Latest news with #childmortality
Times
22-07-2025
- Business
- Times
Women and children ‘will suffer most from overseas aid cuts'
Britain's aid cuts will increase the number of children dying unnecessarily, an official government review has concluded as ministers scale back support to some of the world's poorest countries. An impact assessment carried out by the Foreign Office warned that plans to reduce spending on health projects in Africa would increase disease and ultimately deaths, particularly among women and children. Planned cuts to education spending in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo would have a 'negative impact' on 170,000 children in former conflict zones, the report added. Ministers announced plans to cut the aid budget by five per cent this year as the government reduces spending from 0.5 per cent of GDP to 0.3 per cent by 2027. Support for Sudan will fall from £145 million in the last financial year to £120 million this year. Aid to Ethiopia will fall from £314 million to £161 million, and Somalia will lose more than £36 million. Total global spending on health projects will fall from £974 million to £527 million. The budget for humanitarian aid, food security and resilience will also be cut. • Some areas have been protected, however, and their budgets will increase. The BBC World Service 's total budget will rise from £104 million to £137 million. Spending on energy, climate and the environment will rise from £414 million to £656 million. Overall, total government spending on official development assistance will fall from £9.2 billion last year to £8.7 billion this year. These cuts will be much deeper next year: the overseas aid budget falls to £6.8 billion before it is reduced again to £6.1 billion in 2027. Ministers said the cuts meant that Britain would have to support organisations with a 'proven track record of impact'. This is likely to lead to significant cuts to bilateral programmes, where Britain directly supports individual countries. Government sources said they were still working through the implications of next year's cuts, which would result in 'difficult choices'. An impact assessment, published alongside the government's new spending plans, said some programmes would be adversely affected immediately. The cuts will affect aid programmes in Kenya immediately DONWILSON ODHIAMBO/GETTY Among those is the hunger safety net programme in Kenya, which the Foreign Office said would have a negative impact given the 'critical role of social protection for poor, vulnerable and marginalised households and groups'. The budget for the programme to support the ending of preventable deaths will also be cut, which the report said would reduce assistance in 11 countries 'at a time when demand is likely to be high given other funding cuts'. Baroness Chapman, the development minister, said the cuts meant the UK needed to 'modernise our approach to international development'. She said: 'Every pound must work harder for UK taxpayers and the people we help around the world and these figures show how we are starting to do just that through having a clear focus and priorities.' Gideon Rabinowitz, the director of policy at Bond, which represents UK aid organisations, said it was clear that the government was 'deprioritising funding for education, gender and countries experiencing humanitarian crises such as South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia'. He said: 'The world's most marginalised communities, particularly those experiencing conflict and women and girls, will pay the highest price for these political choices.'
Fast Company
17-07-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Philanthropy cannot be the global aid plan B
Bill Gates recently sounded the alarm: with massive cuts to foreign aid, global child mortality is set to rise—for the first time in decades. Since the Trump era, more than 80% of USAID contracts have been slashed, and the shortfall is being felt across the world's most vulnerable communities. As a result, there is an urgent need to address how global issues are tackled, making the private philanthropic sector more important than ever. It's tempting to assume that philanthropy should simply step in and focus on filling the gap. But that in my view would be a mistake, and a missed opportunity. Philanthropy, at its best, isn't built to replace government-scale aid. Its real potential lies in its agency to take a longer term view and absorb risk needed to tackle the seemingly intractable issues we face. And in this moment of global disruption, that's needed more than ever. There is a real danger that the primary focus of philanthropic funding pivots towards being a backstop for foreign aid. My fear is that this new role detracts from the real power of philanthropy, which lies in its ability to tackle systemic issues by funding the radical innovation needed to deliver more equitable futures. A moment for philanthropy to embrace breakthroughs Philanthropy is at a crossroads. Traditional models of giving are no longer sufficient to address the complex global challenges we face and the uncertain times we live in. At the same time, too few philanthropists understand their potential in helping tackle them. Let me be clear: I am not criticizing philanthropy's storied history. Philanthropists should be proud to be part of a tradition that has had many successes since the Industrial Revolution. Private donors have helped to fund important social advances—from the near-eradication of polio to women's liberation and equal marriage. Now, as we face rising uncertainty, is the moment for philanthropy to step up and embrace its true superpower: the ability to embrace risk to make breakthroughs. The ability to commit beyond just signing checks. A commitment that also requires time, perseverance, and expertise. A time for a new mindset In 1962, President John F. Kennedy called upon his fellow countrymen to put a man on the moon by the end of that decade. As I look at the challenges we face globally, the solutions look just as far away from our reach as the moon did to Kennedy. Today, I do not believe that voters and taxpayers would be as accepting of such a bold and audacious goal. At the same time many global corporations, some with more capital than nation states, recognize their potential to contribute to tackling the world's greatest challenges. They are stepping up, making huge risky investments in potentially profitable, transformative ideas. But their obligation to deliver shareholder returns leaves little room to deliver the high-risk, transformative work where it's desperately needed. We need to change our thinking about who delivers that change and how it's done. Systems change philanthropy can play that role, but only if philanthropists with the passion, resilience, and risk appetite are encouraged to use their capital for transformative impact. It is this superpower that will enable philanthropy to privatize and absorb the cost of failures, but also socialize its success for the good of all. A partnership, not a substitution Philanthropy has the power to change the tide and create the conditions for larger institutions to act. They don't replace those institutions; they inspire, enable, and de-risk their intervention; it is philanthropists' strategic collaboration with partners, experts, and convening institutions that can ensure targeted and effective action. My work has focused on tackling the issue of uncorrected poor vision, which affects 2.2 billion people globally—a mission that has been at the heart of my philanthropy for the last two decades. For the first decade, my focus was on delivering universal vision correction to the nation of Rwanda. While we achieved our goal, after a long-term effort by a team that included a funder, many partners, and all kinds of experts, correcting poor vision remained a low-priority health issue on the global agenda. This resulted in transforming one country's healthcare system. But change can't happen one country at a time. Without institutional support, I quickly realized that philanthropy would not make enough of a dent in solving the global poor vision challenge. It misses the point of what each does best. It's about the legitimacy, scale, and convening power that governments possess. When a government or international organization commits to a cause, it signals to the world that this issue matters at the highest levels of policy and diplomacy. Our global vision campaign, Clearly, was born out of this realization. And it was the inflection point achieved by lobbying the UN to shift its thinking, from vision correction being a low priority health silo issue to being recognized as a high-priority development issue, that led to a resolution committing every country to 'eyecare for all' by 2030. By taking the risk to reframe vision correction, it created the evidence base and political momentum that governments needed to act. This is the model for philanthropy's future: creating breakthroughs that make government intervention more effective. Philanthropy cannot be a stopgap—but it can kick-start a revolution to address the world's biggest challenges.
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Study exposes ‘alarming' inequalities among child deaths in intensive care
Children from deprived areas of the UK are more likely to die in intensive care than youngsters in wealthy areas, a study suggests. There are also higher death rates among children of Asian ethnicity on these wards compared to white children, researchers said. Experts called for urgent action from policymakers and health leaders in light of the findings, which they described as 'deeply troubling'. For the study, researchers from Imperial College London, University of Leicester, UCL and University of Leeds analysed 245,099 admissions for 163,163 children to UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) between January 2008 and December 2021. Researchers found death rates were 4.2 per cent among the most deprived children at 2,432 deaths per 58,110 admissions, compared to 3.1 per cent among wealthy children with 1,025 deaths per 33,331 admissions. According to the study, youngsters living in the poorest areas had 13 per cent higher odds of dying compared to those living in the least deprived areas. Researchers also found 5.1 per cent of Asian children admitted to PICU died – 1,336 deaths per 26,022 admissions – compared to 3.2 per cent of white children, with 4,960 deaths per 154,041 admissions. Dr Hannah Mitchell, of the department of surgery and cancer at Imperial College London, said: 'Paediatric intensive care offers the highest level of support for the sickest children. 'Our findings show that inequalities persist even at this stage of care and are deeply troubling. 'These are not just statistics – they represent real, preventable differences in outcomes for critically ill children.' Elsewhere, the study found both deprived children and those of Asian ethnicity were more likely to be severely unwell when admitted to PICU compared to wealthier and white children. Youngsters from ethnic minority backgrounds also had longer stays in PICU – 66 hours on average – while white children averaged 52 hours. Dr Mitchell added: 'Our findings are especially alarming in the context of rising levels of child poverty in the UK, where 4.5 million children are now growing up in poverty (31 per cent of all children), 800,000 more children compared to 2013 (27 per cent of all children). 'These findings should prompt urgent action from policymakers and healthcare leaders.' Dr Mitchell said the study, published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 'adds clear, national-scale evidence of disparities in intensive care. 'Reducing avoidable deaths in children must include serious, sustained action to reduce child poverty, improve access to healthcare, and address the structural barriers faced by marginalised communities,' she added. Reacting to the study, Professor Habib Naqvi, chief executive of the NHS Race and Health Observatory, said: 'These sobering findings are shocking and unacceptable. 'Your ethnicity, background or where you live should not determine your chances of survival. 'We need immediate and collective action to address the issues outlined in this study, and in many other studies that show the impact structural inequalities and bias have on healthcare access, experience, and outcomes. 'Not tackling these issues is leading to avoidable harm to countless patients, families, and communities.'
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Alarming' inequalities in death rates for children in intensive care
Children from deprived areas of the UK are more likely to die in intensive care than youngsters in wealthy areas, a study suggests. There are also higher death rates among children of Asian ethnicity on these wards compared to white children, researchers said. Experts called for urgent action from policymakers and health leaders in light of the findings, which they described as 'deeply troubling'. For the study, researchers from Imperial College London, University of Leicester, UCL and University of Leeds analysed admissions of children to UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) between January 2008 and December 2021. Some 245,099 admissions for 163,163 children were included. Researchers found death rates were 4.2% among the most deprived children at 2,432 deaths per 58,110 admissions, compared to 3.1% among wealthy children with 1,025 deaths per 33,331 admissions. According to the study, youngsters living in the poorest areas had 13% higher odds of dying compared to those living in the least deprived areas. Researchers also found 5.1% of Asian children admitted to PICU died – 1,336 deaths per 26,022 admissions – compared to 3.2% of white children, with 4,960 deaths per 154,041 admissions. Children of Asian ethnicity had 52% higher odds of death among Asian children compared to white children, the study suggests. Dr Hannah Mitchell, of the department of surgery and cancer at Imperial College London, said: 'Paediatric intensive care offers the highest level of support for the sickest children. 'Our findings show that inequalities persist even at this stage of care and are deeply troubling. 'These are not just statistics – they represent real, preventable differences in outcomes for critically ill children.' Elsewhere, the study found both deprived children and those of Asian ethnicity were more likely to be severely unwell when admitted to PICU compared to wealthier and white children. Youngsters from ethnic minority backgrounds also had longer stays in PICU – 66 hours on average – while white children averaged at 52 hours. Dr Mitchell added: 'Our findings are especially alarming in the context of rising levels of child poverty in the UK, where 4.5 million children are now growing up in poverty (31% of all children), 800,000 more children compared to 2013 (27% of all children). 'These findings should prompt urgent action from policymakers and healthcare leaders.' Dr Mitchell said the study, published in The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 'adds clear, national-scale evidence of disparities in intensive care. 'Reducing avoidable deaths in children must include serious, sustained action to reduce child poverty, improve access to healthcare, and address the structural barriers faced by marginalised communities,' she added. Reacting to the study, Professor Habib Naqvi, chief executive of the NHS Race and Health Observatory, said: 'These sobering findings are shocking and unacceptable. 'Your ethnicity, background or where you live should not determine your chances of survival. 'We need immediate and collective action to address the issues outlined in this study, and in many other studies that show the impact structural inequalities and bias have on healthcare access, experience, and outcomes. 'Not tackling these issues is leading to avoidable harm to countless patients, families, and communities.'
The Guardian
10-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Minority ethnic and deprived children more likely to die after UK intensive care admission
Minority ethnic children and children from deprived backgrounds across the UK are more likely to die following admission to intensive care than their white and more affluent counterparts, a study has found. These children consistently had worse outcomes following their stay in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), the research by academics at Imperial College London discovered. The study showed they were more likely to arrive at intensive care severely ill, more likely to die after admission, and more likely to stay longer or be readmitted unexpectedly after discharge. The report, published in the Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, looked at 14 years of UK-wide data between 2008 and 2021, commissioned by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, on more than 160,000 critically ill children aged 15 and younger. While previous studies have shown that minority ethnic children have an increased rate of admission to PICUs, this study is the first to look at the health outcomes of these children, and children from more deprived backgrounds, following admission. More specifically, Asian children were 52% more likely to die following admission to a PICU than their white counterparts. Their mortality rate was 1,336 deaths per 26,022 admissions, compared with a rate of 4,960 deaths per 154,041 admissions for white children, who had the lowest mortality rate overall. Children living in areas with high levels of child poverty had a 13% increased likelihood of dying while in a PICU compared with children from more affluent backgrounds, at a rate of 2,432 deaths per 58,110 admissions. Dr Hannah Mitchell, the lead author of the study from the department of surgery and cancer at Imperial College London, said the reasons behind this disparity were complex and could be due to structural factors such as discrimination and language barriers. Prof Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, the senior author of the study, said: 'These children may face discrimination, both within and outside healthcare, which can lead to hesitancy seeking help or delays accessing urgent care. Language barriers may further complicate access. 'Children from some ethnic minority groups have a higher prevalence of complex or life-limiting conditions, making them more vulnerable. Children living in poverty are more likely to develop serious illnesses such as asthma or traumatic injuries, and may struggle to access timely care due to difficulties getting help from GPs or A&E.' He added that further research to fully understand the reasons behind this disparity was needed. The study also found that children from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to have a longer stay in PICUs, an average of 66 hours compared with their white counterparts who had an average stay of 52 hours. Minority ethnic children were also found to have an increased likelihood of an unplanned readmission to a PICU within 60 days of discharge, at 9%, compared with their white counterparts who had a readmission rate of 6.8%. Ramnarayan said: 'It shouldn't be the case that a child's ethnicity or postcode determines their outcomes in PICU. 'Our findings show the urgent need for improved access to urgent care, reducing barriers to healthcare access, earlier recognition of serious illness in children, and more coordination between hospitals and community care teams to improve PICU outcomes across the UK.'
