Effects of early-life poverty on health and human capital in children and adolescents: analyses of national surveys and birth cohort studies in LMICs.

The survival and nutrition of children and, to a lesser extent, adolescents have improved substantially in the past two decades. Improvements have been linked to the delivery of effective biomedical, behavioural, and environmental interventions; however, large disparities exist between and within countries. Using data from 95 national surveys in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), we analyse how strongly the health, nutrition, and cognitive development of children and adolescents are related to early-life poverty. Additionally, using data from six large, long-running birth cohorts in LMICs, we show how early-life poverty can have a lasting effect on health and human capital throughout the life course. We emphasise the importance of implementing multisectoral anti-poverty policies and programmes to complement specific health and nutrition interventions delivered at an individual level, particularly at a time when COVID-19 continues to disrupt economic, health, and educational gains achieved in the recent past.

Health and development from preconception to 20 years of age and human capital.

Optimal health and development from preconception to adulthood are crucial for human flourishing and the formation of human capital. The Nurturing Care Framework, as adapted to age 20 years, conceptualises the major influences during periods of development from preconception, through pregnancy, childhood, and adolescence that affect human capital. In addition to mortality in children younger than 5 years, stillbirths and deaths in 5-19-year-olds are important to consider. The global rate of mortality in individuals younger than 20 years has declined substantially since 2000, yet in 2019 an estimated 8·6 million deaths occurred between 28 weeks of gestation and 20 years of age, with more than half of deaths, including stillbirths, occurring before 28 days of age. The 1000 days from conception to 2 years of age are especially influential for human capital. The prevalence of low birthweight is high in sub-Saharan Africa and even higher in south Asia. Growth faltering, especially from birth to 2 years, occurs in most world regions, whereas overweight increases in many regions from the preprimary school period through adolescence. Analyses of cohort data show that growth trajectories in early years of life are strong determinants of nutritional outcomes in adulthood. The accrual of knowledge and skills is affected by health, nutrition, and home resources in early childhood and by educational opportunities in older children and adolescents. Linear growth in the first 2 years of life better predicts intelligence quotients in adults than increases in height in older children and adolescents. Learning-adjusted years of schooling range from about 4 years in sub-Saharan Africa to about 11 years in high-income countries. Human capital depends on children and adolescents surviving, thriving, and learning until adulthood.

Delivery channels and socioeconomic inequalities in coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions: analysis of 36 cross-sectional surveys in low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Global reports have described inequalities in coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) interventions, but little is known about how socioeconomic inequality in intervention coverage varies across multiple low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to assess the association between wealth-related inequalities in coverage of RMNCH interventions. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified publicly available Demographic Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys from LMICs containing information on household characteristics, reproductive health, women's and children's health, nutrition, and mortality. We identified the most recent survey from the period 2010-19 for 36 countries that contained data for our preselected set of 18 RMNCH interventions. 21 countries also had information on two common malaria interventions. We classified interventions into four groups according to their predominant delivery channels: health facility based, community based, environmental, and culturally driven (including breastfeeding practices). Within each country, we derived wealth quintiles from information on household asset indices. We studied two summary measures of within-country wealth-related inequality: absolute inequalities (akin to coverage differences among children from wealthy and poor households) using the slope index of inequality (SII), and relative inequalities (akin to the ratio of coverage levels for wealthy and poor children) using the concentration index (CIX). Pro-poor inequalities are present when intervention coverage decreased with increasing household wealth, and pro-rich inequalities are present when intervention coverage increased as household wealth increased. FINDINGS: Across the 36 LMICs included in our analyses, coverage of most interventions had pro-rich patterns in most countries, except for two breastfeeding indicators that mostly had higher coverage among poor women, children and households than wealthy women, children, and households. Environmental interventions were the most unequal, particularly use of clean fuels, which had median levels of SII of 48·8 (8·6-85·7) and CIX of 67·0 (45·0-85·8). Interventions primarily delivered in health facilities-namely institutional childbirth (median SII 46·7 [23·1-63·3] and CIX 11·4 [4·5-23·4]) and antenatal care (median SII 26·7 [17·0-47·2] and CIX 10·0 [4·2-17·1])-also usually had pro-rich patterns. By comparison, primarily community-based interventions, including those against malaria, were more equitably distributed-eg, oral rehydration therapy (median SII 9·4 [2·9-19·0] and CIX 3·4 [1·3-25·0]) and polio immunisation (SII 12·1 [2·3-25·0] and CIX 3·1 [0·5-7·1]). Differences across the four types of delivery channels in terms of both inequality indices were significant (SII p=0·0052; CIX p=0·0048). INTERPRETATION: Interventions that are often delivered at community level are usually more equitably distributed than those primarily delivered in fixed facilities or those that require changes in the home environment. Policy makers need to learn from community delivery channels to promote more equitable access to all RMNCH interventions. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Portuguese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in Brazil: results from two successive nationwide serological household surveys.

BACKGROUND: Population-based data on COVID-19 are essential for guiding policies. There are few such studies, particularly from low or middle-income countries. Brazil is currently a hotspot for COVID-19 globally. We aimed to investigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody prevalence by city and according to sex, age, ethnicity group, and socioeconomic status, and compare seroprevalence estimates with official statistics on deaths and cases. METHODS: In this repeated cross-sectional study, we did two seroprevalence surveys in 133 sentinel cities in all Brazilian states. We randomly selected households and randomly selected one individual from all household members. We excluded children younger than 1 year. Presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was assessed using a lateral flow point-of-care test, the WONDFO SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Biotech, Guangzhou, China), using two drops of blood from finger prick samples. This lateral-flow assay detects IgG and IgM isotypes that are specific to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain of the spike protein. Participants also answered short questionnaires on sociodemographic information (sex, age, education, ethnicity, household size, and household assets) and compliance with physical distancing measures. FINDINGS: We included 25 025 participants in the first survey (May 14-21) and 31 165 in the second (June 4-7). For the 83 (62%) cities with sample sizes of more than 200 participants in both surveys, the pooled seroprevalence increased from 1·9% (95% CI 1·7-2·1) to 3·1% (2·8-3·4). City-level prevalence ranged from 0% to 25·4% in both surveys. 11 (69%) of 16 cities with prevalence above 2·0% in the first survey were located in a stretch along a 2000 km of the Amazon river in the northern region. In the second survey, we found 34 cities with prevalence above 2·0%, which included the same 11 Amazon cities plus 14 from the northeast region, where prevalence was increasing rapidly. Prevalence levels were lower in the south and centre-west, and intermediate in the southeast, where the highest level was found in Rio de Janeiro (7·5% [4·2-12·2]). In the second survey, prevalence was similar in men and women, but an increased prevalence was observed in participants aged 20-59 years and those living in crowded conditions (4·4% [3·5-5·6] for those living with households with six or more people). Prevalence among Indigenous people was 6·4% (4·1-9·4) compared with 1·4% (1·2-1·7) among White people. Prevalence in the poorest socioeconomic quintile was 3·7% (3·2-4·3) compared with 1·7% (1·4-2·2) in the wealthiest quintile. INTERPRETATION: Antibody prevalence was highly heterogeneous by country region, with rapid initial escalation in Brazil's north and northeast. Prevalence is strongly associated with Indigenous ancestry and low socioeconomic status. These population subgroups are unlikely to be protected if the policy response to the pandemic by the national government continues to downplay scientific evidence. FUNDING: Brazilian Ministry of Health, Instituto Serrapilheira, Brazilian Collective Health Association, and the JBS Fazer o Bem Faz Bem.