Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis

Open access
Stuckler, David, King, Lawrence, Robinson, Helen, McKee, Martin·2008·The Lancet

Abstract

Summary Background Ministers of health, donor agencies, philanthropists, and international agencies will meet at Bamako, Mali, in November, 2008, to review global priorities for health research. These individuals and organisations previously set health priorities for WHO, either through its regular budget or extra-budgetary funds. We asked what insights can be gained as to their priorities from previous decisions within the context of WHO. Methods We compared the WHO biennial budgetary allocations with the burden of disease from 1994–95 to 2008–09. We obtained data from publicly available WHO sources and examined whether WHO allocations varied with the burden of disease (defined by death and disability-adjusted life years) by comparing two WHO regions—Western Pacific and Africa—that are at differing stages of epidemiological transition. We further assessed whether the allocations differed on the basis of the source of funds (assessed and voluntary contributions) and the mechanism for deciding how funds were spent. Findings We noted that WHO budget allocations were heavily skewed toward infectious diseases. In 2006–07, WHO allocated 87% of its total budget to infectious diseases, 12% to non-communicable diseases, and less than 1% to injuries and violence. We recorded a similar distribution of funding in Africa, where nearly three-quarters of mortality is from infectious disease, and in Western Pacific, where three-quarters of mortality is from non-communicable disease. In both regions, injuries received only 1% of total resources. The skew towards infectious diseases was substantially greater for the WHO extra-budget, which is allocated by donors and has risen greatly in recent years, than for the WHO regular budget, which is decided on by member states through democratic mechanisms and has been held at zero nominal growth. Interpretation Decision makers at Bamako should consider the implications of the present misalignment of global health priorities and disease burden for health research worldwide. Funds allocated by external donors substantially differ from those allocated by WHO member states. The meeting at Bamako provides an opportunity to consider how this disparity might be addressed. Funding None.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61656-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

  • Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030

    Mathers, C. D., & Loncar, D. (2006) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442 · Cited by 11,386 · cited 1×

    “We used WHO budget data to examine the distribution of health funds against the burden of disease for the budget cycles from 1994-95 to 2008-09 (a list of sources 17 We quantifi ed burden of disease with use of deaths and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which provide an aggregate measure of years of life lost…”
    Method

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Stuckler, D., King, L., Robinson, H., & McKee, M.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
372
Issue
9649
Pages
1563-1569
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2144687820
Cited by
174
References
1
FWCI
141.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61656-6
The paper
Stuckler, D., King, L., Robinson, H., & McKee, M. (2008). WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61656-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.