Search

The objective of this study was to assess public financing for nutrition in Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka to identify limitations of available data and to discuss policy implications. A variant of the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement methodology was used. Budget allocations and expenditures for relevant government ministries during 2012–2018 were identified. Nutrition‐related line items were tagged using definitions of nutrition‐specific and nutrition‐sensitive interventions. Data were aggregated by year and calculated in constant United States dollars (USD). Expenditures by year were presented as a proportion of gross domestic product and general government expenditures. The percent utilization of budget allocations and proportion of funding from central government sources were determined. Per capita expenditures on nutrition‐specific interventions varied from USD 1.08–8.76 and for nutrition‐sensitive interventions varied from USD 20.22–51.20. Nutrition‐specific expenditures as a percent of gross domestic product ranged from 0.08% in Sri Lanka in 2017% to 0.34% in Nepal in 2016. The median utilization rate was 64% for nutrition‐specific and 84% for nutrition‐sensitive interventions. Nutrition‐specific funding financed by the central government was 90.7% in Bhutan and 99.4% in Sri Lanka. This study revealed the need to prioritize and invest in evidence‐based interventions, including balancing investments in nutrition‐specific versus ‐sensitive interventions. Challenges in estimation of nutrition expenditures and cross‐country comparison were also observed, highlighting the need for appropriate nutrition line item tagging and standardized systems for data collection. Key messages: Substantial variation in the region exists with respect to nutrition‐specific expenditures, albeit with an overall low base.The share of spending on nutrition‐specific versus nutrition‐sensitive interventions should be carefully considered in relation to the expected impact of the interventions being funded.Substantial limitations to track nutrition expenditures exist within current budget allocation records, such as a lack of cross‐ministerial tagging processes.Standardized global guidance is needed for defining nutrition‐sensitive and ‐specific interventions to enhance comparability between studies in different countries. This study aligned the classifications of interventions between the three countries for cross‐country comparison, which could provide indications for standardization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: HIV-positive people’s clinic attendance for medication pick-up is critical for successful HIV treatment. However, limited evidence exists on it especially in low-income settings such as Nepal. Moreover, the role of family support in clinic attendance remains under-explored. Therefore, this study was conducted to examine the association between perceived family support and regular clinic attendance and to assess factors associated with regular clinic attendance for antiretroviral pills pick-up among HIV-positive individuals in Nepal. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 423 HIV-positive people in three districts of Nepal. Clinic attendance was assessed retrospectively for the period of 12 months. To assess the factors associated, an interview survey was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire from July to August, 2015. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess the factors associated with regular clinic attendance. Results: Of 423 HIV-positive people, only 32.6% attended the clinics regularly. They were more likely to attend them regularly when they received high family support (AOR = 3.98, 95% CI = 2.29, 6.92), participated in support programs (AOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.00, 2.82), and had knowledge on the benefits of antiretroviral therapy (AOR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.15, 5.99). In contrast, they were less likely to attend them regularly when they commuted more than 60 minutes to the clinics (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.93), when they self-rated their health status as being very good (AOR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.44), good (AOR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.46), and fair (AOR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.70). Conclusion: HIV-positive individuals are more likely to attend the clinics regularly when they receive high family support, know the benefits of antiretroviral therapy, and participate in support programs. To improve clinic attendance, family support should be incorporated with HIV care programs in resource limited settings. Service providers should also consider educating them about the benefits of antiretroviral therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]