With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
HIV/AIDS, population and reproductive health, women's health, social science methods and public health research, India, South and Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa
Nandini Oomman was director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor at the Center for Global Development from March 2006 until December 2011. As director, Oomman led three research teams in Uganda, Mozambique, and Zambia to track the effectiveness of the three main aid responses to the epidemic: the Global Fund, the HIV/AIDS Africa MAP program of the World Bank, and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This collaborative initiative, the first of its kind at CGD, allowed country-based researchers to examine key issues in the design, delivery and management of these donor programs, and provided timely analyses to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of each initiative.
Oomman, N. & J. Gittelsohn. (2002) Qualitative Methods in Gynecological Morbidity Research, in Research Approaches to the Study of Reproductive tract Infections and Other Gynaecological Disorders (eds. Shireen J Jejeebhoy, Michael A Koenig and Christopher Elias). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
Oomman, N. (2000) Gynecological Morbidity in India: A Decade of Research on Reproductive Tract Infections (RTIs) and other Gynaecological Morbidity in India: What we know and what we don’t know, In Readings in Women’s Reproductive Health in India, (eds. R. Ramasubban, & S. Jejeebhoy). Centre for Social and Technological Change, Rawat Publications, Mumbai, India.
Oomman N, & B. Ganatra. (2002) Sex Selection: The Systematic Elimination of Girls Reproductive Health Matters, 10 (19): 184-188
In a recent pitch for the $63 billion Global Health Initiative (see my post on the event), U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded to a question about measuring progress in women’s health. “We are focusing on maternal mortality because that is so measurable. We know where we have a better idea of what works and what it will take to have more women deliver babies successfully. There’s all kinds of interventions from the very simplest, like a safe birthing kit, which is a piece of twine and a clean razor blade and a bar of soap and a piece of plastic to put under the women, all the way up to tertiary care for complicated pregnancies…”
For the past decade, global AIDS donors have responded to HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa as an emergency and have mobilized health workers from weak and understaffed workforces. They must begin to address the long-term problems underlying the shortages and the effects of their efforts on the health workforce more broadly.
This report focuses on the workforce strengthening strategies of three of the major HIV/AIDS donors—the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund), and the World Bank’s Africa Multi-country HIV/AIDS Program (the MAP)—and identifies six tasks for donors, national governments, and country stakeholders to undertake to reverse the severe shortage of skilled, motivated, and productive health workers.
The United States budget for 2011; red area is global health aid (Source: xkcd)
This is a joint post with Amanda Glassman.
The verdict is out (sort of): the proposed total global health appropriation for FY2012 will be $8.3 billion; $600m less than 2011 appropriations, $38.3m higher than the enacted amount in 2011 and $1.5 billion less than requested funding. More than $5.5 billion of this funding is appropriated to HIV/AIDS; $1.05 billion of which are contributions to the Global Fund. A further $2.6 billion is appropriated for USAID to fulfill a portfolio of responsibilities from nutrition to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention. Some highlights:
A new Lancet paper by a team of researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has caused quite a stir about the progress we are making towards Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5: To reduce maternal mortality ratios by three quarters from 1990 to 2015! I have long wondered why no one was making an effort to question the ostensibly stagnant “500,000 maternal deaths per year” estimate, so this team’s effort to provide us with the new numbers (and reinvigorated focus!) is very welcome. With a few exceptions (Karen Grepin’s excellent blog being one), I have yet to see much of a response from the global health community, although there has been quite a lively discussion in the development community at large (see Bill Easterly’s blog for example) about differences in modeling outcomes, whether these new maternal mortality numbers are better than the older ones and whether these new figures indicate the efficacy of safe motherhood programs, among other topics. However, two important issues are missing from these conversations: The extreme limitations of existing maternal mortality data, and what we can take away from these new estimates.