Deep analysis and critique of the article by Leroy, Habicht, Pelto, Gretel, and Bertozzi (2007) is in the focus of this paper writing. This review will evaluate the objectivity, coverage, authority, credibility and accessibility of the article. The issue of the healthcare funding on essential researches towards the reduction of children’s mortality is the main topic of the article. The authors aimed to investigate the proportion of research on the new technology creating and similar studies researching the application of the existing technology in daily practice and their impact on the prevention of children’s mortality. The article is well structured, clear and relevant.
The authors put an emphasis on the comparative methodology of their investigation in particular drawing parallels between healthcare funding in developed the low-income countries - 90/10 gap, describing existing situation in grants funding on developing clinical and biological technology and delivery and utilization of existing and feasible technologies – 97/3 gap.
Analysing the evidenced provided by the authors in support of their assumptions and conclusions it should be underlined that the database of the National Institutes of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were used for deep analysis and classification of grants funded. Moreover, significant classification and calculations were performed to detect the relationship between children’s mortality and various directions of research funding - new technologies or delivery and utilization of technologies. The main aim of the author’s study is to reveal the data and arouse public and scientific attention to prevention of more children’s deaths with the shifting focus on more efficient delivery and usage of existing technology and enlarging the scale of research in this field. The authors also proved the terrifying difference in public health development funding in industrialized and low-income countries described by Tulchinsky and Varavikova (2009).
The author’s credibility are proved by the fact that they all have PhD, the article is published in peer-reviewed journal, the research was funded by Howard Huge Medical Institute and references are highly credible sources. The numerical examples, proportions and other data are actual whereas is based on the investigation conducted in 2003, the expert sources that are the basis for the article are reliable and accurate. The structure of the article and the presentation of the material are logical. The main topic that concerns the children’s mortality and the possibility to reduce it with the help of extensive research on delivery and usage of existing technology is a global problem that should be solved within not only one country but also involving all global society.
Limited time Offer
I fully agree with the basic thesis expressed by the authors. First, necessity to fund new technologies that will explore the reasons and possible treatment of diseases causing infant death is unquestionable. At the same time, if the new technologies are applied and used in a current insufficient way, the efficiency of investment in such researches will be 3 times less efficiently comparing to the situation if the usage of technology would have been properly improved. The conclusions made by the authors regarding the increase in percent of children's lives safe in particular 63 percent through the improved delivery and use of existing technology appeals to a very important issue. It is a question of urgency and necessity to change the direction of medical grants funding towards research on the application of existing technologies. Only 3 percent of grants is funded for this area developing. I also support the initiative of the authors on the need of additional education and training among the population especially the poor, where the elementary use of available technology will save the lives of millions of children.
This paper critically reviewed the article, ‘Current priorities in health research funding lack an impact on number of child deaths per year’ published in American Journal of Public Health, a high credible academic journal. The methodology, evidence, main arguments, their strengths and limitations, actuality, importance of the authors’ findings were analysed and critiqued.
Related Review essays