Dataset Information

Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The need for sufficient and reliable funding to support health policy and systems research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been widely recognised. Currently, most resources to support such activities come from traditional development assistance for health (DAH) donors; however, few studies have examined the levels, trends, sources and national recipients of such support - a gap this research seeks to address.

Method

Using OECD's Creditor Reporting System database, we classified donor funding commitments using a keyword analysis of the project-level descriptions of donor supported projects to estimate total funding available for HPSR-related activities annually from bilateral and multilateral donors, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to LMICs over the period 2000-2014.

Results

Total commitments to HPSR-related activities have greatly increased since 2000, peaked in 2010, and have held steady since 2011. Over the entire study period (2000-2014), donors committed a total of $4 billion in funding for HPSR-related activities or an average of $266 million a year. Over the last 5 years (2010-2014), donors committed an average of $434 million a year to HPSR-related activities. Funding for HPSR is heavily concentrated, with more than 93% coming from just 10 donors and only represents approximately 2% of all donor funding for health and population projects. Countries in the sub-Saharan African region are the major recipients of HPSR funding.

Conclusion

Funding for HPSR-related activities has generally increased over the study period; however, donor support to such activities represents only a small proportion of total DAH and has not grown in recent years. Donors should consider increasing the proportion of funds they allocate to support HPSR activities in order to further build the evidence base on how to build stronger health systems.

SUBMITTER: Grepin KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5577666 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom.

Grépin Karen Ann KA Pinkstaff Crossley Beth CB Shroff Zubin Cyrus ZC Ghaffar Abdul A

Health research policy and systems 20170831 1

<h4>Background</h4>The need for sufficient and reliable funding to support health policy and systems research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been widely recognised. Currently, most resources to support such activities come from traditional development assistance for health (DAH) donors; however, few studies have examined the levels, trends, sources and national recipients of such support - a gap this research seeks to address.<h4>Method</h4>Using OECD's Creditor Reporting ...[more]

PMID: 28854946

Similar Datasets

Project description:Novel vaccine development and production has given rise to a growing number of vaccines that can prevent disease and save lives. In order to realize these health benefits, it is essential to ensure adequate immunization financing to enable equitable access to vaccines for people in all communities. This analysis estimates the full immunization program costs, projected available financing, and resulting funding gap for 94 low- and middle-income countries over five years (2016-2020). Vaccine program financing by country governments, Gavi, and other development partners was forecasted for vaccine, supply chain, and service delivery, based on an analysis of comprehensive multi-year plans together with a series of scenario and sensitivity analyses. Findings indicate that delivery of full vaccination programs across 94 countries would result in a total funding gap of $7.6 billion (95% uncertainty range: $4.6-$11.8 billion) over 2016-2020, with the bulk (98%) of the resources required for routine immunization programs. More than half (65%) of the resources to meet this funding gap are required for service delivery at $5.0 billion ($2.7-$8.4 billion) with an additional $1.1 billion ($0.9-$2.7 billion) needed for vaccines and $1.5 billion ($1.1-$2.0 billion) for supply chain. When viewed as a percentage of total projected costs, the funding gap represents 66% of projected supply chain costs, 30% of service delivery costs, and 9% of vaccine costs. On average, this funding gap corresponds to 0.2% of general government expenditures and 2.3% of government health expenditures. These results suggest greater need for country and donor resource mobilization and funding allocation for immunizations. Both service delivery and supply chain are important areas for further resource mobilization. Further research on the impact of advances in service delivery technology and reductions in vaccine prices beyond this decade would be important for efficient investment decisions for immunization.

Project description:BackgroundNoncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including mental health, have become a major concern in low- and middle-income countries. Despite increased attention to them over the past decade, progress toward addressing NCDs has been slow. A lack of bold policy commitments has been suggested as one of the contributors to limited progress in NCD prevention and management. However, the policies of key global actors (bilateral, multilateral, and not-for-profit organisations) have been understudied.MethodsThis study aimed to map the key global actors investing in action regarding NCDs and review their policies to examine the articulation of priorities regarding NCDs. Narrative synthesis of 70 documents and 31 policy papers was completed, and related to data collated from the Global Health Data Visualisation Tool.ResultsIn 2019 41% of development assistance for health committed to NCDs came from private philanthropies, while that for other global health priorities from this source was just 20%. Through a range of channels, bilateral donors were the other major source of NCD funding (contributing 41% of NCD funding). The UK and the US were the largest bilateral investors in NCDs, each contributing 8%. However, NCDs are still under-prioritised within bilateral portfolios - receiving just 0.48% of US funding and 1.66% of the UK. NGOs were the key channels of funding for NCDs, spending 48% of the funds from donors in 2019. The reviewed literature generally focused on NCD policies of WHO, with policies of multilateral and bilateral donors given limited attention. The analysis of policies indicated a limited prioritisation of NCDs in policy documents. NCDs are framed in the policies as a barrier to economic growth, poverty reduction, and health system sustainability. Bilateral donors prioritise prevention, while multilateral actors offer policy options for NCD prevention and care. Even where stated as a priority, however, funding allocations are not aligned.ConclusionThe growing threat of NCDs and their drivers are increasingly recognised. However, global actors' policy priorities and funding allocations need to align better to address these NCD threats. Given the level of their investment and engagement, more research is needed into the role of private philanthropies and NGOs in this area.

Project description:BackgroundMany international statements have urged researchers, policy-makers and health care providers to collaborate in efforts to bridge the gaps between research, policy and practice in low- and middle-income countries. We surveyed researchers in 10 countries about their involvement in such efforts.MethodsWe surveyed 308 researchers who conducted research on one of four clinical areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of 10 low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania). We focused on their engagement in three promising bridging activities and examined system-level, organizational and individual correlates of these activities.ResultsLess than half of the researchers surveyed reported that they engaged in one or more of the three promising bridging activities: 27% provided systematic reviews of the research literature to their target audiences, 40% provided access to a searchable database of research products on their topic, and 43% established or maintained long-term partnerships related to their topic with representatives of the target audience. Three factors emerged as statistically significant predictors of respondents' engagement in these activities: the existence of structures and processes to link researchers and their target audiences predicted both the provision of access to a database (odds ratio [OR] 2.62, 95% CI 1.30-5.27) and the establishment or maintenance of partnerships (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.25-5.64); stability in their contacts predicted the provision of systematic reviews (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.35-6.13); and having managers and public (government) policy-makers among their target audiences predicted the provision of both systematic reviews (OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.78-11.72) and access to a database (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.20-5.43).InterpretationOur findings suggest potential areas for improvement in light of the bridging strategies targeted at health care providers that have been found to be effective in some contexts and the factors that appear to increase the prospects for using research in policy-making.

Project description:BackgroundGaps continue to exist between research-based evidence and clinical practice. We surveyed health care providers in 10 low- and middle-income countries about their use of research-based evidence and examined factors that may facilitate or impede such use.MethodsWe surveyed 1499 health care providers practising in one of four areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania.ResultsThe proportion of respondents who reported that research was likely to change their clinical practice if performed and published in their own country (84.6% and 86.0% respectively) was higher than the proportion who reported the same about research and publications from their region (66.4% and 63.1%) or from high-income countries (55.8% and 55.5%). Respondents who were most likely to report that the use of research-based evidence led to changes in their practice included those who reported using clinical practice guidelines in paper format (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.28), using scientific journals from their own country in paper format (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-2.28), viewing the quality of research performed in their country as above average or excellent (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.16-3.22); trusting systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.35); and having easy access to the Internet (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.19-3.02).InterpretationLocally conducted or published research has played an important role in changing the professional practice of health care providers surveyed in low- and middle-income countries. Increased investments in local research, or at least in locally adapted publications of research-based evidence from other settings, are therefore needed. Although access to the Internet was viewed as a significant factor in whether research-based evidence led to concrete changes in practice, few respondents reported having easy access to the Internet. Therefore, efforts to improve Internet access in clinical settings need to be accelerated.

Dataset Information

Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets