The government’s far-reaching health care foreign aid program has contributed to a significant decline in adult death rates in Africa, according to a new study by Stanford researchers. 

Between 2004 and 2008, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief was associated with a reduction in the odds of death of nearly 20 percent in the countries where it operated. The researchers found that more than 740,000 lives were saved during this period in nine countries targeted by the program, known by its acronym, PEPFAR.

“We were surprised and impressed to find these mortality reductions,” said Eran Bendavid, an affiliate at Stanford Health Policy, part of the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“While many assume that foreign aid works, most evaluations of aid suggest it does not work or even causes harm,” said Bendavid, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford’s School of Medicine. “Despite all the challenges to making aid work and to implementing HIV treatment in Africa, the benefits of PEPFAR were large and measurable across many African countries.”



The study is the first to show a decline in all causes of death related to the program. It appears in the May 16 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Bendavid is the lead author of the study. It was co-authored by Grant Miller and Jay Bhattacharya, who are both core faculty members of Stanford Health Policy and associate professors of medicine. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Dr. George Rosenkranz Prize for Health Care Research in Developing Countries.

PEPFAR began in 2003 under the Bush administration with a five-year, $15 billion investment in fighting AIDS around the world and a focus on treatment and prevention in 15 countries. It was reauthorized by Congress in 2008 and has expanded its reach to 31 countries.

To measure the impact of the program, Bendavid and his colleagues analyzed health and survival information for more than 1.5 million adults in 27 African countries, including nine countries where PEPFAR has focused its efforts. The researchers examined data available in the Demographic and Health Surveys, a USAID-funded project that involves a representative sampling of in-person interviews among women in which they discuss their health and the health of their family members. These surveys form the foundation of many health measurements in developing countries.

They found the odds of death from any cause among adults were 16 to 20 percent lower in the PEPFAR-targeted countries.

To bolster the results, the scientists did a separate analysis using specific data on PEPFAR programs in Rwanda and Tanzania. They compared regions of the two countries where PEPFAR’s investments led to widespread increases in the number and size of sites providing antiretroviral therapy, with areas where PEPFAR had fewer services available.



“We observed a similar reduction in mortality when exploring PEPFAR’s effects using a different lens,” Bendavid said.

In Tanzania, the odds of death were found to be 17 percent lower and in Rwanda 25 percent lower in the districts with greater support from PEPFAR.

Bendavid speculates that the program’s commitment to building an infrastructure that includes drug distribution systems, clinics, pharmacies, laboratories and testing facilities has been an important factor for its success.

“The scale of PEPFAR’s investment was unprecedented,” Bendavid said. “People working in PEPFAR’s focus countries describe working supply chains, stocked pharmacies and staffed clinics.”



Although the program was targeted to address HIV, these services could have benefitted patients with a variety of other health concerns. For example, one study found that some uninfected, pregnant women in Ethiopia, Rwanda and Tanzania chose to deliver their babies in facilities supported by PEPFAR, Bendavid said.

Some have argued that focusing resources on a specific disease, such as AIDS, may detract efforts from other diseases and activities, undermining some of the benefits of such programs. But the latest study does not support this argument. Rather, it suggests that PEPFAR helped prevent additional deaths from causes other than HIV/AIDS.

“Whether disease-specific programs like PEPFAR have synergies with other health improvement efforts – or instead undermine them, as some have worried – is really an open question,” Miller said. “There are reasons to think either scenario is possible, and more research is needed. We don’t find much evidence of PEPFAR undercutting other initiatives. If anything, we see hints of synergies.”



Bendavid said the program managed to accomplish the reduction in mortality in the face of enormous challenges – from persuading people to go for HIV testing and treatment to dealing with problems of drug shortages and drug resistance.

Historically, few other large-scale health initiatives have succeeded to such an extent. Smallpox, which was eradicated by 1979, is among the rare and more notable examples.

“PEPFAR’s success with HIV … may be considered the clearest demonstration of aid’s effectiveness in recent years,” the researchers concluded.

In 2009, PEPFAR was folded into a new Global Health Initiative that calls for a broader agenda, with some resources redistributed to other programs, such as maternal and child health.

Its budget, which rose dramatically in the early years, has remained relatively flat or declined slightly since then. It peaked at $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2010, then declined to $6.7 billion and $6.6 billion in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively, according to figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Obama administration’s budget request for the 2013 fiscal year is $6.4 billion.

While the program appears to have had an impact within a few years of its implementation, Bendavid noted that reduced investments in fighting AIDS, both through PEPFAR and other international aid programs, could have implications for the future of the epidemic.

“We are transforming the face of the epidemic but funding shortfalls will change the road ahead,” he said.



Ruthann Richter is Director of Media Relations for the Stanford School of Medicine.

Philanthropist and software giant Bill Gates spoke to a Stanford audience last week about the importance of foreign aid and product innovation in the fight against chronic hunger, poverty and disease in the developing world.

His message goes hand-in-hand with the ongoing work of researchers at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Much of that work is supported by FSI’s Global Underdevelopment Action Fund, which provides seed grants to help faculty members design research experiments and conduct fieldwork in some of the world’s poorest places.

Four FSI senior fellows – Larry Diamond, Jeremy Weinstein, Paul Wise and Walter Falcon – respond to some of the points made by Gates and share insight into their own research and ideas about how to advance and secure the most fragile nations.

Without first improving people’s health, Gates says it’s harder to build good governance and reliable infrastructure in a developing country. Is that the best way to prioritize when thinking about foreign aid?

Larry Diamond: I have immense admiration for what Bill Gates is doing to reduce childhood and maternal fatality and improve the quality of life in poor countries.  He is literally saving millions of lives.  But in two respects (at least), it's misguided to think that public health should come "before" improvements in governance.  

First, there is no reason why we need to choose, or why the two types of interventions should be in conflict.  People need vaccines against endemic and preventable diseases – and they need institutional reforms to strengthen societal resistance to corruption, a sociopolitical disease that drains society of the energy and resources to fight poverty, ignorance, and disease.  

Second, good governance is a vital facilitator of improved public health.  When corruption is controlled, public resources are used efficiently and justly to build modern sanitation and transportation systems, and to train and operate modern health care systems.  With good, accountable governance, public health and life expectancy improve much more dramatically.  When corruption is endemic, life-saving vaccines, drugs, and treatments too often fall beyond the reach of poor people who cannot make under-the-table payments. 

Foreign aid has come under criticism for not being effective, and most countries have very small foreign aid budgets. How do you make the case that foreign aid is a worthy investment?

Jeremy M. Weinstein: While foreign aid may be a small part of most countries’ national budgets, global development assistance has increased markedly in the past 50 years. Between 2000 and 2010, global aid increased from $78 billion to nearly $130 billion – and the U.S. continues to be the world’s leading donor.

The challenge in the next decade will be to sustain high aid volumes given the economic challenges that now confront developed countries. I am confident that we can and will sustain these volumes for three reasons.

First, a strong core of leading voices in both parties recognizes that promoting development serves our national interest. In this interconnected world, our security and prosperity depend in important ways on the security and prosperity of those who live beyond our borders.

Second, providing assistance is a reflection of our values – it is these humanitarian motives that drove the unprecedented U.S. commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS during the Bush Administration.

Perhaps most importantly, especially in tight budget times, development agencies are learning a great deal about what works in foreign assistance, and are putting taxpayers’ dollars to better use to reduce poverty, fight disease, increase productivity, and strengthen governance – with increasing evidence to show for it.

Some of the most dire situations in the developing world are found in conflict zones. How can philanthropists and nongovernmental organizations best work in places with unstable governments and public health crises? Is there a role for larger groups like the Gates Foundation to play in war-torn areas?

Paul H. Wise: As a pediatrician, the central challenge is this: The majority of preventable child deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa and in much of the world occur in areas of political instability and poor governance. 

This means that if we are to make real progress in improving child health we must be able to enhance the provision of critical, highly efficacious health interventions in areas that are characterized by complex political environments – often where corruption, civil conflict, and poor public management are the rule. 

Currently, most of the major global health funders tend to avoid working in such areas, as they would rather invest their efforts and resources in supportive, well-functioning locations.  This is understandable. However, given where the preventable deaths are occurring, it is not acceptable. 

Our efforts are directed at creating new strategies capable of bringing essential services to unstable regions of the world.  This will require new collaborations between health professionals, global security experts, political scientists, and management specialists in order to craft integrated child health strategies that respect both the technical requirements of critical health services and the political and management innovations that will ensure that these life-saving interventions reach all children in need.

Gates says innovation is essential to improving agricultural production for small farmers in the poorest places. What is the most-needed invention or idea that needs to be put into place to fight global hunger?

Walter P. Falcon: No single innovation will end hunger, but widespread use of cell phone technology could help.

Most poor agricultural communities receive few benefits from agricultural extension services, many of which were decimated during earlier periods of structural reform. But small farmers often have cell phones or live in villages where phones are present.

My priority innovation is for a  $10 smart phone, to be complemented with a series of very specific applications designed for transferring knowledge about new agricultural technologies to particular regions.  Using the wiki-like potential of these applications, it would also be possible for farmers from different villages to teach each other, share critical local knowledge, and also interact with crop and livestock specialists.

Language and visual qualities of the applications would be key, and literacy problems would be constraining.  But the potential payoff seems enormous.

As markets around the world slump, sputter and slump again, China maintains the fastest-growing economy. But despite the country’s boom, it has fallen behind in making sure its children will be healthy, strong and smart enough to cash in on it.

About 30 percent of children living in China’s rural areas are anemic – sick with an iron deficiency that Stanford researcher Scott Rozelle and his colleagues with the Rural Education Action Project have proven leads to bad school performance. And a poor education coupled with anemia’s physical blow puts those kids at risk for lives of poverty and missed opportunities.

But things are changing. Influenced in part by the research Rozelle has conducted and presented to Chinese officials, the government recently launched a policy to improve school lunches for about 20 million children across the country.

The plan invests $2.5 billion a year during the next nine years to ensure the meals are more nutritious for elementary and middle school students. That doubles the amount spent on lunches for China’s neediest children.

“For 5,000 years it was OK to be anemic if you're never going to leave the farm," said Rozelle, an economist and senior fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies who is still experimenting with ways to improve children's health in rural China and get the government to adopt the most effective methods.

"But we're looking 20 years into the future where there are much fewer farms and you need at least a high school education to make a living in the city,” Rozelle said. “If you are sick with anemia, it is going to affect your cognitive ability, educational performance and ultimately your chances of going on in school."

Rozelle began studying anemia and its links to school performance in 2008.

After conducting an initial study of about 4,000 primary school students in Shaanxi province, he found that nearly 40 percent of the children were anemic – the result of diets that consisted mostly of rice and noodles in regions where meat, fruit and fresh vegetables are expensive and often hard to come by.

Those survey results were presented to the government in a 2009 policy brief written by Rozelle and his collaborators. Officials adopted the brief, making rural primary school nutrition part of China’s official policy discussion.

A second study conducted between 2008 and 2009 found that anemia rates dropped when schoolchildren were given vitamins fortified with iron. And as their iron levels rose, so did their test scores.

An experiment followed to back up those findings, while another set of large-scale surveys across four provinces reinforced that childhood anemia was indeed a widespread problem.

The findings from those surveys and tests were packaged in another policy brief that was accepted by the government earlier this year, prompting a government directive urging more concrete action in the area of student nutrition.

Those documents, along with several presentations Rozelle has made to government officials and commissions, have culminated in a move to pour $22.5 billion into more nutritious school lunches between now and 2020. It will likely be up to local government and school officials to decide exactly what those meals will include, but Rozelle is hopeful they’ll lead to diets with more meat, vegetables and iron supplements.

“Research-based results are an important avenue for affecting policy in China,” said Chen Zhili, vice chair of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and a former minister of education. “The new programs for child nutrition were only made possible by the work of groups (like the Rural Education Action Project).”

And a national policy aimed at improving nutrition and curbing anemia helps ensure that China maintains its foothold in the world’s economy and grow in a more stable, equitable way, Rozelle said.

“The social return is huge,” Rozelle said. “These kids will be able to do better in school, work harder and sustain China’s growth.”

We sat down with recipient of the FSI Global Underdevelopment Action Fund, Professor Beatriz Magaloni to learn more about her research plans and how her work will address the larger issues of poverty and governance in Latin America and beyond.

Beatriz Magaloni, associate professor of political science at Stanford, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI), and director of the Program on Poverty and Governance (PovGov) at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, was recently awarded a grant through FSI's Global Underdevelopment Action Fund. Over the past ten years, Professor Magaloni has pioneered cross-national comparative research focused primarily on Latin America and Mexico. Leading the PovGov program, Professor Magaloni launched research projects examining political incentives for heath improvements, the role of women and family-planning decisions, public goods provisions in indigenous communities, and drug-related violence in Mexico.

We sat down with Professor Magaloni to learn more about her research plans and how her work will address the larger issues of poverty and governance in Latin America and beyond.

Professor Magaloni, tell us more about the work you are conducting with the support of the FSI Global Underdevelopment Action Fund?

We are using the support of the FSI Action Fund to expand a governance project that we started in Oaxaca, Mexico in 2009 to the Chiapas region. The Oaxaca research project focused on examining the effects of political institutions on public goods provision. In 1995, the state of Oaxaca allowed indigenous communities to decide if they wanted a form of traditional indigenous governance called “Usos y Costumbres,” or party governance. Our team studied the variations in these two forms of municipal governance and how they shape the provision of welfare-enhancing public goods, such as clean water, sanitation and sewage, and roads. The findings in Oaxaca showed that traditional governance leads to higher levels of civic engagement in collective decision-making and better provision of public goods. However, one key finding revealed that women enjoyed significantly lower levels of participation in civic life and governance overall. 

Why might this be?

More traditional structures of governance in indigenous communities were disempowering for women but the research carried out in Oaxaca revealed a positive effect on social and political participation among recipients of conditional cash transfers through Oportunidades.

For those of us unfamiliar with the Oportunidades program, please tell us more.

Oportunidades is a social program funded by the Mexican federal government that provides conditional cash transfers to poor women in exchange for their direct engagement in activities related to child nutrition, health, and education.

Why are you expanding the study to Chiapas?

A policy prescription that emerged from our results in Oaxaca led us to re-evaluate the possibility of establishing “Usos y Costumbres” beyond Oaxaca, and this grant will allow us to study the state of Chiapas. The state of Chiapas is traditionally party dominated but has a strong blend of traditional forms of governance. The baseline survey will be designed in Chiapas to understand how traditional governance practices are integrated into the party governance. We will ask if poor indigenous communities are better or worse off by choosing to govern themselves through customary law and participatory democracy, versus delegating decisions concerning the provision of public goods to political parties. This will allow us to identify how governance and patterns of civic engagement differ in both of these states and the effect on provision of local goods.

Stanford graduate students and post-doctoral scholars will be integral to our efforts to administer the survey and perform subsequent analysis.

How will women be central to your study in Chiapas?

The main addition to the survey will be a substantial segment devoted to the role of women in civil society with the goal of answering a number of questions regarding civic and political participation. Conducted at the household level, it is designed to gain a fuller picture of how women in Chiapas are influenced and shaped by the Oportunidades program.

In addition, our study in Chiapas will examine the following factors pertaining to women and governance:

1. The dynamics of governance in Mexico's indigenous regions and the ways in which women participate in collective decision-making and influence the distribution and access to public goods and services in the community.

2.  The relationship between Oportunidades and women's decision-making role in the provision of public goods.

3. The effects on health and educational outcomes that may be associated both with conditional cash transfer programs and women's participation in collective decision-making.

4. The policy implications for economic development and promoting human capital.

Who are you collaborating with on this project?

Ewen Wang is the co-investigator on this project. She is an associate professor of Surgery/Emergency Medicine at the Stanford School of Medicine and will be instrumental in collecting new data on health and education for children who are recipients of the Oportunidades program. We also are engaging inter-institutional collaborators from our partner universities, including; Alberto Díaz-Cayeros, Associate Professor of International Studies at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego; and Vidal Romero, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM).

What are the expected results or outcomes of this study?

The outcomes of this work have both theoretical and policy-relevant implications. The data we collect on the effect of participatory governance in indigenous regions in Mexico and how conditional cash transfer programs enable civic participation of women will have much broader application beyond Mexico's borders. A lot of other governments are experimenting with the use of conditional cash transfer programs and the result of this study should help inform public policy.

In Mexico, a policy brief highlighting the results of the survey will be prepared and presented to policymakers to describe the effects of local governance, civic engagement, and their impact on economic development. Policy recommendations will be presented to advise Chiapas (as well as other states in southern Mexico with a high prevalence of indigenous populations) on constitutional reform that gives autonomy to indigenous communities with respect to municipal collective decision-making.

Finally, a book-length project will be under development that describes how traditional governance in indigenous regions of Mexico shapes civic engagement, participation of women, and impacts the provision of public goods and services. The new data generated by this study will present new findings on how governance shapes the status of maternal and child health services in Chiapas, having much broader implications in the field of health policy.

On the eve of the Lunar New Year, Beijing is bright and bustling. Keeping a promise made to a friend 2000 km away, a reporter walks along Zhongguancun Boulevard in search of a medicine called the "baota lozenge." However, more than twenty-some pharmacies of all sizes have all given the same answer: this once familiar anthelmintic drug has been off the counters of pharmacies for over 10 years!

In Sichuan and Guizhou, some 2000 km away, the final report from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Rural Policy Research Center and the Rural Education Action Project (REAP) on the current infection status of intestinal worms in children is fresh off the press. In the more than twenty years since the baota lozenge came off the market, prevention efforts against soil-borne worm infections in rural children have weakened and these parasitic infections traditionally affecting rural children have re-emerged!

According to results from a survey of 6 randomly selected nationally designated poor counties and 95 villages, in which 817 three to five year-old preschool-aged children and 890 eight to ten-year old school-aged children in Sichuan and Guizhou were screened for intestinal worms, REAP found that infection rates for intestinal worms (Ascaris, hookworm and whipworm) reached 22%: 21% for preschool-aged children and 23% for school-aged children.

In a country like China that has been experiencing an economic boom for the past 30 years, why do poor rural children today still have such a high infection rate of intestinal worms?

Delisting the baota lozenge and its effects on children's health

Among 817 three to five year-old preschool-aged children and 890 eight to ten-year old school-aged children randomly selected from 6 poor counties, the overall intestinal worm infection rate was high at 22%, mainly with Ascaris. Of the infected children, ~80% had roundworms, and 15% had multiple infections. This result overturns the presumption that intestinal worms infection decreases when standard of living increases.

A WHO report in 1999 explained that in tropical and subtropical regions, the loss from soil-borne parasitic diseases and schistosomiasis accounts for over 40% of the total disease burden. Those affected are mainly children; the diseases increase the risk of malnutrition, anemia, stunting, impaired cognition, and other diseases.   

Actually, even before this report was published, China had already prioritized prevention of soil-borne parasitic diseases and schistosomiasis in public health measures. In the 50 years from the founding of new China to the early 1990s, the Chinese government had been devoted to increasing awareness of parasitic worm infections and systematic use of anti-parasite drugs as part of its prevention efforts to drastically reduce intestinal worm infection rates in children. However, in the last 20 years, not only have intestinal worms not been considered a priority in national infectious disease control, but the baota lozenge used consecutively for 10 years has also retreated from the market.

With the baota lozenge off the market and intestinal worm prevention at a low, what is the current health status of the vast number of rural children?

With this question in mind, CCAP and REAP's team, with the help of the Chinese CDC's Parasitic Diseases Control and Prevention Institute, conducted a field work investigation from April 2010 to June 2010 in Sichuan and Guizhou.

To ensure representativeness and the scientific nature of the survey, 6 nationally designated poor counties were randomly selected across the two provinces. After sampling areas were confirmed, the townships in each county were divided into 42 groups according to per capita net income and 12 townships were randomly selected from each group. Four sample townships were selected from each sample county. In every sample township, 2 sample schools were randomly selected; in every sample school, 2 sample villages served by the school were randomly selected; in each sample village, 11 eight to ten-year olds were selected for parasitic worm infection screening. At the same time, in every village, using child vaccination records (provided by township health center), the research team acquired the name list of all three to five-year old children in the two sample villages within that township. Eleven three to five-year old preschool-aged children were randomly selected from each sample village for screening for intestinal worms.

In this way, with collaborations with international parasitic worm expert consultants and recommendations from the Chinese CDC Parasitic Disease Control and Prevention Institute, 46 schools, 95 villages served by the schools, and a total of 1707 children were randomly selected to form the sample. Of these, 817 were three to five years old and considered preschool-aged and 890 were eight to ten years old and considered school-aged.

The investigation and screening of children for parasitic worms consisted of three main parts: anthropomorphic measures, basic socioeconomic information and children's fecal samples. A team of nurses from Xi'an Jiaotong University was responsible for measuring children's height and weight; REAP team members collected information on sample children's age, gender, parental education levels, hygiene and family characteristics, as well as whether children had received anthelmintics in the past year and a half. Chinese CDC Parasitic Disease Control and Prevention Institute analyzed fecal samples.    

Over the course of a few months of data analysis, results indicate: sample areas have high infection rates of intestinal worms, but discrepancies exist across different age groups, areas and types of parasitic worm infection. Twenty-one percent of preschool-aged and 23% of school-aged children in sample areas were infected with Ascaris, hookworm or whipworm or a combination thereof. Infection rates meet WHO's criteria for mass treatment. In one province, 34% of preschool-aged and 40% of school-aged children have one or more of the three types of worms. In the other province, although infection rates are lower among preschool and school-aged children, they are still 10% and 7%, respectively. Among the types of worm infection, Ascaris is most severe, with infection rates reaching 17%, followed by whipworm (7%), pinworm (5%), and hookworm (4%).

At the same time, regional differences are quite distinct. In one of the provinces, 7 villages out of 48 sample villages and 2 schools out of the 23 sample schools had prevalence rates above 20%. About half of the sample villages and schools suggest evidence of parasitic worm infection. In the other province, one quarter of the sample villages and one third of the sample schools had infection rates above 50%. Evidently, intestinal worms prevention is an important public health concern that needs to be emphasized by local disease control centers.

Besides high infection rates of parasitic worms, the intensity of infection should not be ignored. Among preschool-aged children in the two sample areas, each gram of fecal matter contains 23,568 and 17,064 roundworm eggs, respectively. According to WHO standards, this level of roundworm infection is considered a "moderate" infection level. Hookworm and whipworm infection intensities are lower; only hookworm infection among school-aged children in Sichuan reached "moderate intensity," while other infection levels could be considered "low intensity".

 What causes parasitic worm infection in these children?

The investigation shows that infection in preschool-aged children correlates with maternal education and family health conditions, while infection in school-aged children correlates with school health education and hygiene conditions. Of particular importance is that even though eliminating worms costs only 4 RMB per person per year, prevention efforts have not been included in local medical services in less accessible rural areas with high infection rates.

In the third grade class of Longshan elementary school in Machang township, Pingba county, Anshun city, Guizhou province, one question continues to haunt head teacher Li: "Why does our class have students calling in sick and missing school every day?"

On the surface, Teacher Li's third grade class is no different from schools in other rural areas in China. The students are typical rural schoolchildren filled with curiosity, who have bright eyes, dirty hands, and colorful backpacks.

However, if you pay close attention, you will notice they are very different from same-aged children in other areas. These students are mostly on the small side, and look one to two years younger than their actual age. At recess, there is none of the typical pent-up energy kids usually have after sitting in a classroom all morning. No excited children chasing one another, no shouts from the hubbub of play, no lively rhythm of skipping rope. It is as if a blanket of weariness has descended on these children.  

The culprit is no other than intestinal worms. According to the introduction provided by researchers Drs. Xiaobing Wang and Chengfang Liu, Longshan elementary school has one of the highest infection rates of all sampled schools, reaching 70%. One of the two sample villages covered by Longshan elementary schools had parasitic worm infection rates as high as 80%.

What effect does parasitic worm infection have on children's growth and development? REAP's results indicate that worms lead to anemia in 22.7% of the rural school-aged children, and delayed physical development in 30%, which is a 400% higher risk than non-infected children. Compared with non-infected children, affected children have below-average weights, shorter stature, weaker body constitution, and general underdevelopment, just to name a few characteristics.

The project research team, Chinese CDC Parasitic Disease Control and Prevention Institute's Guofei Wang and Xibei University's Professor Yaojiang Shi believe that worms not only cause discomfort and nausea, but also lead to significant learning (memory) and cognitive impairments.

Renfu Luo, an assistant researcher at CCAP, believes that the underlying reason is that high infection rates have long been neglected, and so have caused low school attendance rates and limited attention spans, which ultimately lead to infected children falling behind their healthy counterparts.

In fact, according to the WHO's parasitic worms prevention guidelines, for schools like Longshan elementary school that are rural and inaccessible, two mass administrations of albendazole or mebendazole (both available on the market) are needed per year. However, the reality is, even though the medicine costs only 4 RMB per person per year for kids from Longshan elementary school and other nearby rural villages, the public health infrastructure required to combat the disease has not been incorporated into the scope of medical services.

If the Longshan elementary school sample is an example of the typical conditions in western villages, what are the implications on a larger scale? CCAP researcher Linxiu Zhang believes that in the long run, if parasitic worm infections in children continue to be neglected in national infectious disease control, the future efficiency and productivity of the rural labor force will be affected. From an education perspective, and in light of an increasingly competitive skill-based socioeconomic environment, intestinal worms may very well be the primary driver for perpetuating the vicious intergenerational cycle of poverty.

From the 6 sample counties investigated over the course of 3 months, the researchers were able to see with their own eyes the health situation of Longshan elementary school and other sample schools. The researchers could not resist asking, how did these kids become infected with intestinal worms? Living in more or less the same environment, why do some kids become infected while others escape that fate?

After repeated comparison and analysis of the data, researchers found that these poor rural village children's infection rates are correlated with mother's education level, children's unsanitary hygiene habits (such as not washing hands before meals and after bathroom use), and family health conditions (such as access to potable, clean water, toilet sanitation, and livestock/poultry breeding habits). At the same time, children's habit of wearing split pants for convenient urination/defecation also exacerbates the risk for worm infection. Because mothers are usually responsible for their children's eating and health habits at home, mothers with lower education levels often lack knowledge about health and nutrition improvement and intestinal worm disease severity. Thus, the higher the mother's education level, the lower the child's chance of infection. Interestingly though, father's education level has no visible effect on the child's risk of infection.

For school-aged children, the main reason for intestinal worm infection is that poor rural village schools lack safe drinking water services and facilities. In these sample schools, researchers found that the schools' water quality is a far cry from the national standards for safe, potable water. However, because these schools cannot provide boiled water, many students have no choice but to drink unprocessed, unboiled water.

Drinking unboiled water is a main cause for infection in children. According to calculations made by the research team, consuming unboiled water increases infection by 11%, while washing hands before meals can decrease infection by about 4.6%.

Poor school sanitation conditions are also a main driver for infection. Research findings indicate that two-thirds of the sampled schools did not have sinks for washing hands; even though a few schools have constructed sinks, because there is no running water or soap, they are really just for display. Also, none of the sampled school treated their bathroom waste using appropriate and safe chemical methods, which not only affects sanitation in and around the school, but also facilitates parasitic worm cross-infection.

Insufficient knowledge or poor public health measures?

Prevention of intestinal worm infection for poor, rural village children is unstructured, unsystematic, and combined with school sanitation and health education deficiencies, has triggered high infection rates in remote rural areas. However, the primary reason for this phenomenon is the lack of basic public health measures in rural settings.

The analysis of the data begs the following question: Why, in the midst of rapid economic progress, are there still elevated levels of infection among children in certain regions? We know from China's past successes in infectious disease control that basic public health services are all that is needed to effectively prevent parasitic worm infection. And cheap, effective, safe, and reliable anthelmintics are easily acquirable. Yet high levels of infection persist. Why?

As early as 1960, many international experts in global development praised China for its ability, despite its developing status and low average income, to effectively provide public health services for rural citizens and children. Turning back to that page in long forgotten history, China was actually able to prevent parasitic worm disease at impressive proportions in a short span of 50 years. The success can be attributed to strong adherence to prevention and the hard work of medical and public health personnel.

Data indicate that in the 1970s, the parasitic worm infection rate among China's children reached about 80%. The 1990 seminal nation-wide human parasites survey found that overall parasitic prevalence remained high at 63%, with the intestinal worm infection rate at 59%. Even though China's population infected with Ascaris, whipworm and hookworm at that time reached 140 million people, due to administration of anthelmintics in rural villages combined with health education and waste management as part of a concerted prevention effort, the parasitic infection rate ultimately plummeted at the beginning of this century. Soil-borne worm infection rates decreased to about 20%. 

This was an accomplishment during a time of massive prevention and treatment by the infectious disease control unit. This period marked a golden era for public health measures in rural villages. Almost everyone over 35 years of age born in rural areas can still vividly remember the many "barefoot" and village doctors who performed regular check-ups for various villages, treated common diseases for free, and educated people about basic disease prevention and health practices. One of the most commonly seen services was providing free "baota" lozenges or albendazole to children, in the form of a pink or blue, mildly sweet anthelmintic pill.

However, this "free lunch" period did not last long. After conducting field work studies on the sample villages, researchers discovered that entering into the 1980s, with decreasing investment in rural public health and medical services, the rural health system sustained by "barefoot" doctors crumbled, and villagers have since rarely enjoyed basic public health protection. With severe financial shortages and lack of coordination, education and public health collaboration efforts also descended into stagnation. School-aged children's health surveillance and vaccination measures reached a nearly historic low. In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to redirect attention to rural public health. However, the prolonged 20-year disappearance of basic rural public health services from the national radar has initiated the revival of many once eliminated diseases in these areas. Some villages actually exist in zones of concentrated outbreaks.

With an impressive record of success just twenty years ago, why is the prevention of parasitic worms in children still so difficult in an economically blossoming and increasingly health conscious society? Is it due to insufficient monetary funding, gaps in knowledge, or some other reason?

Researchers believe that even with the disappearance of the high quality and inexpensive "baota" lozenge, other drug treatments for parasitic worm infections in children exist today, requiring just two administrations per year and a low cost of less than 4 RMB. However, the critical problem is that health and education administration in various areas currently lack substantive, effective coordination in their anthelmintic efforts. Small investments that maximize benefit to many people's livelihoods are slow to be made.

According to field interviews, when the "baota" lozenge retreated from center stage, local health and education departments debated about who should take responsibility for children's health, and teachers and principals also shunned the problem. In discussions with some teachers from sampled schools, researchers found that teachers scratched their heads over poor parental care in addressing the issue. Despite all schools establishing relevant health education curricula, due to limited manpower and financial resources, most schools do not have full-time health education teachers and do not distribute unified teaching materials to students, so the curriculum can hardly be implemented.

Actually though, cross-department cooperation has occurred in the past. At the end of the last century, the Ministries of Health and Education used to collaborate on formulating and implementing effective anthelmintic interventions for children through stratified school-based efforts that provided anthelmintics for free to children in severe infection areas. At that time, treatment of parasitic worms in children was highly successful.

However, the reality is that in the sampled areas, a relatively large portion of medical institutions lack funding support and the necessary facilities. Thus, they have no capacity to freely provide parasitic worm prevention services to children, resulting in 55% of sampled rural children being infected with intestinal worms. These children have never been administered any anthelmintics, and even for those who have been treated, they did not undergo any examination of the distribution of intestinal worm infection beforehand. Parents often solely look for changes to their children's appetite or compare their children's weight with that of other same-aged peers. They rarely seek medical help or follow a doctor's advice, and many freely allow their kids to take the medications on their own. Due to limited knowledge about parasitic worm infections and prevention, parents never followed-up to make sure the medication worked and are unclear about reinfection risks. The vast majority of parents wrongly assume that using anthelmintics just once will prevent infection in the long run.

By investigating children who have used anthelmintics in the past 18 months (47% of the sample), researchers found that even after treatment, intestinal worms reinfection rates in children remained at a high 20%. In one sampled province, intestinal worms reinfection rates in children were at a startling 33% after treatment. These results indicate that across sampled areas, one-third of preventive medication efforts produced no effect. What is needed is integration into rural public health services system with long-term follow-up, surveillance, and medical intervention when appropriate.

An indisputable reality is that the worm burden reduction is different from other types of infectious disease control because specialized equipment and knowledge are needed for detection of intestinal worm infection in children, and the disease often strikes poor, remote rural areas. Thus, even though rural public health services have received more attention today, it remains difficult to attract the focus of relevant departments.

Recommendations from experts in multiple fields: Increase the level of parasitic worm prevention and improve health facilities in poor rural schools

The situation of intestinal worm infection is one parameter by which to measure the economic development and social civilization level of a country. However, some poor areas in China today still have high rates of infection, which is inconsistent with the rapid socioeconomic development in the country, sounding a loud warning bell for the Ministries of Health and Education. 

International research indicates that for every 1 RMB spent on health education, 6 RMB is saved in medical treatment fees. For the reemergence of intestinal worms affecting children in some rural areas, are there other better solutions?

Renfu Luo, an assistant researcher at CCAP, suggests that the pressing matter at the moment is to mobilize parasitic worms prevention efforts in poor rural areas, renew inclusion of such efforts in the government's infectious disease control focus, develop and implement a long-term health education curriculum in schools that covers parasitic worm prevention, as well as launch health promotion campaigns in rural communities. With this foundation, the government needs to organize relevant experts to go deep into the vast number of poverty-stricken villages. Talks, newspapers, bulletins, and slogans, among other methods that address intestinal worms prevention; disseminating information on individual and public health; motivating schools, children, and families; urging poor rural communities to change unsanitary habits and thereby eliminate or reduce external factors affecting health are among the basic interventions that can lower the infection rates in impoverished children.

Yaojiang Shi, Director of the Xibei (Northwest) Research Center for Economic and Social Development and Professor of Xibei University, believes that the education administrative departments must intensify improvements to public health and drinking water facilities in poor rural schools while simultaneously nurturing and teaching children about good health habits. On the supply side, schools should provide students with safe drinking water and improve toilets and hand-washing areas; these improvements in external conditions can facilitate decreases in parasitic worm infection rates.

CCAP deputy director Linxiu Zhang recommends that the central government should augment investment efforts to manage environmental sanitation in poor rural villages, improve water source environmental protection and water quality, promote context-specific domestic pollution control, strengthen livestock pollution measures, reduce livestock waste, recycle, and process waste through non-hazardous treatment. At the same time, the government should consider including parasitic worm prevention services in the Rural Cooperative Medical System in poverty-stricken areas, allowing children to truly enjoy the benefits of national public health services for intestinal worms detection and treatment, experience effective decreases in infection rates, and develop healthily to reach their potential. (Article correspondent: Jin Ke)

Relevant background information

The past and present of the "baota" lozenge

"Baota" lozenge targets a common type of parasitic worm, the intestinal roundworm. At the beginning of the liberation period, roundworm infection was prevalent throughout China's cities and countryside.

As part of the former Soviet Union's aid projects in China, China imported wormseed seeds to test plant from the Soviet Union. The 20 g of seeds (can imagine the value of the seeds) imported were divided into 4 portions and under the protection of public security personnel, were transported to 4 state-owned farms in cities given the task of test planting: Hohhot, Datong, Xian and Weifang. Only one trial in Weifang announced success. In order to keep the information secret, Weifang publicized the successful test plant as "Pyrethrum No. 1" to the outside.

This roundworm-specific anthelmintic is derived from wormseed in the Chenopodiaceae family of herbs. It was initially administered in pure tablet form, but in order to expedite administration to children, a certain proportion of sugar was added, and the medicine was transformed into a light yellow and pink cone-shaped pill that resembled a pagoda ("baota"). People thus named this medication the "baota" lozenge.

The anthelmintic encountered many hardships including the Great Leap Forward, which through mistaken industrial techniques led to 3500 kg of raw materials going to waste. Then, the rebels from the "Ten Years of Turmoil" took the promising manufacturing of wormseed medication and left it in a terrible mess. In 1979, the Ministry of Health and State Food and Drug Administration promoted universal administration of "baota" lozenge. But in September 1982, all dosage forms and raw materials were eliminated. By the early 1990s, "baota" lozenge had disappeared from China.

The dangers of a few important types of intestinal worms

Intestinal worms mainly infect children, and due to competition with the host for nutrients, often lead to malnutrition and anemia in infected children, compromised physical and cognitive development, and even death from complications.

Ascaris larvae migration can lead to larvae-induced pneumonia and allergic reactions, while adult roundworms residing in the small intestine can destroy gastrointestinal function, generating abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea, diarrhea or constipation and even severe complications such as intestinal obstruction, biliary duct ascariasis, and appendicitis.

Hookworm resides in the duodenum and small intestine, sucking up nutrients and blood in children, leading to anemia, poor appetite, nausea and vomiting, pale nails and facial complexion, dizziness, feebleness, shortness of breath, palpitation etc. Chronic infection can affect children's growth and development and severe infection can cause anemia-induced congestive heart failure.  

Whipworm resides in children's cecum and appendix and consumes tissue fluid and blood for sustenance. Infected individuals can experience appetite loss, nausea, vomiting, bloody stool and other symptoms.

Pinworm's unique feature is that it stimulates itchy sensations in the anus and genitals at night, affecting sleep with associated symptoms of poor appetite, emaciation, irritability, night terror etc and can induce ectopic complications such as appendicitis.