funding is targeted to countries most in need, proxied by female life expectancy at birth and prevalence of HIV infection in adults.FindingsDonor disbursements to reproductive health activities in all countries amounted to US$5579 million in 2009 and US$5637 million in 2010-an increase of 1.0%. ODA for such activities in the 74 Countdown priority countries increased more rapidly at 5.3%. More than half of the funding was directed towards prevention, treatment, and care of HIV infection for women of reproductive age (15-49 years of age). On average, ODA to general reproductive health activities amounted to 15.9% and ODA to family planning 7.2%. Aid to reproductive health was heavily dependent on the USA, the Global Fund, the UK, the United Nations Population Fund, and the World Bank.InterpretationDonors are prioritising reproductive health, and the slight increase in funding in 2009-10 is welcome, especially in the present economic climate. The large share of such funding for activities related to HIV infection in women of reproductive age affects the amount of ODA received by priority countries. It should thus be distinguished from resources directed to other reproductive health activities, such as family planning, which has been the focus of recent worldwide advocacy efforts. Tracking of donor aid to reproductive health should continue to allow investigation of the allocation of resources across reproductive health activities, and to encourage donor accountability in targeting aid flows to those most in need.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Bank, and the Governments of Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the UK.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…