Search

This paper argues that the global health agenda tends to privilege short-term global interests at the expense of long-term capacity building within national and community health systems. The Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) movement needs to focus on developing the capacity of local organizations and the institutions that influence how such organizations interact with local and international stakeholders. Discussion: While institutions can enable organizations, they too often apply requirements to follow paths that can stifle learning and development. Global health actors have recognized the importance of supporting local organizations in HSS activities. However, this recognition has yet to translate adequately into actual policies to influence funding and practice. While there is not a single approach to HSS that can be uniformly applied to all contexts, several messages emerge from the experience of successful health systems presented in this paper using case studies through a complex adaptive systems lens. Two key messages deserve special attention: the need for donors and recipient organizations to work as equal partners, and the need for strong and diffuse leadership in low-income countries. Summary: An increasingly dynamic and interdependent post-Millennium Development Goals (post-MDG) world requires new ways of working to improve global health, underpinned by a complex adaptive systems lens and approaches that build local organizational capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Principal Recipients (PRs) receive money from the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) to manage and implement programs. However, little research has gone into understanding their opinions and experiences. This survey set out to describe these, thereby providing a baseline against which changes in PR opinions and experiences can be assessed as the recently introduced new funding model is rolled out. Methodology An internet based questionnaire was administered to 315 PRs. A total of 115 responded from 69 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The study was conducted between September and December 2012. Findings Three quarters of PRs thought the progress update and disbursement request (PU/DR) system was a useful method of reporting grant progress. However, most felt that the grant negotiation processes were complicated, and that the grant rating system did not reflect performance. While nearly all PRs were happy with the work being done by sub-Recipients (92%) and Fund Portfolio Managers (86%), fewer were happy with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Non-government PRs were generally less happy with the OIG's work compared to government PRs. Most PRs thought the Global Fund's Voluntary Pooled Procurement system made procurement easier. However, only 29% said the system should be made compulsory. When asked which aspects of the Global Fund's operations needed improvement, most PRs said that the Fund should re-define and clarify the roles of different actors, minimize staff turnover at its Secretariat, and shorten the grant application and approval processes. All these are currently being addressed, either directly or indirectly, under a new funding model. Vigorous assessments should nonetheless follow the roll-out of the new model to ensure the areas that are most likely to affect PR performance realize sustained improvement. Conclusions Opinions and experiences with the Global Fund were varied, with PRs having good communication with Fund Portfolio Managers and sub-Recipients, but being unhappy with the grant negotiation and grant rating systems. Recommendations included simplifying grant processes, finding performance assessment methods that look beyond numbers, and employing Local Fund Agents who understand public health aspects of programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tremendous progress has been made in the last ten years in reducing morbidity and mortality caused by malaria, in part because of increases in global funding for malaria control and elimination. Today, many countries are striving for malaria elimination. However, a major challenge is the neglect of cross-border and regional initiatives in malaria control and elimination. This paper seeks to better understand Global Fund support for multi-country initiatives. Methods: Documents and proposals were extracted and reviewed from two main sources, the Global Fund website and Aidspan.org. Documents and reports from the Global Fund Technical Review Panel, Board, and Secretariat documents such as guidelines and proposal templates were reviewed to establish the type of policies enacted and guidance provided from the Global Fund on multi-country initiatives and applications. From reviewing this information, the researchers created 29 variables according to eight dimensions to use in a review of Round 10 applications. All Round 10 multi-country applications (for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and all malaria multi-country applications (6) from Rounds 1 - 10 were extracted from the Global Fund website. A blind review was conducted of Round 10 applications using the 29 variables as a framework, followed by a review of four of the six successful malaria multi-country grant applications from Rounds 1 - 10. Findings: During Rounds 3 - 10 of the Global Fund, only 5.8% of grants submitted were for multi-country initiatives. Out of 83 multi-country proposals submitted, 25.3% were approved by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for funding, compared to 44.9% of single-country applications. The majority of approved multi-country applications were for HIV (76.2%), followed by malaria (19.0%), then tuberculosis (4.8%). TRP recommendations resulted in improvements to application forms, although guidance was generally vague. The in-depth review of Round 10 multi-country proposals showed that applicants described their projects in one of two ways: a regional 'network approach' by which benefits are derived from economies of scale or from enhanced opportunities for mutual support and learning or the development of common policies and approaches; or a 'cross-border' approach for enabling activities to be more effectively delivered towards border-crossing populations or vectors. In Round 10, only those with a 'network approach' were recommended for funding. The Global Fund has only ever approved six malaria multi-country applications. Four approved applications stated strong arguments for a multi-country initiative, combining both 'cross-border' and 'network' approaches. Conclusion: With the cancellation of Round 11 and the proposal that the Global Fund adopt a more targeted and strategic approach to funding, the time is opportune for the Global Fund to develop a clear consensus about the key factors and criteria for funding malaria specific multi-country initiatives. This study found that currently there was a lack of guidance on the key features that a successful multi-country proposal needs to be approved and that applications directed towards the 'network' approach were most successful in Round 10. This type of multi-country proposal may favour other diseases such as HIV, whereas the need for malaria control and elimination is different, focusing on cross-border coordination and delivery of interventions to specific groups. The Global Fund should seek to address these issues and give better guidance to countries and regions and investigate disease-specific calls for multi-country and regional applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which provides an international agreement on how to deliver aid, has recently been reviewed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Health sector aid effectiveness is important, given the volume of financial aid and the number of mechanisms through which health assistance is provided. Recognizing this, the international community created the International Health Partnership (IHP+), to apply the Paris Declaration to the health sector. This paper, which presents findings from an independent monitoring process (IHP+Results), makes a valuable contribution to the literature in the context of the recent 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Korea. Methods: IHP+Results monitored commitments made under the IHP + using an agreed framework with twelve measures for IHP + Development Partners and ten for IHP + recipient country governments. Data were collected through self-administered survey tools. IHP+Results analyzed these data, using transparent criteria, to produce Scorecards as a means to highlight progress against commitments and thereby strengthen mutual accountability amongst IHP + signatories. Results: There have been incremental improvements in the strengthening of national planning processes and principles around mutual accountability. There has also been progress in Development Partners aligning their support with national budgets. But there is a lack of progress in the use of countries' financial management and procurement systems, and in the integration of duplicative performance reporting frameworks and information systems. Discussion and Conclusions: External, independent monitoring is potentially useful for strengthening accountability in health sector aid. While progress in strengthening country ownership, harmonisation and alignment seems evident, there are ongoing challenges. In spite of some useful findings, there are limitations with IHP +monitoring that need to be addressed. This is not surprising given the challenge of rigorously monitoring Development Partners across multiple recipient countries within complex global systems. The findings presented here suggest that the health sector is ahead of the game--in terms of having an established mechanism to promote alignment and harmonisation, and a relatively advanced monitoring framework and methods. But to capitalise on this, IHP+ signatories should: a) reaffirm their commitments to the IHP+; b) actively embrace and participate in monitoring and evaluation processes; and c) strengthen in-country capacity notably amongst civil society organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two crises dominate the health sectors of sub-Saharan African countries: those of human resources and of HIV. Nevertheless, there is considerable variation in the extent to which these two phenomena affect sub-Saharan countries, with a few facing extreme levels of both: Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, the Central African Republic and Malawi. This paper reviews the continent-wide situation with respect to this double burden before considering the case of Malawi in more detail. In Malawi, there has been significant concurrent investment in both an Emergency Human Resource Programme and an antiretroviral therapy programme which was treating 60,000 people by the end of 2006. Both areas of synergy and conflict have arisen, as the two programmes have been implemented. These highlight important issues for programme planners and managers to address and emphasize that planning for the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy while simultaneously strengthening health systems and the human resource situation requires prioritization among compelling cases for support, and time (not just resources). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Postcode lotteries in health refer to differences in health care between different geographic areas. These have been previously associated with clinical services. However there has been little documentation of postcode lotteries relating to preventative health care services. This paper describes a postcode lottery effect in relation to the NHS Health Checks Programme (a national cardiovascular screening programme in England) in eight PCTs in the North West sector of London.Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional analysis of the Health Checks Programme was carried out in eight PCTs in North West London using a structured data-collecting instrument.Results: The analysis found variation in the implementation of the national Health Checks Programme in terms of: the screening approach taken; the allocated budget (which varied from £69,000 to £1.4 million per 100,000 eligible population); payment rates made to providers of Health Checks; tools used to identify and measure risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes; monitoring and evaluation; and preventative services available following the health check.Conclusions: This study identifies a postcode lottery effect related to a national public health programme. Although it is important to allow enough flexibility in the design of the Health Checks Programme so that it fits in with local factors, aspects of the programme may benefit from greater standardisation or stronger national guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tremendous progress has been made in the last ten years in reducing morbidity and mortality caused by malaria, in part because of increases in global funding for malaria control and elimination. Today, many countries are striving for malaria elimination. However, a major challenge is the neglect of cross-border and regional initiatives in malaria control and elimination. This paper seeks to better understand Global Fund support for multi-country initiatives., Methods: Documents and proposals were extracted and reviewed from two main sources, the Global Fund website and Aidspan.org. Documents and reports from the Global Fund Technical Review Panel, Board, and Secretariat documents such as guidelines and proposal templates were reviewed to establish the type of policies enacted and guidance provided from the Global Fund on multi-country initiatives and applications. From reviewing this information, the researchers created 29 variables according to eight dimensions to use in a review of Round 10 applications. All Round 10 multi-country applications (for HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and all malaria multi-country applications (6) from Rounds 1 - 10 were extracted from the Global Fund website. A blind review was conducted of Round 10 applications using the 29 variables as a framework, followed by a review of four of the six successful malaria multi-country grant applications from Rounds 1 - 10., Findings: During Rounds 3 - 10 of the Global Fund, only 5.8% of grants submitted were for multi-country initiatives. Out of 83 multi-country proposals submitted, 25.3% were approved by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for funding, compared to 44.9% of single-country applications. The majority of approved multi-country applications were for HIV (76.2%), followed by malaria (19.0%), then tuberculosis (4.8%). TRP recommendations resulted in improvements to application forms, although guidance was generally vague. The in-depth review of Round 10 multi-country proposals showed that applicants described their projects in one of two ways: a regional 'network approach' by which benefits are derived from economies of scale or from enhanced opportunities for mutual support and learning or the development of common policies and approaches; or a 'cross-border' approach for enabling activities to be more effectively delivered towards border-crossing populations or vectors. In Round 10, only those with a 'network approach' were recommended for funding. The Global Fund has only ever approved six malaria multi-country applications. Four approved applications stated strong arguments for a multi-country initiative, combining both 'cross-border' and 'network' approaches., Conclusion: With the cancellation of Round 11 and the proposal that the Global Fund adopt a more targeted and strategic approach to funding, the time is opportune for the Global Fund to develop a clear consensus about the key factors and criteria for funding malaria specific multi-country initiatives. This study found that currently there was a lack of guidance on the key features that a successful multi-country proposal needs to be approved and that applications directed towards the 'network' approach were most successful in Round 10. This type of multi-country proposal may favour other diseases such as HIV, whereas the need for malaria control and elimination is different, focusing on cross-border coordination and delivery of interventions to specific groups. The Global Fund should seek to address these issues and give better guidance to countries and regions and investigate disease-specific calls for multi-country and regional applications.