Ambitions and realities: Are Global Fund investments designed to achieve resilient and sustainable systems for health? Findings from the Global Fund Prospective Country Evaluation.

Strengthening resilient and sustainable systems for health (RSSH) is central to the Global Fund's strategy, however questions persist about the Global Fund's role in the health systems strengthening space, and the extent to which investments are designed to achieve strengthening objectives, or just fill in gaps in the system. This paper reports on findings from the Prospective Country Evaluations (PCE), a multi-country multi-year evaluation of Global Fund support. We adapted a framework from Chee et al. (2013) to assess whether Global Fund investments were designed to strengthen or support the health system. Per this framework, 'systems support' refers to improvements in health systems functioning primarily driven by increases in inputs, whereas 'systems strengthening' refers to activities that drive changes in how the health system operates (often related to policies, regulations, governance structures, behavior change, and resource optimization). In the 2017 and 2019 funding cycles, we found that despite calls from the Global Fund to invest more strategically to strengthen health systems, a high proportion of RSSH funding was directed toward activities that support the health system. Factors underlying this pattern include limitations imposed by the three-year grant cycle, a lack of clear guidance on how to design strengthening investments, a persistent need for funding to address input gaps, and minimal feedback during the funding request process related to RSSH design. For the Global Fund, and indeed other global health initiatives, to contribute to sustained strengthening of health systems, is likely to require enhanced guidance and technical assistance, as well as improved measurement of outputs and outcomes

Bringing a health systems modelling approach to complex evaluations: multicountry applications in HIV, TB and malaria

IntroductionUnderstanding how to deliver interventions more effectively is a growing emphasis in Global Health. Simultaneously, health system strengthening is a key component to improving delivery. As a result, it is challenging to evaluate programme implementation while reflecting real-world complexity. We present our experience in using a health systems modelling approach as part of a mixed-methods evaluation and describe applications of these models.MethodsWe developed a framework for how health systems translate financial inputs into health outcomes, with in-country and international experts. We collated available data to measure framework indicators and developed models for malaria in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and tuberculosis in Guatemala and Senegal using Bayesian structural equation modelling. We conducted several postmodelling analyses: measuring efficiency, assessing bottlenecks, understanding mediation, analysing the cascade of care and measuring subnational effectiveness.ResultsThe DRC model indicated a strong relationship between shipment of commodities and utilisation thereof. In Guatemala, the strongest model coefficients were more evenly distributed. Results in Senegal varied most, but pathways related to community care had the strongest relationships. In DRC, we used model results to estimate the end-to-end cost of delivering commodities. In Guatemala, we used model results to identify potential bottlenecks and understand mediation. In Senegal, we used model results to identify potential weak links in the cascade of care, and explore subnationally.ConclusionThis study demonstrates a complementary modelling approach to traditional evaluation methods. Although these models have limitations, they can be applied in a variety of ways to gain greater insight into implementation and functioning of health service delivery.</jats:sec