Question

求英语高手将英语文献翻译成汉语！急用

中间有难翻译的地方，可以跳过去不翻译，不要求句句翻译，但是请尽量保持准确度~~~~~谢谢啦~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 下面就是我的英语文献~~~~~~~~~~~~~
英语文献多了点 不用全翻译完 只要翻译出来的汉字够3000字左右就可以了~~~~ 不要在线直接用翻译器翻译的~~要是那样就不用来找高手了对不对·~·~~

Answer 1

1。BackgroundInequitable资源配置是一种普遍的probleminmany卫生系统。在全球范围内,健康需求多样化和要求重大财务、人力和其他资源。然而,这些资源限制在许多国家[33],从而形成一个分布式进退两难的局面对决策者。尽管这个问题带来的资源不足,无法underesti -交配,特别是在发展中国家,那里是一个普遍认为,在国家举行类似的经济,它不是站在一个国家花多少钱,而是如何度过其资源,deter-mines的健康状况,其人口[1]。证据,
fromboth发达国家和发展中国家的暗示不恰当的资源配置,很大程度上取决于不平等的健康。在澳大利亚,举个例子,虽然土著居民平均寿命为近20年来non-indigenous短于澳大利亚[2、3),Deeble和别人发现,总expen-ditures健康服务,每个人都notmuch高于澳大利亚土著人口的其余部分,比仅仅1.22:1[4]。在南非,
这个贫穷的健康状况的黑人比白人南非被认为是造成的历史性的失衡和不平等的资源配置体系今天,在观察红壤保健支出在南非在20世纪末的时候是在私营部门(40),主要受惠者是少数民族人口。在马达加斯加,Castro-Leal缪群。[5]的发现,最穷的20%的人口消耗12%的
公共医疗保健支出30%份额相比,总喜欢的富有20%。
要解决不平等的健康受到注意增加了近年来[6]. 这已经暴露出机制的公营医疗资源分配到更严厉。上述国家的压力下,政策制定者已经放弃了历史的融资模型被广泛地认为公正和开发明确的选择方案,得以在地区之间的不平等。一个问题仍未解决的更公平的资源分配任务,然而,正确的原则或套原则指导资源配置为桥梁存在的差距在股票。其中一个主要原因为小一致的学者对这一问题的不同结果如何解释术语“公平”任何一个可能解释道,股票仍是一个装有财宝;选择不同的定义,因此必然涉及到公平
使价值判断[7]. 常见的解释,包括'equal人均支出的公平平等的输入percapita”、“平等”、“平等”、“平等的使用要求平等需要的、平等健康”[8]。这些定义有其自身的利益和困境,并以测量和operationalisation.健康”的平等,例如,而饱受批评
是不现实的,给予了许多因素,包括确定变异的遗传背景和历史悠久的差距在访问thewide范围的资源,有助于确定健康的结果。虽然有些学者争论的终极目的,所有的定义,净值是平等的,其他健康[34]有建议的其他目标,比如平等权利的平等机会访问或平等需要[9]。访问,不过,这是一个多维的概念和极难衡量大多数工业国采取“平等”interpre-tation访问他们在努力实现公平分配
服务和资源10-12][…许多needs-based信息资源配置模式
在最近几十年被开发的基础上获得了平等的原则。最好的例子就是资源配置文件工作小组(RAWP)模型在1976年在英格兰。这个RAWP模型试图分配国家卫生服务系统之间的地理区域来获得资金的访问为平等机会均等(39)需要。asAustralia、新西兰等国家,加拿大和南非已经领先的方法,从RAWP形成了一套自己的needs-based系统的目的和类似的公平。一个needs-based模型也在赞比亚[13]而乌干达已经实施了扶贫资源分配改革类似needs-based资助[14]。然而,努力改善股权通过needs-based资金都集中在广阔的地域公平压倒一切的
如区域或省级股权。股票在次区域水平已经几乎忽略了在许多国家,创造了一种知识vacuumregarding re-distributed资源被当局这种缺乏关注权益的次区域水平可能深具意义的一般不平等减少健康。(2)。在加纳的资源配置.Ghana坐落在西方海岸ofAfrica多哥,东、西'lvoire寇特d、上
沃尔特和几内亚湾。这是一个低收入国家国民生产总值人均国民ofUS 320亿美元(42]. 超过40%的估计20.5万人口生活在贫困线以下。年轻的人口结构,显著的居民大约40%的15岁以下。农村居民大约占55%的
总数量。这个infantmortality率大约百分之六十的1000 2003年总体平均寿命为2002年出生时几乎是58年。公共部门的健康支出构成了大约占2.8%的国内生产总值(GDP)于2001年(41]。行政区划、加纳分为10个区域和110个区(图1)。政府已经在过去的几年里,发起了一个政策来创建一个额外的20-30区卫生资源配置和地区之间、地区在加纳已经低于公平。一般来说,在北部地区的国家而言,更被剥夺了获得医疗保健行业的人比南方…GhanaHealth服务(GHS率)的医生是1:16,201每个人口为例,在更大1:66,071相比,在加纳首都阿克拉地区北部地区(31)。在
个别地区、不平等盛行,经常与社区在偏远地区havingmuchmore有限的区域性保健服务。衔接关系尚未获得医疗保健是最主要的国家健康政策的目标。这是供奉
使命宣言卫生部声明:“TheMinistry ofHealthwillwork collaborationwith所有合作伙伴在医疗部门,以确保每一个个人、家庭、社区,充分了解健康的合理能够得到高质量的医疗和相关的干预”(30)对资源配置的卫生系统内的原则,旨在实现平等的accessgoal通过减少不平等之间
地理区域内,包括去除财政壁垒来存取服务的弱势的人口。资源分配决策过程是权力下放这位加纳医疗服务(GHS)使用资源分配的公式,对资源配置。刚开始的时候,GHS布置规划赛季的预算天花板RHAs区域卫生Adminis-trations(10)在这个国家这个量分配
在所有区域块地区。每个RHA使用自己的region-specific资源分配的公式,re-distribute这个总和的地区在中华人民共和国管辖的其他海域。它是基于这些分配(的计划)andbudget RHAs地区经营活动。计划和预算估计完成活动的地区都被RHA架子回到卫生部/ GHS总部审批经批准后,theMOHdisburses资金
直接向各通过RHA。在这一阶段的RHA不能改变什么已缴费个人区最近,对促进公平、卫生部已经采取的top-slicing ' GHS预算目标的四个地区最著名的加纳降低贫困剥夺Strat-egy(GPRS)文件,即;北、东北、西部和中部地区(31]. 使用不同的资源分配标准由10 regionsmeans equitymay进展到另一个地区不同的commit-ment取决于对促进公平与特定的标准和策略。迄今为止,还没有一个系统调查评价区域内的资源配置的程度股权的目标是先进的(或没有)通过这一过程该研究调查了在资源分配系统更是前所未见的高度和北部地区
加纳为了评估和比较公平的进展再分配的基金的大部分地区被剥夺了本研究的目的的定义
公平地体现在制作的使命,那就是平等的高质量的服务和inter-ventions被采纳。公平的资源分配来作为定义是平等的分配资源平等的需求或相关专业。因为强有力的关联和社会经济的健康状况dis-advantage在加纳,健康的需要采用相对剥夺或不利的地位。水平较高的地区被认为是被剥夺
在更大的需要的资源。在这项研究中,资源的定义是主要的金融资源为区级服务。

Answer 2

就是这篇英语文献，与卫生资源配置有关的~~~不要在线直接翻译的~~
1. BackgroundInequitable allocation of resources is a widespread probleminmany health systems.Globally, health needs are diverse and require significant financial, human and other resources. These resources are however limited in many countries [33], thereby creating a distributional dilemma for policy-makers. Although the problems posed by resource inadequacy cannot be underesti- mated, particularly in developing countries, there is a commonly held view that, within countries of similar socio-economic standing, it is not how much a country spends, but rather how it spends its resources that deter-mines the health status of its population [1]. Evidence
fromboth developed and developing countries suggests that inappropriate allocation of resources contribute greatly to inequities in health. In Australia, for example, although indigenous people have a life expectancy of nearly 20 years shorter than non-indigenous Australians [2,3], Deeble and others found that total expen-ditures per person for health services for indigenous Australians are notmuch higher than the rest of the population; a ratio of merely 1.22:1 [4]. In South Africans,
the poorer health status of black people compared to white South African is believed to be partly the result of the historic imbalances and inequities in the resource allocation system.McIntyre observed that over 60%of health care spending in South Africa at the end of the 20th century was in the private sector [40], the main beneficiaries of which were the minority white population. In Madagascar, Castro-Leal et al. [5] found that the poorest 20% of the population consumes 12% of
public spending on health compared to 30% share of the total enjoyed by the richest 20%.
The need to address inequity in health has received increased attention in recent years [6].This has exposed the mechanisms for allocation of public sector health resources to greater scrutiny. Inmany countries, policy-makers have come under pressure to abandon historical funding models which were widely perceived as inequitable and to develop explicit alternatives that would redress inequities within and between geographic regions. One issue that remains unresolved in the quest for more equitable resource distribution however, is the appropriate principle or set of principles that should guide resource allocation in order to bridge the existing gaps in equity. One major reason for the little consensus among scholars on this issue results from the diverse ways in which the term ‘equity’ is interpreted.Whatever interpretation one might have, equity remains a value-laden word; choosing between different definitions of equity therefore necessarily involves
making value judgements [7].The common interpretations of equity include‘equal expenditure per capita’, ‘equal inputs percapita’, ‘equal access for equal needs’, ‘equal utilisation for equal needs’, and ‘equal health’ [8]. Each of these definitions has its own benefits and difficulties with regards to measurement and operationalisation.‘Equal health’, for example, has been widely criticised
as being unrealistic, given the many factors that determine health including variations in genetic background and longstanding disparities in access to thewide range of resources which contribute to determining health outcomes. While some authors have argued that the ultimate aim of all definitions of equity is equality of health [34], others have suggested other objectives such as equality of access or equal access for equal needs[9]. Access, however, is a multidimensional concept and extremely difficult to measure.Most industrialised nations have adopted the ‘equality of access’ interpre-tation in their efforts to achieve fairness in distribution
of services and resources [10–12].Many needs-based models for resource allocation
in recent decades were developed on the basis of the equality of access principle. The best documented example is the Resource Allocation Working Party’s (RAWP) model developed in England in 1976. The RAWP model sought to allocate National Health Service (NHS) funds between geographical areas to secure equal opportunity of access for equal needs [39]. Countries such asAustralia,NewZealand,Canada and South Africa have taken the lead from the RAWP approach and developed their own needs-based systems with a similar aim of improving equity. A needs-based model has been also tried in Zambia [13] while Uganda has implemented a pro-poor resource allocation reform similar to needs-based funding [14]. However, efforts to improve equity through needs-based funding have overwhelmingly focused on broader geographic equity
such as inter-regional or provincial equity. Equity at sub-regional levels has been virtually ignored in many countries, creating a knowledge vacuumregarding how resources are re-distributed by regional authorities.This lack of attention to equity at sub-regional levels could have profound implications for reducing general inequities in health. 2. Resource allocation in Ghana .Ghana is located on thewest coast ofAfrica, bordering Togo to the east, Cote d’lvoire to the west, Burkina
Faso to the north and the Gulf of Guinea to the south. It is a low-income country with a gross national income (GNI) per capita ofUS$ 320 [42].Over 40%of the estimated 20.5 million population lives below the poverty line. The population structure is significantly youthful, with about 40% of the total inhabitants under the age of 15. Rural residents make up around 55% of the
total population. The infantmortality rate was about 60 per 1000 in 2003 while the overall life expectancy at birth for 2002 was nearly 58 years. Public sector health expenditure constituted about 2.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001 [41]. For administrative purposes, Ghana is divided into 10 regions and 110 districts (Fig. 1). The government has in the past few years initiated a policy to create an additional 20–30 districts.Allocation of health resources between and within the regions and districts in Ghana has been less than equitable. Generally, regions in the Northern half the country are more deprived in terms of access to health care than those in the southern sector.The ratio GhanaHealth Service (GHS) doctors per population for example is 1:16,201 in the Greater Accra region compared to 1:66,071 in the Northern region [31]. Within
individual regions, inequities are rife, often with communities in remote locations havingmuchmore limited access to district-based health care services. Bridging inequities in access to health care is therefore one of the main national health policy goals. This is enshrined in
the mission statement of the Ministry of Health which states that:“TheMinistry ofHealthwillwork in collaborationwith all partners in the health sector to ensure that every individual, household and community is adequately informed about health and has equitable access to high quality health and related interventions” [30].Allocation of resources within the health system is in principle, designed to achieve the equality of accessgoal through the reduction of inequities between and
within geographic regions, including the removal of financial barriers to access to services for the mos vulnerable segments of the population. The resource allocation decision-making process is decentralised.The Ghana Health Service (GHS) uses a resource allocation formula to allocate resources to regions. At the beginning of the planning season, the GHS assigns budgetary ceilings to the 10 Regional Health Adminis-trations (RHAs) in the country.This amount is allocated
in block for all districts in the region. Each RHA uses its own region-specific resource allocation formula to re-distribute this lump sum among the districts under its jurisdiction. It is on the basis of these allocations(as determined by the RHAs) that districts plan andbudget their activities. Completed activity plans and budgetary estimates of districts are collated by the RHA and returned to the MOH/GHS headquarters for approval.Once approved, theMOHdisburses the funds
directly to the various districts through the RHA. The RHA at this stage cannot alter what has been disbursed to individual districts.More recently, to promote inter-regional equity, the MOH has resorted to ‘top-slicing’ the GHS budget to target the four regions noted as the most deprived in the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strat-egy (GPRS) document, namely; the Northern, Upper East, Upper West and Central region [31].The use of different resource allocation criteria by the 10 regionsmeans progress towards equitymay vary from one region to another depending on the commit-ment to promoting equity and the particular criteria and strategies employed. To date, there has not been a systematic investigation to assess the allocation of resources within regions and the extent to which equity objectives are advanced (or not) through this process.This study examines the intra-regional resource allocation systems in the Ashanti and Northern regions of
Ghana in order to assess and compare progress towards equity in terms of redistribution of funds in favour of the most deprived districts.For the purposes of this study, the definition of
equity embodied in the MOH mission statement, that is, equality of access to high quality care and inter-ventions was adopted. Equitable resource allocation is defined here as allocation of equal or equivalent resources for equal needs. Because of the strong association between health status and socio-economic dis-advantage in Ghana, health needs were measured in terms of relative deprivation or disadvantage. Districts with high levels of deprivation were considered to be
in greater need of resources. Resource is defined in this study largely in terms of financial resources for district-level services.

Answer 3

)Action of “Latvia’s Dialogues” is directed to promotion of the Inter-ethnical dialogue and development of civil society;
译：‘拉脱维亚谈话’行动引导和促进了种族之间的对话何社会文明的发展。
2) Research works: in History, in Environmental protection.
译：研究工作：在历史方面，在环境保护方面。
3) Research of business strategies, Law;
译：业务策略，法律方面的研究。
4) Organisation and support of culture, charity events.
译：对文化、慈善事业的组织和支持

5) International Diplomatic projects;
译：国际外交战略。

Answer 4

1。 BackgroundInequitable资源的分配是一个普遍probleminmany健康systems.Globally，健康需求是多种多样的，需要大量的财政，人力和其他资源。然而，这些资源是许多国家有限的[33]，从而为政策制定者一个分配的困境。虽然资源不足造成的问题不能underesti，交配，特别是在发展中国家，有一种普遍的观点认为，在类似的社会和经济地位的国家，这不是多大的一个国家花费，而是如何支出，其资源，防止地雷，其人口的健康状况[1]。证据
fromboth发达国家和发展中国家的建议，适当的资源分配不平等做出了巨大贡献的健康。在澳大利亚，例如，尽管土著人有一个近20年比非土著澳大利亚人平均寿命短[2,3]，迪布尔和其他人发现，总expen - ditures卫生服务f每人