Project description:BackgroundIn the nearly half century since it began lending for population projects, the World Bank has become one of the largest financiers of global health projects and programs, a powerful voice in shaping health agendas in global governance spaces, and a mass producer of evidentiary knowledge for its preferred global health interventions. How can social scientists interrogate the role of the World Bank in shaping 'global health' in the current era?Main bodyAs a group of historians, social scientists, and public health officials with experience studying the effects of the institution's investment in health, we identify three challenges to this research. First, a future research agenda requires recognizing that the Bank is not a monolith, but rather has distinct inter-organizational groups that have shaped investment and discourse in complicated, and sometimes contradictory, ways. Second, we must consider how its influence on health policy and investment has changed significantly over time. Third, we must analyze its modes of engagement with other institutions within the global health landscape, and with the private sector. The unique relationships between Bank entities and countries that shape health policy, and the Bank's position as a center of research, permit it to have a formative influence on health economics as applied to international development. Addressing these challenges, we propose a future research agenda for the Bank's influence on global health through three overlapping objects of and domains for study: knowledge-based (shaping health policy knowledge), governance-based (shaping health governance), and finance-based (shaping health financing). We provide a review of case studies in each of these categories to inform this research agenda.ConclusionsAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage, and as state and non-state actors work to build more inclusive and robust health systems around the world, it is more important than ever to consider how to best document and analyze the impacts of Bank's financial and technical investments in the Global South.
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) published the WHO Labour Care Guide (LCG) in 2020 to support the implementation of its 2018 recommendations on intrapartum care. The WHO LCG promotes evidence-based labour monitoring and stimulates shared decision-making between maternity care providers and labouring women. There is a need to identify critical questions that will contribute to defining the research agenda relating to implementation of the WHO LCG.MethodsThis mixed-methods prioritization exercise, adapted from the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) and James Lind Alliance (JLA) methods, combined a metrics-based design with a qualitative, consensus-building consultation in three phases. The exercise followed the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE). First, 30 stakeholders were invited to submit online ideas or questions (generation of research ideas). Then, 220 stakeholders were invited to score "research avenues" (i.e., broad research ideas that could be answered through a set of research questions) against six independent and equally weighted criteria (scoring of research avenues). Finally, a technical working group (TWG) of 20 purposively selected stakeholders reviewed the scoring, and refined and ranked the research avenues (consensus-building meeting).ResultsInitially, 24 stakeholders submitted 89 research ideas or questions. A list of 10 consolidated research avenues was scored by 75/220 stakeholders. During the virtual consensus-building meeting, research avenues were refined, and the top three priorities agreed upon were: (1) optimize implementation strategies of WHO LCG, (2) improve understanding of the effect of WHO LCG on maternal and perinatal outcomes, and the process and experience of labour and childbirth care, and (3) assess the effect of the WHO LCG in special situations or settings. Research avenues related to the organization of care and resource utilization ranked lowest during both the scoring and consensus-building process.ConclusionThis systematic and transparent process should encourage researchers, program implementers, and funders to support research aligned with the identified priorities related to WHO LCG. An international collaborative platform is recommended to implement prioritized research by using harmonized research tools, establishing a repository of research priorities studies, and scaling-up successful research results.
Project description:Improving quality of care could avert most of the 4.5 million maternal and neonatal deaths and stillbirths that occur each year. The Global Financing Facility (GFF) aims to catalyse the national scale-up of maternal and newborn health (MNH) interventions through focused investments. Achieving impact and value for money requires high, equitable coverage and high quality of interventions. This study examines whether the rhetoric of increasing coverage together with quality has informed investment strategies in MNH through a secondary analysis of 25 GFF documents from 11 African countries. The analysis shows that the country GFF-related documents incorporate some MNH-related quality of care components; however, there is a lack of clarity in what is meant by quality and the absence of core MNH quality of care components as identified by the World Health Organization's MNH quality framework, especially experience of care and newborn care. Many of the Investment Cases have a more diagonal focus on MNH service delivery considering the clinical dimensions of quality, while the investments described in the Project Appraisal Documents are primarily on horizontal structural aspects of the health system strengthening environment. The GFF is at the forefront of investing in MNH globally and provides an important opportunity to explicitly link health systems investments and quality interventions within the MNH continuum of care for optimal impact.
Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to explore the association of health financing indicators with the proportion of births by caesarean section (CS) across countries.DesignEcological cross-country study.SettingThis study examines CS proportions across 172 countries.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the percentage excess of CS proportion, defined as CS proportions above the global target of 19%. We also analysed continuous CS proportions, as well as excess proportion with a more restrictive 9% global target. Multivariable linear regressions were performed to test the association of health financing factors with the percentage excess proportions of CS. The health financing factors considered were total available health system resources (as percentage of gross domestic product), total contributions from private households (out-of-pocket, compulsory and voluntary health insurance contributions) and total national income.ResultsWe estimate that in 2018 there were a total of 8.8 million unnecessary CS globally, roughly two-thirds of which occurred in upper middle-income countries. Private health financing was positively associated with percentage excess CS proportion. In models adjusted for income and total health resources as well as human resources, each 10 per cent increase in out-of-pocket expenditure was associated with a 0.7 per cent increase in excess CS proportions. A 10 per cent increase in voluntary health insurance was associated with a 4 per cent increase in excess CS proportions.ConclusionsWe have found that health system finance features are associated with CS use across countries. Further monitoring of these indicators, within countries and between countries will be needed to understand the effect of financial arrangements in the provision of CS.
Project description:ObjectivesThe impact of donors, such as national government (bi-lateral), private sector, and individual financial (philanthropic) contributions, on domestic health policies of developing nations has been the subject of scholarly discourse. Little is known, however, about the impact of global financial initiatives, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, on policies and health governance of countries receiving funding from such initiatives.MethodsThis study employs a qualitative methodological design based on a single case study: Brazil. Analysis at national, inter-governmental and community levels is based on in-depth interviews with the Global Fund and the Brazilian Ministry of Health and civil societal activists. Primary research is complemented with information from printed media, reports, journal articles, and books, which were used to deepen our analysis while providing supporting evidence.ResultsOur analysis suggests that in Brazil, Global Fund financing has helped to positively transform health governance at three tiers of analysis: the national-level, inter-governmental-level, and community-level. At the national-level, Global Fund financing has helped to increased political attention and commitment to relatively neglected diseases, such as tuberculosis, while harmonizing intra-bureaucratic relationships; at the inter-governmental-level, Global Fund financing has motivated the National Tuberculosis Programme to strengthen its ties with state and municipal health departments, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs); while at the community-level, the Global Fund's financing of civil societal institutions has encouraged the emergence of new civic movements, participation, and the creation of new municipal participatory institutions designed to monitor the disbursement of funds for Global Fund grants.ConclusionsGlobal Fund financing can help deepen health governance at multiple levels. Future work will need to explore how the financing of civil society by the Global Fund and other donors influence policy agenda-setting and institutional innovations for increased civic participation in health governance and accountability to citizens.
Project description:The WHO research agenda for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human health has identified 40 research priorities to be addressed by the year 2030. These priorities focus on bacterial and fungal pathogens of crucial importance in addressing AMR, including drug-resistant pathogens causing tuberculosis. These research priorities encompass the entire people-centred journey, covering prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections, in addition to addressing the overarching knowledge gaps in AMR epidemiology, burden and drivers, policies and regulations, and awareness and education. The research priorities were identified through a multistage process, starting with a comprehensive scoping review of knowledge gaps, with expert inputs gathered through a survey and open call. The priority setting involved a rigorous modified Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative approach, ensuring global representation and applicability of the findings. The ultimate goal of this research agenda is to encourage research and investment in the generation of evidence to better understand AMR dynamics and facilitate policy translation for reducing the burden and consequences of AMR.
Project description:Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a neglected area in global health financing. Despite repeated calls for greater investment, it seems that there has been little growth. We analysed trends in reported funding and activity between 2015 and 2021 using a novel real-time source of global health data, the Devex.com database, the world's largest source of funding opportunities related to international development. We performed a systematic search of the Devex.com database for HPSR-related terms with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. We included 'programs', 'tenders & grants' and 'contract awards', covering all call statuses (open, closed or forecast). Such funding opportunities were included if they were related specifically to HPSR funding or had an HPSR component; pure biomedical funding was excluded. Our findings reveal a relative neglect of HPSR, as only ∼2% of all global health funding calls included a discernible HPSR component. Despite increases in funding calls until 2019, this situation reversed in 2020, likely reflecting the redirection of resources to rapid assessments of the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most identified projects represented small-scale opportunities-commonly for consultancies or technical assistance. To the extent that new data were generated, these projects were either tied to a specific large intervention or were narrow in scope to meet a specific challenge-with many examples informing policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nearly half of advertised funding opportunities were multi-country projects, usually addressing global policy priorities like health systems strengthening or development of coordinated public health policies at a regional level. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown why investing in HPSR is more important than ever to enable the delivery of effective health interventions and avoid costly implementation failures. The evidence presented here highlights the need to scale up efforts to convince global health funders to institutionalize the inclusion of HPSR components in all funding calls.
Project description:Early warning and response are key to tackle emerging and acute public health risks globally. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) has implemented a robust approach to public health intelligence (PHI) for the global detection, verification and risk assessment of acute public health threats. WHO's PHI operations are underpinned by the International Health Regulations (2005), which require that countries strengthen surveillance efforts, and assess, notify and verify events that may constitute a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). PHI activities at WHO are conducted systematically at WHO's headquarters and all six regional offices continuously, throughout every day of the year. We describe four interlinked steps; detection, verification, risk assessment, and reporting and dissemination. For PHI operations, a diverse and interdisciplinary workforce is needed. Overall, PHI is a key feature of the global health architecture and will only become more prominent as the world faces increasing public health threats.