Search

Abstract Background Limited evidence about mental health finances in low and middle-income countries is a key challenge to mental health care policy initiatives. This study aimed to map mental health finances in Ghana, Uganda, India (Kerala state), Sri Lanka and Lao PDR focusing on how much money is available for mental health, how it is spent, and how this impacts mental health services. Methods A researcher in each region reviewed public mental health-related budgets and interviewed key informants on government mental health financing. A total of 43 key informant interviews were conducted. Quantitative data was analyzed in an excel matrix using descriptive statistics. Key informant interviews were coded a priori against research questions. Results National ring-fenced budgets for mental health as a percentage of national health spending for 2007-08 is 1.7% in Sri Lanka, 3.7% in Ghana, 2.0% in Kerala (India) and 6.6% in Uganda. Budgets were not available in Lao PDR. The majority of ring-fenced budgets (76% to 100%) is spent on psychiatric hospitals. Mental health spending could not be tracked beyond the psychiatric hospital level due to limited information at the health centre and community levels. Conclusions Mental health budget information should be tracked and made publically accessible. Governments can adapt WHO AIMS indicators for reviewing national mental health finances. Funding allocations work more effectively through decentralization. Mental health financing should reflect new ideas emerging from community based practice in LMICs.

In the United States (US), morbidity and mortality from pediatric asthma are increasing. We explored racial inequities using the Multiple Causes of Death Files of the US National Center for Health Statistics and the Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) for 1–14-year-olds from 1999 to 2018. We obtained mortality rates, Black:White mortality rate ratios (MRRs) and Annual Percent Change (APC). We tested for significance with 95% confidence intervals and joinpoint regression. Of 2,731 deaths from asthma, Blacks comprised 65.25% and 21.25% of the population. Black:White MRRs were 6.43 for 1–4, 7.54 for 5–9 and 6.88 for 10–14-year-olds of 6.88. The APC decline of −2.56 (p < 0.05) was significant among Whites but not Blacks. MRRs increased significantly from 4.23 in 2000 to16.57 in 2015 and declined to 6.69 in 2018. Among Black boys and girls, mortality rates were highest in Large Central Metropolitan areas. For Whites, rates were similar by urbanization in girls but were highest in Non-core, Non-metropolitan rural areas in boys. These descriptive data demonstrate statistically significant racial inequities in mortality from pediatric asthma in the US. They generate hypotheses, including, but not limited to, those related to under-resourced families and communities as well as economic and social marginalization. These and other plausible hypotheses require direct testing in analytic epidemiologic studies designed a priori to do so. In the meanwhile, efforts are necessary to strengthen community-driven initiatives and focus attention on inequitable systems, hierarchies, social structure and institutional practices. These include multifactorial interventions for individual, environmental and societal risk factors and educational efforts toward health-care providers and their patients about structural racism; these may combat, at least in part, vulnerabilities in US children and youth and improve racial inequities overall and from pediatric asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent guidelines restricted aspirin (ASA) in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to patients <70 years old and more recent guidance to <60. In the most comprehensive prior meta-analysis, the Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration reported a significant 12% reduction in CVD with similar benefit-risk ratios at older ages. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four trials were added to an updated meta-analysis. ASA produced a statistically significant 13% reduction in CVD with 95% confidence limits (0.83 to 0.92) with similar benefits at older ages in each of the trials. Primary care providers should make individual decisions whether to prescribe ASA based on benefit-risk ratio, not simply age. When the absolute risk of CVD is >10%, benefits of ASA will generally outweigh risks of significant bleeding. ASA should be considered only after implementation of therapeutic lifestyle changes and other drugs of proven benefit such as statins, which are, at the very least, additive to ASA. Our perspective is that individual clinical judgements by primary care providers about prescription of ASA in primary prevention of CVD should be based on our evidence-based solution of weighing all the absolute benefits and risks rather than age. This strategy would do far more good for far more patients as well as far more good than harm in both developed and developing countries. This new and novel strategy for primary care providers to consider in prescribing ASA in primary prevention of CVD is the same as the general approach suggested by Professor Geoffrey Rose decades ago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent guidelines restricted aspirin (ASA) in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to patients <70 years old and more recent guidance to <60.In the most comprehensive prior meta-analysis, the Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration reported a significant 12% reduction in CVD with similar benefit-risk ratios at older ages. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, four trials were added to an updated meta-analysis.ASA produced a statistically significant 13% reduction in CVD with 95% confidence limits (0.83 to 0.92) with similar benefits at older ages in each of the trials.Primary care providers should make individual decisions whether to prescribe ASA based on benefit-risk ratio, not simply age. When the absolute risk of CVD is >10%, benefits of ASA will generally outweigh risks of significant bleeding. ASA should be considered only after implementation of therapeutic lifestyle changes and other drugs of proven benefit such as statins, which are, at the very least, additive to ASA. Our perspective is that individual clinical judgements by primary care providers about prescription of ASA in primary prevention of CVD should be based on our evidence-based solution of weighing all the absolute benefits and risks rather than age. This strategy would do far more good for far more patients as well as far more good than harm in both developed and developing countries. This new and novel strategy for primary care providers to consider in prescribing ASA in primary prevention of CVD is the same as the general approach suggested by Professor Geoffrey Rose decades ago., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CHH reports that he serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as Chair of data monitoring committees for Amgen, British Heart Foundation, Cadila, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, DalCor, and Regeneron; to the US FDA and UpToDate; receives royalties for authorship or editorship of three textbooks and as co-inventor on patents for inflammatory markers and cardiovascular disease that are held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital; has an investment management relationship with the West- Bacon Group within SunTrust Investment Services, which has discretionary investment authority; does not own any common or preferred stock in any pharmaceutical or medical device company. JMG reports that he serves as a consultant to Bayer. MAP reports that he receives research support from Novartis. He serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance, Corvidia, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, NHLBI CONNECTs (Master Protocol Committee), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge and Sanofi; and has equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. DLDM reports that he serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to the National Institutes of Health, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry on the design, monitoring and analysis of trials. He serves on data monitoring committees for Astra Zeneca, Amgen, Action, DalCor, GSK, Merck, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva and AbbVie. He holds no stock in any pharmaceutical or device company. SKW reports that she serves as an independent scientist in an advisory role to investigators and sponsors as member of three data monitoring committees for Amgen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)