2016
DOI: 10.1016/s2214-109x(15)00294-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Malawi and Millennium Development Goal 4: a Countdown to 2015 country case study

Abstract: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO, The World Bank, Government of Australia, Government of Canada, Government of Norway, Government of Sweden, Government of the UK, and UNICEF.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
132
1
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
3
132
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Malawi is a small landlocked country in southern Africa. Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world [2] it has achieved Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4, a two-thirds reduction in under-5 child mortality [3]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Malawi is a small landlocked country in southern Africa. Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world [2] it has achieved Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4, a two-thirds reduction in under-5 child mortality [3]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example the Integrated Management of Neonatal and Childhood Illness (IMNCI) from the WHO19 is a large-scale algorithm-based strategy, the scale up of which was thought to be a key factor in Malawi reaching Millennium Development Goal 4 20. A recent Cochrane review,21 however, presented only moderate evidence that IMNCI ‘may reduce infant mortality’ and the strategy was difficult to evaluate because it employs multiple interventions across facility, primary care and community settings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The incidence of malaria, which can also overlap with pneumonia [31], to the best of our knowledge, did not change during the study period. The coverage of the Hib vaccine also remained high and stable at around 93% during the study period [33]. These two potential confounding factors therefore are unlikely to have contributed to the observed reductions in pneumonia incidence and mortality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%