Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31750081›Full record

ArticleAnnals of global health2019

Rethinking Aid Allocation: Analysis of Official Development Spending on Modern Pollution Reduction.

Stephanie Swinehart, Richard Fuller, Rachael Kupka, Marc N Conte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Pollution and health: a progress update.The Lancet. Planetary health · 2022
    Review
  3. Human Health and Ocean Pollution.Annals of global health · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephanie SwinehartFordham University, US.
Richard FullerPure Earth, New York, NY, US.
Rachael KupkaGlobal Alliance on Health and Pollution, New York, NY, US.
Marc N ConteDepartment of Economics, Fordham University, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Modern pollution - pollution attributable to industrialization and urbanization - is responsible for nearly 6 million deaths per year, more than all the deaths from HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis combined; yet it receives comparatively little attention in the international development agenda [1]. Objective/Methods: This study attempts to highlight the funding disparity between select key threats to global health by quantifying the levels of international official development aid (ODA) allocated to reducing pollution's negative impact on human health using a new metric - dollars spent per death caused by health threat. Findings: Using only reported ODA spending for 2016, we calculate an average investment of $14/death for modern pollution, compared with $1,250/death for malaria, $190/death for tuberculosis, and $165/death for HIV/AIDS. Conclusions: Although there are substantive limitations to this analysis, results are sufficient to galvanize action to better monitor and track investments in modern pollution reduction. Donor countries have failed to respond to this urgent public health crisis. Given the severity of its public health burden, there is a critical need for funding to be allocated

Indexed as

Global HealthHealth ExpendituresResource AllocationEnvironmental PollutionHIV InfectionsHumansMalariaTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID31750081
PMCPMC6838771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.