Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26652173›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015

Building coherence and synergy among global health initiatives.

Fabio Zicker, Miriam Faid, John Reeder, Garry Aslanyan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fabio ZickerCenter for Technological Development in Health (CDTS), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Av Brasil 4036, 8th floor, room 814, 21040-361, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. fabio.zicker@gmail.com.
Miriam FaidCenter for Technological Development in Health (CDTS), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Av Brasil 4036, 8th floor, room 814, 21040-361, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. miriam.faid@gmail.com.
John ReederSpecial Programme for Research Training in Tropical Disease (TDR), World Health Organization, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. reederj@who.int.
Garry AslanyanSpecial Programme for Research Training in Tropical Disease (TDR), World Health Organization, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. aslanyang@who.int.

Funding

World Health Organization TDR/B40130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe fast growth of global health initiatives (GHIs) has raised concerns regarding achievement of coherence and synergy among distinct, complementary and sometimes competing activities. Herein, we propose an approach to compare GHIs with regard to their main purpose and operational aspects, using the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR/WHO) as a case study. The overall goal is to identify synergies and optimize efforts to provide solutions to reduce the burden of diseases.

methodsTwenty-six long-established GHIs were identified from among initiatives previously associated/partnered with TDR/WHO. All GHIs had working streams that would benefit from linking to the capacity building or implementation research focus of TDR. Individual profiles were created using a common template to collect information on relevant parameters. For analytical purposes, GHIs were simultaneously clustered in five and eight groups according to their 'intended outcome' and 'operational framework', respectively. A set of specific questions was defined to assess coherence/alignment against a TDR reference profile by attributing a score, which was subsequently averaged per GHI cluster. GHI alignment scores for intended outcome were plotted against scores for operational framework; based on the analysis of coherence/alignment with TDR functions and operations, a risk level (high, medium or low) of engagement was attributed to each GHI.

resultsThe process allowed a bi-dimensional ranking of GHIs with regards to how adequately they fit with or match TDR features and perspectives. Overall, more consistence was observed with regard to the GHIs' main goals and expected outcomes than with their operational aspects, reflecting the diversity of GHI business models. Analysis of coherence indicated an increasing common trend for enhancing the engagement of developing country stakeholders, building research capacity and optimization of knowledge management platforms in support of improved access to healthcare.

conclusionsThe process used offers a broader approach that could be adapted by other GHIs to build coherence and synergy with peer organizations and helps highlight the potential contribution of each GHI in the new era of sustainable development goals. Emerging opportunities and new trends suggest that engagement between GHIs should be selective and tailored to ensure efficient collaborations.

Indexed as

Global HealthCapacity BuildingFinancing, OrganizedHealth Plan ImplementationHumansInternational AgenciesInternational CooperationNeglected DiseasesOrganizational Case StudiesResearch Support as TopicTraining SupportTropical Medicine

Identifiers

PMID26652173
PMCPMC4675017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.