Search

Funding: The Consortium for Advanced Research and Training in Africa (CARTA) provided logistical support to AFF in the course of writing this paper. A good understanding of the poor-non-poor gap in childhood development of severe wasting (SW) is a must in tackling the age-long critical challenge to health outcomes of vulnerable children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is a dearth of information about the factors explaining differentials in wealth inequalities in the distribution of SW in LMICs. This study is aimed at quantifying the contributions of demographic, contextual and proximate factors in explaining the poor-non-poor gap in SW in LMICs. We pooled successive secondary data from the Demographic and Health Survey conducted between 2010 and 2018 in LMICs. The final data consist of 532,680 under-five children nested within 55,823 neighbourhoods from 51 LMICs. Our outcome variable is having SW or not among under-five children. Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition was used to decipher poor-non-poor gap in the determinants of SW. Children from poor households ranged from 37.5% in Egypt to 52.1% in Myanmar. The overall prevalence of SW among children from poor households was 5.3% compared with 4.2% among those from non-poor households. Twenty-one countries had statistically significant pro-poor inequality (i.e. SW concentrated among children from poor households) while only three countries showed statistically significant pro-non-poor inequality. There were variations in the important factors responsible for the wealth inequalities across the countries. The major contributors to wealth inequalities in SW include neighbourhood socioeconomic status, media access, as well as maternal age and education. Socio-economic factors created the widest gaps in the inequalities between the children from poor and non-poor households in developing SW. A potential strategy to alleviate the burden of SW is to reduce wealth inequalities among mothers in the low- and middle-income countries through multi-sectoral and country-specific interventions with considerations for the factors identified in this study. Publisher PDF

Background:\ud \ud Aspirin has been recommended for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer, but overall benefits are unclear. We aimed to use novel methods to re-evaluate the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin using evidence from randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.\ud \ud Methods and Findings:\ud \ud Data sources included ten electronic bibliographic databases, contact with experts, and scrutiny of reference lists of included studies. Searches were undertaken in September 2012 and restricted to publications since 2008. Of 2,572 potentially relevant papers 27 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of control arms to estimate event rates, modelling of all-cause mortality and L'Abbé plots to estimate heterogeneity were undertaken. Absolute benefits and harms were low: 60-84 major CVD events and 34-36 colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 person-years were averted, whereas 46-49 major bleeds and 68-117 gastrointestinal bleeds were incurred. Reductions in all-cause mortality were minor and uncertain (Hazard Ratio 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90-1.02 at 20 years, Relative Risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00 at 8 years); there was a non-significant change in total CVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.69-1.06) and change in total cancer mortality ranged from 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66-0.88) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.84-1.03) depending on follow-up time and studies included. Risks were increased by 37% for gastrointestinal bleeds (RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.15-1.62), 54%-66% for major bleeds (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.54, 95% CI: 1.30-1.82, and RR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.31-2.00), and 32%-38% for haemorrhagic stroke (Rate Ratio from IPD analysis 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00-1.74; RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.82).\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud \ud Findings indicate small absolute effects of aspirin relative to the burden of these diseases. When aspirin is used for primary prevention of CVD the absolute harms exceed the benefits. Estimates of cancer benefit rely on selective retrospective re-analysis of RCTs and more information is needed.