Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28868141›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2017

We need a NICE for global development spending.

Kalipso Chalkidou, Anthony J Culyer, Amanda Glassman, Ryan Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Kalipso ChalkidouGlobal Health and Development Group, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Anthony J CulyerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Amanda GlassmanCenter for Global Development, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
Ryan LiGlobal Health and Development Group, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With aid budgets shrinking in richer countries and more money for healthcare becoming available from domestic sources in poorer ones, the rhetoric of value for money or improved efficiency of aid spending is increasing. Taking healthcare as one example, we discuss the need for and potential benefits of (and obstacles to) the establishment of a national institute for aid effectiveness. In the case of the UK, such an institute would help improve development spending decisions made by DFID, the country's aid agency, as well as by the various multilaterals, such as the Global Fund, through which British aid monies is channelled. It could and should also help countries becoming increasingly independent from aid build their own capacity to make sure their own resources go further in terms of health outcomes and more equitable distribution. Such an undertaking will not be easy given deep suspicion amongst development experts towards economists and arguments for improving efficiency. We argue that it is exactly

Indexed as

aidcost-effectivenesshealth technology assessmentpriority settingtransitionuniversal coverageValue for money

Identifiers

PMID28868141
PMCPMC5558097

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.