IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0004560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between-Country Inequalities in the Neglected Tropical Disease Burden in 1990 and 2010, with Projections for 2020

Author

Listed:
  • Wilma A Stolk
  • Margarete C Kulik
  • Epke A le Rutte
  • Julie Jacobson
  • Jan Hendrik Richardus
  • Sake J de Vlas
  • Tanja A J Houweling

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has set ambitious time-bound targets for the control and elimination of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Investing in NTDs is not only seen as good value for money, but is also advocated as a pro-poor policy since it would improve population health in the poorest populations. We studied the extent to which the disease burden from nine NTDs (lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths, trachoma, Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy, visceral leishmaniasis) was concentrated in the poorest countries in 1990 and 2010, and how this would change by 2020 in case the WHO targets are met. Principal Findings: Our analysis was based on 1990 and 2010 data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study and on projections of the 2020 burden. Low and lower-middle income countries together accounted for 69% and 81% of the global burden in 1990 and 2010 respectively. Only the soil-transmitted helminths and Chagas disease caused a considerable burden in upper-middle income countries. The global burden from these NTDs declined by 27% between 1990 and 2010, but reduction largely came to the benefit of upper-middle income countries. Achieving the WHO targets would lead to a further 55% reduction in the global burden between 2010 and 2020 in each country income group, and 81% of the global reduction would occur in low and lower-middle income countries. Conclusions: The GBD 2010 data show the burden of the nine selected NTDs in DALYs is strongly concentrated in low and lower-middle income countries, which implies that the beneficial impact of NTD control eventually also largely comes to the benefit of these same countries. While the nine NTDs became increasingly concentrated in developing countries in the 1990–2010 period, this trend would be rectified if the WHO targets were met, supporting the pro-poor designation. Author Summary: The World Health Organization (WHO) has set ambitious time-bound targets for the control and elimination of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Investing in NTDs is seen as good value for money and as a pro-poor policy. We analyzed 1990 and 2010 burden estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 for nine selected NTDs. These data show that the NTD disease burden is strongly concentrated in low and lower-middle income countries in 1990 and 2010. The global burden from these nine NTDs declined by 27% between 1990 and 2010, but the reduction was only 6% in the low income countries compared to 56% in upper-middle income countries, explaining the trend of increasing concentration of the burden in the poorest countries. This trend would be rectified if the WHO targets were met, supporting the pro-poor designation of public policies against NTDs.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilma A Stolk & Margarete C Kulik & Epke A le Rutte & Julie Jacobson & Jan Hendrik Richardus & Sake J de Vlas & Tanja A J Houweling, 2016. "Between-Country Inequalities in the Neglected Tropical Disease Burden in 1990 and 2010, with Projections for 2020," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0004560
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004560
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0004560&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004560?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0004560. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.