Why are NCDs underfunded?

By Luke Allen | 18 Oct, 2016

70% of global deaths and <2% of overseas health funding. What gives?

This new article in the Journal of Global Health perspectives (http://tinyurl.com/hgeokp7) explores ten reasons why NCDs are chronically overlooked.

Lack of data, weak evidence for interventions, fragmentation of the NCD community, ineffective framing, vested commercial interests, inopportune timing, and the sheer scale and complexity of the problem all contribute. What is your experience? Do these factors resonate?

Keywords:
funding
Attached resource:

Replies

 

Justin Zaman Replied at 2:56 PM, 18 Oct 2016

Well I didn't get any grants in Global NCD research at associate professor level so have gone back to being a full time clinician. In the UK most funding in Global health seems to still go to diseases that kill within days (infectious) and if you're are an NCD researcher, your work better be UK based. Look at my alma maters UCL and LSHTM and even there not much NCD work goes on now five years after I left. But this is a personal perception so it will be interesting to hear others.

nohemie mawaka Replied at 4:09 PM, 18 Oct 2016

The topic of funding is always tricky. Within global health, I find that high income countries are constantly favoured, while the voices of scholars in the intended beneficiaries countries, they constantly struggle to qualify for these funds. With NCD, NIH, Wellcome Trust, etc., the funding often goes to an 'insider' who works closely with the grant committee (or is a committee member) or a past winner who continues to receive the funds. Its unfortunate, and I strongly believe that funding in global health has become a promotion of unequally shared power dynamics. It really makes you question who benefits from global health efforts?