A Warsame1, P Patel2, F Checchi1. 1. Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 2. Department of War Studies, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess recent (2006-2010) tuberculosis (TB) funding patterns in conflict and non-conflict-affected fragile states to inform global policy. METHODS: The Creditor Reporting System was analysed for official development assistance funding disbursements towards TB control in 11 conflict-affected states, 17 non-conflict-affected fragile states and 38 comparable non-fragile states. The amounts of funding, funding relative to burden, funding relative to malaria and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) control, disbursements relative to commitments, sources of funding as well as funding activities were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: Fragile states received on average more per capita for TB control relative to non-fragile states (US0.159 vs. US0.079). However conflict-affected fragile states received on average less per capita than non-conflict-affected states (US0.144 vs. US0.203), despite worse development indicators. Conflict-affected fragile states also received on average only 70% of TB funds already committed. Analysis by burden revealed the least disparity in funding in highest prevalence settings. Analysis of funding activities suggests increasing importance of TB-HIV integration, multidrug-resistant TB and research in both fragile and non-fragile states. Relative to non-conflict-affected fragile states, conflict-affected fragile states received approximately two thirds the per capita funding for TB. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed disparities in TB control funding between fragile and non-fragile as well as between conflict and non-conflict-affected fragile states. Findings suggest possible avenues for improving the allocation of global TB funding.
OBJECTIVE: To assess recent (2006-2010) tuberculosis (TB) funding patterns in conflict and non-conflict-affected fragile states to inform global policy. METHODS: The Creditor Reporting System was analysed for official development assistance funding disbursements towards TB control in 11 conflict-affected states, 17 non-conflict-affected fragile states and 38 comparable non-fragile states. The amounts of funding, funding relative to burden, funding relative to malaria and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) control, disbursements relative to commitments, sources of funding as well as funding activities were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: Fragile states received on average more per capita for TB control relative to non-fragile states (US0.159 vs. US0.079). However conflict-affected fragile states received on average less per capita than non-conflict-affected states (US0.144 vs. US0.203), despite worse development indicators. Conflict-affected fragile states also received on average only 70% of TB funds already committed. Analysis by burden revealed the least disparity in funding in highest prevalence settings. Analysis of funding activities suggests increasing importance of TB-HIV integration, multidrug-resistant TB and research in both fragile and non-fragile states. Relative to non-conflict-affected fragile states, conflict-affected fragile states received approximately two thirds the per capita funding for TB. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed disparities in TB control funding between fragile and non-fragile as well as between conflict and non-conflict-affected fragile states. Findings suggest possible avenues for improving the allocation of global TB funding.