Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28812825›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2017

Evaluating Global Health Partnerships: A Case Study of a Gavi HPV Vaccine Application Process in Uganda.

Carol Kamya, Jessica Shearer, Gilbert Asiimwe, Emily Carnahan, Nicole Salisbury, Peter Waiswa, Jennifer Brinkerhoff, Dai Hozumi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships.Global health, science and practice · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. UsingSocial networks · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Carol KamyaInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration (IDRC), Kampala, Uganda.
Jessica ShearerPATH Seattle, WA, USA.
Gilbert AsiimweInfectious Diseases Research Collaboration (IDRC), Kampala, Uganda.
Emily CarnahanPATH Seattle, WA, USA.
Nicole SalisburyPATH Seattle, WA, USA.
Peter WaiswaMakerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda.
Jennifer BrinkerhoffGeorge Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Dai HozumiManagement Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal health partnerships have grown rapidly in number and scope, yet there has been less emphasis on their evaluation. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is one such public-private partnership; in Gavi-eligible countries partnerships are dynamic networks of immunization actors who work together to support all stages and aspects of Gavi support. This paper describes a conceptual framework - the partnership framework - and analytic approach for evaluating the perceptions of partnerships' added value as well as the results from an application to one case in Uganda.

methodsWe used a mixed-methods case study design embedded in the Gavi Full Country Evaluations (FCE) to test the partnership framework on Uganda's human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine application partnership. Data from document review, interviews, and social network surveys enabled the testing of the relationships between partnership framework domains (context, structure, practices, performance, and outcomes). Topic guides were based on the framework domains and network surveys identified working together relationships, professional trust, and perceptions of the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of the partnership's role in this process.

resultsData from seven in-depth interviews, 11 network surveys and document review were analyzed according to the partnership framework, confirming relationships between the framework domains. Trust was an important contributor to the perceived effectiveness of the process. The network was structured around the EPI program, who was considered the leader of this process. While the structure and composition of the network was largely viewed as supporting an effective and legitimate process, the absence of the Ministry of Education (MoE) may have had downstream consequences if this study's results had not been shared with the Ministry of Health (MoH) and acted upon. The partnership was not perceived to have increased the efficiency of the process, perhaps as a result of unclear or absent guidelines around roles and responsibilities.

conclusionThe health and functioning of global health partnerships can be evaluated using the framework and approach presented here. Network theory and methods added value to the conceptual and analytic processes and we recommend applying this approach to other global health partnerships to ensure that they are meeting the complex challenges they were designed to address.

Indexed as

Global HealthPapillomavirus VaccinesCooperative BehaviorHumansImmunization ProgramsPapillomavirus InfectionsProgram EvaluationPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsUgandaPapillomavirus VaccinesGaviGlobal HealthImmunizationPartnershipSocial Network Analysis (SNA)Uganda

Identifiers

PMID28812825
PMCPMC5458794

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.