UN: Targeting most disadvantaged children can save more lives

Sep 7, 2010, 19:54 GMT

New York - The UN Children's Fund called Tuesday for focusing essential health services on the world's poorest and most marginalized children, saying such a focus could prevent nearly two- thirds of the current deaths under five years of age.

UNICEF said in a new study that for every 1 million dollars invested in health care for children in some of the world's poorest households and countries, 'an equity-based approach has the potential to avert around 60 per cent more under-five deaths than the current strategies.'

The organization said children from the poorest households throughout developing countries are twice at risk of dying before the age of five. Those children are less likely to receive measles immunizations or attend primary school than those from rich countries or even rich neighbourhoods.

The UN Millennium Development Goals in 2000 called for reducing child mortality by two-thirds by 2015. UNICEF said its study urging a new focus on the poorest children will help attain that goal before the target date.

It reported that progress has been made to save children under five from dying from reversible child diseases like measles. UNICEF said an estimated 34,000 children under five died every day in the 1990s, but the number has been reduced to 24,000.

The study said an equity-focused approach would improve returns on investment, averting more child and maternal deaths and episodes of stunting. It said governments should focus on the poorest children by providing essential health services and reducing gaps among nations on child mortality.

It said children living in the poorest households in developing countries are more likely to be underweight and suffer stunting than those in rich households.

'Our findings challenge the traditional thinking that focusing on the poorest and most disadvantaged children is not cost-effective,' said Anthony Lake, UNICEF executive director. 'An equity-focus approach will yield not only a moral victory - right in principle - but an even more exciting one: right in practice.'