Do existing research summaries on health systems match immunisation managers' needs in middle- and low-income countries? Analysis of GAVI health systems strengthening support

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The GAVI Alliance was created in 2000 to increase access to vaccines. More recently, GAVI has supported evidence-based health systems strengthening to overcome barriers to vaccination. Our objectives were: to explore countries' priorities for health systems strengthening; to describe published research summaries for each priority area in relation to their number, quality and relevance; and to describe the use of national data from surveys in identifying barriers to immunisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From 44 health systems strengthening proposals submitted to GAVI in 2007 and 2008, we analysed the topics identified, the coverage of these topics by existing systematic reviews and the use of nation-wide surveys with vaccination data to justify the needs identified in the proposals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty topics were identified and grouped into three thematic areas: health workforce (10 topics); organisation and management (14); and supply, distribution and maintenance (6). We found 51 potentially relevant systematic reviews, although for the topic that appeared most frequently in the proposals ('Health information systems') no review was identified. Thematic and geographic relevance were generally categorised as "high" in 33 (65%) and 25 (49%) reviews, respectively, but few reviews were categorised as "highly relevant for policy" (7 reviews, 14%). With regard to methodological quality, 14 reviews (27%) were categorised as "high".</p> <p>The number of topics that were addressed by at least one high quality systematic review was: seven of the 10 topics in the 'health workforce' thematic area; six of the 14 topics in the area of 'organisation and management'; and none of the topics in the thematic area of 'supply, distribution and maintenance'. Only twelve of the 39 countries with available national surveys referred to them in their proposals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Relevant, high quality research summaries were found for few of the topics identified by managers. Few proposals used national surveys evidence to identify barriers to vaccination. Researchers generating or adapting evidence about health systems need to be more responsive to managers' needs. Use of available evidence from local or national surveys should be strongly encouraged.</p

Monitoring and evaluation in global HIV/AIDS control - weighing incentives and disincentives for coordination among global and local actors

This paper discusses coordination efforts of both donors and recipient countries in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of health outcomes in the field of HIV/AIDS. The coordination of M&E is a much underdeveloped area in HIV/AIDS programming in which, however, important first steps towards better synchronisation have already been taken. In this paper, we review the concepts and meanings commonly applied to M&E, and approaches and strategies for better coordination of M&E in the field of HIV/AIDS. Most importantly, drawing on this analysis, we examine why the present structure of global health governance in this area is not creating strong enough incentives for effective coordination among global and local actors. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

An assessment of interactions between global health initiatives and country health systems.

peer reviewedSince 2000, the emergence of several large disease-specific global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the way in which international donors provide assistance for public health. Some critics have claimed that these initiatives burden health systems that are already fragile in countries with few resources, whereas others have asserted that weak health systems prevent progress in meeting disease-specific targets. So far, most of the evidence for this debate has been provided by speculation and anecdotes. We use a review and analysis of existing data, and 15 new studies that were submitted to WHO for the purpose of writing this Report to describe the complex nature of the interplay between country health systems and GHIs. We suggest that this Report provides the most detailed compilation of published and emerging evidence so far, and provides a basis for identification of the ways in which GHIs and health systems can interact to mutually reinforce their effects. On the basis of the findings, we make some general recommendations and identify a series of action points for international partners, governments, and other stakeholders that will help ensure that investments in GHIs and country health systems can fulfil their potential to produce comprehensive and lasting results in disease-specific work, and advance the general public health agenda. The target date for achievement of the health-related Millennium Development Goals is drawing close, and the economic downturn threatens to undermine the improvements in health outcomes that have been achieved in the past few years. If adjustments to the interactions between GHIs and country health systems will improve efficiency, equity, value for money, and outcomes in global public health, then these opportunities should not be missed

An assessment of interactions between global health initiatives and country health systems

Since 2000, the emergence of several large disease-specific global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the way in which international donors provide assistance for public health. Some critics have claimed that these initiatives burden health systems that are already fragile in countries with few resources, whereas others have asserted that weak health systems prevent progress in meeting disease-specific targets. So far, most of the evidence for this debate has been provided by speculation and anecdotes. We use a review and analysis of existing data, and 15 new studies that were submitted to WHO for the purpose of writing this Report to describe the complex nature of the interplay between country health systems and GHIs. We suggest that this Report provides the most detailed compilation of published and emerging evidence so far, and provides a basis for identification of the ways in which GHIs and health systems can interact to mutually reinforce their effects. On the basis of the findings, we make some general recommendations and identify a series of action points for international partners, governments, and other stakeholders that will help ensure that investments in GHIs and country health systems can fulfil their potential to produce comprehensive and lasting results in disease-specific work, and advance the general public health agenda. The target date for achievement of the health-related Millennium Development Goals is drawing close, and the economic downturn threatens to undermine the improvements in health outcomes that have been achieved in the past few years. If adjustments to the interactions between GHIs and country health systems will improve efficiency, equity, value for money, and outcomes in global public health, then these opportunities should not be missed

Gender blind? An analysis of global public-private partnerships for health

Background The Global Public Private Partnerships for Health (GPPPH) constitute an increasingly central part of the global health architecture and carry both financial and normative power. Gender is an important determinant of health status, influencing differences in exposure to health determinants, health behaviours, and the response of the health system. We identified 18 GPPPH - defined as global institutions with a formal governance mechanism which includes both public and private for-profit sector actors – and conducted a gender analysis of each. Results Gender was poorly mainstreamed through the institutional functioning of the partnerships. Half of these partnerships had no mention of gender in their overall institutional strategy and only three partnerships had a specific gender strategy. Fifteen governing bodies had more men than women – up to a ratio of 5:1. Very few partnerships reported sex-disaggregated data in their annual reports or coverage/impact results. The majority of partnerships focused their work on maternal and child health and infectious and communicable diseases – none addressed non-communicable diseases (NCDs) directly, despite the strong role that gender plays in determining risk for the major NCD burdens. Conclusions We propose two areas of action in response to these findings. First, GPPPH need to become serious in how they “do” gender; it needs to be mainstreamed through the regular activities, deliverables and systems of accountability. Second, the entire global health community needs to pay greater attention to tackling the major burden of NCDs, including addressing the gendered nature of risk. Given the inherent conflicts of interest in tackling the determinants of many NCDs, it is debatable whether the emergent GPPPH model will be an appropriate one for addressing NCDs

New vaccine introductions: assessing the impact and the opportunities for immunization and health systems strengthening.

In 2010, global immunization partners posed the question, "Do new vaccine introductions (NVIs) have positive or negative impacts on immunization and health systems of countries?" An Ad-hoc Working Group was formed for WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization (SAGE) to examine this question through five approaches: a published literature review, a grey literature review, in-depth interviews with regional and country immunization staff, in-depth studies of recent NVIs in 3 countries, and a statistical analysis of the impact of NVI on DTP3 coverage in 176 countries. The WHO Health System Framework of building blocks was used to organize the analysis of these data to assess potential areas of impact of NVI on health systems. In April 2012, the Ad-hoc Working Group presented its findings to SAGE. While reductions in disease burden and improvements in disease and adverse events surveillance, training, cold chain and logistics capacity and injection safety were commonly documented as beneficial impacts, opportunities for strengthening the broader health system were consistently missed during NVI. Weaknesses in planning for human and financial resource needs were highlighted as a concern. Where positive impacts on health systems following NVI occurred, these were often in areas where detailed technical guidance or tools and adequate financing were available. SAGE supported the Ad-hoc Working Group's conclusion that future NVI should explicitly plan to optimize and document the impact of NVI on broader health systems. Furthermore, opportunities for improving integration of delivery of immunization services, commodities, and messages with other parts of the health system should be actively sought with the recognition that integration is a bidirectional process. To avoid the gaps in planning for NVI that can compromise existing immunization and health systems, donors and partners should provide sufficient and timely support to facilitate country planning. Areas for future research were also identified. Finally, to support countries in using NVI as an opportunity to strengthen immunization and health systems, the WHO guidance for countries on new vaccine introduction is being updated to reflect ways this might be accomplished