HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2006.104836v1 92/5/F361    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fenn, B. Articles by Bradley, D. J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fenn, B. Articles by Bradley, D. J

Inequities in neonatal survival interventions: evidence from national surveys

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
² Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Correspondence to:
Bridget Fenn, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK; bridget.fenn{at}lshtm.ac.uk

Background: Nearly four million children die during the first four weeks of life every year, yet known and effective interventions exist. Neonatal mortality has to be addressed to reach the millennium development goal for child survival.

Aims: To determine the extent of within-country inequities in neonatal mortality and effective intervention coverage.

Methods: Neonatal, infant and child (under 2 years) mortality rates were calculated from empirical data from Demographic and Health Surveys for eight countries using direct estimation techniques. Wealth groups were constructed using the World Bank wealth index; neonatal mortality inequities were evaluated by comparing low:high quintile ratios; concentration indices were calculated for intervention coverage rates.

Results: The proportion of under-2 deaths occurring in the neonatal period ranged from 24.3% (Malawi) to 49.4% (Bangladesh). In all countries (excluding Haiti) inequities in neonatal mortality and intervention coverage were evident across wealth groups with more deaths and less coverage in the poorest, compared with the richest, quintile; the largest mortality differential was 2.1 (Nicaragua) and the smallest was 1.2 (Eritrea). In Nicaragua 33% of the poorest women had a skilled delivery compared with 98% of the richest; in Cambodia for antenatal care this was 18% (poorest) and 71% (richest). Low coverage of interventions tended to show top inequity patterns whereas high coverage tended to show bottom inequity patterns.

Conclusions: Reducing inequity is a necessary step in reducing neonatal deaths and also total child deaths. Intervention efforts need to begin to integrate approaches relevant to equity in programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Keywords: inequity; intervention coverage; neonatal mortality; DHS surveys; Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)