Tuesday, February 06, 2024

British infants more likely to die before first birthday than those in other developed countries


Michael Searles
Mon, 5 February 2024 

A report found that the UK ranked 30 out of 49 developed countries for infant mortality -
STURTI/E+

British infants are more likely to die before their first birthday than those in most other developed countries after an “appalling decline” in children’s health since the pandemic.

By the age of five, 20 per cent of British children are considered overweight or obese, and one in four is suffering from tooth decay, a report has said.

The UK ranked 30 out of 49 developed countries for infant mortality, which is the proportion of children who are dying before their first birthday, experts from the Academy of Medical Sciences said.

It means Britain’s children are less likely to reach one than 60 per cent of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, as progress on improving survival rates has stalled.

There were four deaths per 1,000 births in the UK between 2019 and 2022, according to the OECD. Japan had the lowest infant mortality at 1.7 deaths per 1,000 births, while most of Europe and Australia also fared better.

The US, Canada, India, South Africa and several South American countries ranked below the UK.

The UK’s global ranking has gradually fallen from 23rd in 2015 when the infant mortality rate was 3.9 deaths per 1,000 births. While other countries improved, Britain’s rate stagnated before it fell during the pandemic back to figures not seen since 2012.
Pandemic contributed to decline in children’s health

The report found children’s decline in health had been compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the cost of living crisis, but started in the years preceding 2020.

The academics said a national rise in child poverty and in mental health issues were also to blame for children’s ill health.

The number of children living in extreme poverty tripled between 2019 and 2022, the report found.

The authors said the cost to the economy of not addressing children’s poor health was at least £16.13 billion, using data from the London School of Economics.

Professor Helen Minnis, co-chairman of the report from Glasgow University, said it was clear that “we are betraying our children”.

“Child deaths are rising, infant survival lags behind comparable countries, and preventable physical and mental health issues plague our youngest citizens.

“Unless the health of babies and young children is urgently prioritised, we condemn many to a life of poorer health and lost potential. The time to act is now,” she said.
‘Disconcencerting’ report findings

Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, co-chairman from the University of Oxford, said: “There are huge challenges for the NHS today, driven by the growing pressures on health and social care from an ageing population.

“Even more disconcerting is the evidence cited in our Academy of Medical Sciences report of an appalling decline in the health of our children, which makes for an even more bleak outlook for their future.

“There is clear evidence in the report that tackling childhood health conditions, addressing inequalities and providing early years social support can change the future of health and prosperity.”

A government spokesman said short-term and long-term action has been implemented to improve children’s health. This includes “dramatically reducing sugar in children’s foods, investing over £600 million to improve the quality of sport for children, and encouraging healthy diets for families from lower-income households through schemes like Healthy Start”.

They added: “We’re also investing an additional £2.3 billion a year into mental health services, the number of children seen by NHS dentists rose by 14 per cent last year, and we’re taking steps to reduce youth vaping and introducing the first ever smoke-free generation.

“Cutting waiting lists is one of the Government’s top five priorities. Despite ongoing pressure on the NHS, we have cut the total waiting list and the number of individual patients waiting for treatment compared to the previous month.”

No comments:

Post a Comment