MONDAY, May 24 (HealthDay News) --The global death rate for children under the age of 5 appears to be significantly lower -- by as much as 800,000 fewer deaths -- than the latest mortality estimates released by UNICEF in 2008.


The fresh numbers gleaned from number-crunching conducted by researchers at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle also indicate that many poorer nations are demonstrating faster progress at stemming the tide of under-5 deaths.

The current figures raise some hope for achieving the objectives established by the "Millennium Development Goal 4 (MDG 4)," which is aiming for a two-thirds drop in deaths among children under 5 from 1990 to 2015.

Prior statistical analyses suggested that fewer than a quarter of the world's nations were on track to meet this target. Yet despite some encouraging signs, the current review doesn't paint a much better picture overall, revealing that only 31 developing nations and a total of 54 countries out of 187 worldwide appear to be heading towards the MDG 4 finish line.

That observation comes from the IHME team's look at levels and trends for child deaths in 187 countries for the period 1970 through 2010. The authors relied on the participating country's censuses, surveys, birth records and registration systems for their data.

The researchers found that while 11.9 million children under 5 died across the world in 1990, that figure had dropped to an estimated 7.7 million in 2010.

One-third of such deaths occur in south Asia, they found, while one-half take place in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the three decades since 1970, there has been a 60 percent overall drop in worldwide child mortality rates, the team noted. In the same timeframe, infant deaths in the first 27 days after birth (neonatal period) and in the first 28 days to 12 months of age (postnatal period) dropped by 57 and 62 percent, respectively.

In another positive trend, 1970 saw 40 nations with a death rate above 200 per 1000 live births, but only 12 nations hit that mark by 1990, and none crossed that threshold by 2010. Overall, the fastest rates of decline in childhood mortality appear to be occurring in Latin America and North Africa.

On a less optimistic note, however, the authors found that not all high-income countries -- where child death rates are typically much lower than in poorer nations -- are on equal footing with one another, the IHME analysis finds.

For example, although the UK has experienced a drop in child deaths of 75 percent since 1970, the nation still has the unfortunate distinction of having the highest child mortality rates in all of Western Europe.

And rates of child death have declined by just two to three percent per year in both the U.S. and Canada since 1990 -- a significantly poorer improvement than the three to five percent decline rates experienced in most other high-income countries.

The finding is reported in the May 23 online issue of The Lancet.

Mr. Burning wrote:Does it mean that the developing world and its increased standards of living will continue to see increases in population?

aka_tizz wrote:This gave me the image of an old man sitting on his porch with a beer in his watching all the young 20-yr old pretty girls walking down and the street and thinking "Thank god they reduced child mortality in the '2000s..."

And on a more serious note, i find very very very few things more sad than a mother seeing her child die. So i'm glad about this

Mr. Burning wrote:Does it mean that the developing world and its increased standards of living will continue to see increases in population?

Yep, that too. Unless some stupid law passes and we'll have to kill everyone when they reach the age of 60

egor71 wrote:Yes, we need more people.
6 billion is just not enough.

Mr. Burning wrote:Has the UK reached a plateau in the medical fight against infant mortality?

Does it mean that the developing world and its increased standards of living will continue to see increases in population?

The happy reaper wrote:I actually consider this to be bad news.

Think about it for a moment, if wild dog puppy mortality was at the level human infant mortality is, we'd be overrun with puppies in a month. Luckily, the developed world isnt too bad, save some religous families with 12 children.

However, think of the developing world, where they just dont seem to understand that if they have LESS children they will have MORE money to clothe them and feed them, not least to get some rudimentary medical care.

egor71 wrote:More people = more problems.

sebster wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:Has the UK reached a plateau in the medical fight against infant mortality?

I believe there are still improvements being made in the developing world, but they're minor and incremental. Whereas the developing world has a lot of catch-up opportunities.

Does it mean that the developing world and its increased standards of living will continue to see increases in population?

No. Infant death is actually tied to higher birth rates and higher population growth. If you need to have a couple of kids to look after you when you die, but there's a good chance they'll die before then, you'll have four or five kids to make sure some survive to take care of you.

The happy reaper wrote:I actually consider this to be bad news.

I'm guessing you've never had a child of yours die.

Think about it for a moment, if wild dog puppy mortality was at the level human infant mortality is, we'd be overrun with puppies in a month. Luckily, the developed world isnt too bad, save some religous families with 12 children.

They're not dogs, they're people.

And yes, population is directly impacted by increasing living standards.

However, think of the developing world, where they just dont seem to understand that if they have LESS children they will have MORE money to clothe them and feed them, not least to get some rudimentary medical care.

That's kind of racist, or kind of ignorant or something like that. They're poor, not stupid.

The issue is nothing to do with people there not understanding basic maths, the problem is that children remain a fundamental part of social welfare - it is better to have many children caring for you in old age than to have a few. As long as infant mortality is high,

Add in women being far less capable of saying no, as they have less social status and much reduced economic independance, and you have the greater birth rate all but explained. Solve those issues, something which is being done, and you dramatically reduce birth rates - something which is happening.

Oh, and religion might play a part, but it isn't anywhere near as significant as people assume. Italy, home of Catholicism, has the lowest birthrate in the world - 1.3 children per woman.

The happy reaper wrote:Trust me, I would apply the same thing in the UK, just not to the same EXTENT. Except, we give our large families truckloads of benefits to encourage them to get larger, not smaller.

If youd read the whole thing I said it was GOOD that less kids were dying, but it was BAD because BIRTH rates are going up.

Also, I thought Catholics couldnt use birth control? 1.3 kids??? how in the world do they manage that? I feel sorry for Italian men.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

egor71 wrote:More people = more problems.

Not necessarily. More people = more potential ways to solve problems.