Anaemia in schoolchildren in eight countries in Africa and Asia

Objective: To report on the haemoglobin concentrations and prevalence of anaemia in schoolchildren in eight countries in Africa and Asia. Design: Blood samples were collected during surveys of the health of schoolchildren as a part of programmes to develop school-based health services. Setting: Rural schools in Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania and Vietnam. Subjects: Nearly 14 000 children enrolled in basic education in three age ranges (7-11 years, 12-14 years and >/= 15 years) which reflect the new UNICEF/WHO thresholds to define anaemia. Results: Anaemia was found to be a severe public health problem (defined as >40% anaemic) in five African countries for children aged 7-11 years and in four of the same countries for children aged 12-14 years. Anaemia was not a public health problem in the children studied in the two Asian countries. More boys than girls were anaemic, and children who enrolled late in school were more likely to be anaemic than children who enrolled closer to the correct age. The implications of the four new thresholds defining anaemia for school-age children are examined. Conclusions: Anaemia is a significant problem in schoolchildren in sub-Saharan Africa. School-based health services which provide treatments for simple conditions that cause blood loss, such as worms, followed by multiple micronutrient supplements including iron, have the potential to provide relief from a large burden of anaemia

New Testament Exegesis as an Academic Discipline with Relevance for Other Disciplines

This article is an English translation of a lecture delivered in November 2011 upon the author’s installation as Professor of New Testament at Uppsala University. It addresses several conceptual and methodological questions about New Testament Exegesis, including: ‘What is New Testament Exegesis?’ ‘What does it mean to call New Testament Exegesis an academic discipline?’ and ‘How can this discipline have relevance for other disciplines?’ A central argument is that the current balkanization of biblical studies is undesirable and that scholars who use more traditional or newer methods should engage each other rather than talk past each other. Since the so-called ‘historical-critical method’ is, in fact, not just one method, this misconception in current nomenclature merits critical attention. Additionally, ‘the linguistic turn’ holds promise for future discussions